The Prison Guard With a Gift for Cracking Gang Codes
nautil.us
nautil.us
It's so strange that there's these very serious gangs responsible for traumatising large areas in US cities, yet they do massively petty things like writing a "WE R KOOL" up-arrow beside a 'B' in their correspondence, and crossing out a 'C' (if they're a Blood that is). I can't connect that juvenile elementary school behaviour with gang violence and shootings, it seems so contradictory.
You're observing that these gang members haven't been socialized out of instinctive self-congratulation in their writing, or out of instinctive pack behavior. I don't see the disconnect.
[citation needed]
So no references for violence as a default state of society so far, just aphorisms and "common knowledge".
"Leviathan", Thomas Hobbes, England, 1651.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)
From the Wikipedia summary:
"[The] natural state of man is not to be found in a political community that pursues the greatest good. But to be outside of a political community is to be in an anarchic condition. Given human nature, the variability of human desires, and need for scarce resources to fulfill those desires, the state of nature, as Hobbes calls this anarchic condition, must be a war of all against all. Even when two men are not fighting, there is no guarantee that the other will not try to kill him for his property or just out of an aggrieved sense of honour, and so they must constantly be on guard against one another. It is even reasonable to preemptively attack one's neighbour."
The truth of Hobbes' "State of Nature" is still debated, for example in this thread, almost 500 years later. It's a well known idea in philosophy and politics.
Source: studying political theory in college; read leviathan twice.
How would you react if someone told you "citation needed" every time you make a claim?
You don't need to couch your opinions with "I think" or "It's my opinion that". Have some conviction.
Obvious to you, and me for that matter, but obviously not obvious to everyone or this sub-thread would not exist. Every one in this threat seems to be well enough versed on English that a specific language barrier isn't an issue, but there are probably people for whom English is a third or forth language: the chance of them seeing as obvious everything that we pick out as obvious is going to be lower than for those with more practise at the language.
> Have some conviction.
It is not about conviction, it is about accurately displaying the source and potential veracity of the information being presented. I couch my opinions so it doesn't look like I'm stating a commonly known fact instead of something I've supposed. Of course where I'm pretty damn sure what I'm stating is verifiable fact I'll not bother adding the extra words, but if you always assume you are correct and write in a style that suggests such, then you may be one of those people!
Adding a few extra words to tell the reader this extra information about the (potential) quality of the information you are about to impart is useful IMO. Be as fine grained as you like too: somewhere between "I think that" and "I know" is "It is my understanding that..." and so on.
Why sacrifice conciseness to try and alleviate every misunderstanding? Language is not a perfect communication tool - you'll talk yourself dizzy trying to catch every edge case and possible interpretation.
> Every one in this threat seems to be well enough versed on English that a specific language barrier isn't an issue, but there are probably people for whom English is a third or forth language: the chance of them seeing as obvious everything that we pick out as obvious is going to be lower than for those with more practise at the language.
Great! So we're doing them a great service by giving them practice in reading context.
> It is not about conviction, it is about accurately displaying the source and potential veracity of the information being presented.
Why? This isn't an academic discussion. If it looks like you're presenting something as a fact and I think you're full of shit, I'll ask for a clarification. Much like the poster did with the "[citation needed]". The OP's message remains easy to read, and the sub-poster got the clarification they were looking for.
> I couch my opinions so it doesn't look like I'm stating a commonly known fact instead of something I've supposed. Of course where I'm pretty damn sure what I'm stating is verifiable fact I'll not bother adding the extra words, but if you always assume you are correct and write in a style that suggests such, then you may be one of those people! Adding a few extra words to tell the reader this extra information about the (potential) quality of the information you are about to impart is useful IMO. Be as fine grained as you like too: somewhere between "I think that" and "I know" is "It is my understanding that..." and so on.
You're sacrificing conciseness for a very weak attempt at clarity. It's incredibly tedious to read someone's opinion piece that says "It's my opinion that vaccines are dangerous. I think that X. I believe that Y. I am of the opinion that Z." It makes your message incredibly boring and unpersuasive.
Further, trying to turn this into an academic discussion brings into question all the issues academic discussions engender. How reliable is your source? Have you done the appropriate background reading? If you link a study that says "vaccines are bad" but there are 300 other studies that say "vaccines are good", are you really being objective?
