I went to presentation yesterday where a speaker told the audience the tale of how the three guys from MIT invented public-key cryptography. You know, the RSA trio. I mentioned that they were not the sole inventors (hey, Diffie sits on the crypto panel at RSA for a reason) but was soundly shut-down.

After the presentation I did a little research to double-check and while I thought Diffie-Hellman and Merkle were important, I didn’t realize that another group actually pre-dated even their publication. It turns out that there is a paper from 1987 called The Story of Non-Secret Encryption written by James Ellis. This paper not only describes ground-breaking work done prior to Diffie-Hellman and Merkle, but it gives credit to Bell Labs in 1944 for helping instigate the modern public key cryptography concepts.

Source is available here: http://www.cesg.gov.uk/site/publications/media/ellis.pdf

A paper written by Clifford Cocks (November 20, 1973) called “A Note on Non-Secret Encryption” is also relevant.

Here’s a nice review of the actual history, as told by the Living Internet:

Ellis began thinking about the shared secret key problem in the late 1960’s when he discovered an old Bell Labs paper from October, 1944 titled “Final Report on Project C43”, describing a clever method of secure telephone conversation between two parties without any prearrangement. If John calls Mary, then Mary can add a random amount of noise to the phone line to drown out John’s message in case any eavesdroppers are listening. However, at the same time Mary can also record the telephone call, then later play it back and subtract the noise she had added, thereby leaving John’s original message for only her to hear. While there were practical disadvantages to this method, it suggested the intriguing logical possibility: there might be methods of establishing secure communications without first exchanging a shared secret key.

Ellis thought about this seemingly paradoxical idea for awhile, and while lying in bed one night developed an existence proof that the concept was possible with mathematical encryption, which he recorded in a secret CESG report titled The Possibility of Non-Secret Encryption in January, 1970. This showed logically that there could be an encryption method that could work without prior prearrangement, and the quest in GCHQ then turned to find a practical example.

The first workable mathematical formula for non-secret encryption was discovered by Clifford Cocks, which he recorded in 1973 in a secret CESG report titled A Note on Non-Secret Encryption. This work describes a special case of the RSA algorithm, differing in that the encryption and decryption algorithms are not equivalent, and without mention of the application to digital signatures. A few months later in 1974, Malcolm Williamson discovered a mathematical expression based on the commutativity of exponentiation that he recorded in a secret report titled Non-Secret Encryption Using A Finite Field, and which describes a key exchange method similar to that discovered by Diffie, Hellman, and Merkle. It is not known to what uses, if any, the GCHQ work was applied.

It just goes to show, don’t always believe what you hear in presentations…

Interesting first-person account on the BBC site:

The first step the authorities need to take is to block the prisoners from using mobile phones to direct the violence on the streets.

That prompted me to do a little research, which led to a report from Prison Review in 2002 that suggests cell-phones were used by inmates to coordinate attacks back then as well:

Officials