And then of course we can get into some really stupid semantic debates, since we're arguing about semantics anyway - what's the cutoff? If I say "the barn is red", do you want spectroscopy results?
Because this isn't twitter, there is no character/word limit so I consider taking a little extra room to help the reader understand where I'm coming from to be a good use of available comms bandwidth.
> > It is not about conviction, it is about accurately displaying the source and potential veracity of the information being presented. > Why? This isn't an academic discussion.
Because I prefer to be accurately understood in non-academic contexts too.
> If it looks like you're presenting something as a fact and I think you're full of shit...
My point is that if it looks like I'm presenting something as fact when that was not my intention then I have failed to communicate properly, and you unnecessarily think I'm full of shit.
> It's incredibly tedious to read
Here you make the case for me. This could just be your opinion/feeling which is fine, or it could be you stating that your opinion is the only correct one and everyone finds it tedious (or should). In the same way a little extra wordage can avoid me looking to be full of shit, a little extra in the sentence fragment would reduce the chance of you coming off as someone who is overly self-important and assumes his thoughts are universal facts. Maybe worrying about how I sound in this way is a neurotic issue...
> How reliable is your source?
So to avoid problems with the reliability of my source, I should just not let anyone know what the source is? Basically "trust me, I'm from the Internet, we know these things"?
> If you link a study that says "vaccines are bad" but there are 300 other studies that say "vaccines are good", are you really being objective?
EXACTLY. I don;t see how pointing the that one study is worse than just stating the fact/opinion. With the link the reader can nip off and see if it looks like what they would consider an acceptable source. With just that one link and no others a semi-educated reader can make a judgement as to whether my opinion is well enough informed to be trusted in any way. Heck, on a good forum if you were to post a fact/opinion based on a single source (and state the source) helpful people might suggest other sources you'd like to review, and this extra information could be useful to other readers too. Of course such discussions can get a bit flamey, but that is a human failing for another discussion!
> If I say "the barn is red", do you want spectroscopy results?
Not quite. You also need to provide the results of a scan of the back of your eye, we need to know what signals your brain gets from the eye in response to the wavelengths we consider to represent red - your optical nerve might be wired up wrong. Of course these things can be taken too far, but I don't consider making it clear that something is opinion (or believed to be a fact but one based on limited research) rather than something I consider an absolute incontrovertible truth not to be too far.
Yes, the reader needs to take some responsibility for not jumping to conclusions based on the exact words we write, but the writer either needs to make a little effort to not be misunderstood or accept that some will completely misjudge where they are coming from (and of those two options I generally choose the first, you presumably prefer the latter approach).
Similarly stereotypical old people consider it to be a good use of time to tell extremely rambling stories that explain the context of everything. Taking the time to couch everything in "I think" or making dead sure everyone knows it's "just your opinion" reminds me of Grandpa Simpson explaining that onions were the style at the time - totally inconsequential information.
> Because I prefer to be accurately understood in non-academic contexts too.
Do you really worry that most people misunderstand you without those qualifiers? Are you worried about every possible misinterpretation of your sentences?
> My point is that if it looks like I'm presenting something as fact when that was not my intention then I have failed to communicate properly, and you unnecessarily think I'm full of shit.
Solved by a three word clarification on the off-chance someone misunderstands you. Doesn't happen nearly as often as you think (please don't black swan me).
Opinions can be "full of shit" too. For example, I think people opposed to same-sex marriage are full of shit. You're not really dodging that bullet just by saying "Hey that's just my opinion!!!!"
> Here you make the case for me... Maybe worrying about how I sound in this way is a neurotic issue...
It sounds a little neurotic. It's pretty clear it's just my opinion - people vary in their definition of "tedious". Some people enjoy knitting, I find it tedious. If I say "knitting is tedious", one can assume that should not be translated as "it is an objective fact that knitting is tedious."
> So to avoid problems with the reliability of my source, I should just not let anyone know what the source is? Basically "trust me, I'm from the Internet, we know these things"?
Depends on the situation. If you're saying the median income in Greece is $32k/yr, then yeah, I want your source. If you're telling me, "Vaccines are bad", it really doesn't matter what your source is.
Honestly ask yourself (this is rhetorical, by the way, because there's naturally going to be a disconnect between typed and real answers): if a study came out tomorrow saying "solid proof that children raised by same-sex couples are substantially worse off", would it change your opinion? Would you read it and think "Well, alright, I guess maybe same-sex couples shouldn't get married"?
> EXACTLY. I don;t see how pointing the that one study is worse than just stating the fact/opinion...
Because you're selectively using sources to deceive people, if it's intentional. It's a really powerful lie of omission.
> incontrovertible truth
What's an incontrovertible truth? Careful we don't side track into an argument about incompleteness.
> the writer either needs to make a little effort to not be misunderstood or accept that some will completely misjudge where they are coming from (and of those two options I generally choose the first, you presumably prefer the latter approach).
My point being that people can always misjudge where you're coming from, no matter what you say. In academic discussions and in didactic discourse, it's important to make sure your audience understands you. HN posts are overwhelmingly persuasive arguments (we're having one now, btw), and you're diluting your message by sounding unsure of yourself.
Having spent a lot of time around kids, I have a completely different view.
Most everyone is born a genius angel with unbounded potential, which is too often beat out of them by cruel parents, vicious peers, and an uncaring society.
YMMV.
The [citation needed] is needlessly irritating to a number of people.
When I'm trying to catch your attention I can clear my throat and say "oh, hey, specialist", or I can jab you in the ribs.
A few people see [citation needed] as a jab in the ribs.
Also, "juvenile elementary school behaviour" is something I observe all the time among programmers. At one office, I've heard people simply saying "penis" and of course jokes about mothers. It's what people do in absurd workplaces, where they're not working towards higher purposes beyond selling some crap product and making money.
I also take issue with gangs being "responsible" for traumatising cities. In U.S. cities, it is common for a successful district to share a border with a gangland district. Usually the crime abruptly decreases at the border of the successful district. The difference is not gang member presence—no repulsor field keeps them from walking across the street. The difference is that the police in the gangland district are not allowed to stop them because that would be "racist".
In re "responsible" I think you're interpreting what I said a little strangely. Gangs are behind serious adult crimes, and as I said I just find it weird that these serious crimes are caused by people decorating their letters like little kids. Nobody is blaming all society's ills on gangs.
Is it that surprising that the cultures are so similar?
I wonder if imprisoned gang members have access to cell phones, though. They probably do. You could run actual strong crypto even on a J2ME device (or a gaming console, or a programmable calculator, or an MP3 player etc.) and I'm sure there's plenty of people you could hire to write a custom-designed, one-of-a-kind bespoke cryptographic app for a gang.
How many prisoners have free access to pens or pencils?
(Not snarky, I really don't know)
No, they don't. Most countries (including USA, AFAIK) restrict inmates phone communication with the external world.
State prison records show that for the first seven months of
this year, corrections officers have seized 319 cell phones
from inmates [in Ohio's] 28 prisons.
Interesting; they're trying to flatten out the code distribution…
echo -n word | \
> wm --rot13 --words stdin | \
> wm --rot13 --words stdin | \
> wm --rot13 --words stdin
result: jbeq
echo -n word | wm --rot13 --words stdin
result: jbeqThis lad in the article has a real knack for it though, I guess he knows the subject matter pretty well (i.e. knowing the kind of things people will be saying in certain scenarios, the word choice, how they address each other, how the gang hierarchies work etc) and has a good mind for the kind of on-the-fly ciphers that these gangs employ.
like you say, a few dozen characters of ciphertext. and you don't even need the full frequency chart, either. just the top few is sufficient (there's a lot of noise as you go down anyway because of Zipf's law). add knowledge of the top-3 bigrams and trigrams, and you're all set.
it's all due to the fact that Shannon discovered, that there's only roughly 1.5 bit of entropy per character in English text. and English is in fact one of the more efficient languages when it comes to this, Dutch or German have even less entropy per character :) I don't know how it compares to Spanish, however. gendered words are basically a type of redundancy checks, so they waste bits in that sense.
My next thoughts were a. "Would a reasonable set of law enforcement officials actually be able to learn how a simple cypher worked?", b. "If a large enough percentage of law enforcement could crack those types of codes, would the gang members come up with more complex cyphers?", and c. "How hard is it to smuggle a one time pad into prison?".
I read about the British code breakers during WWII. After they decoded (decrypted) messages, they still had to work to understand them. They needed to know the acronyms referring to stuff and places, the units of the quantities, etc.
Making up an example, so a line "ABC XYZ TTT 45" might mean send 45 barrels of fuel (TTT) from Boston (ABC) to Atlanta (XYZ).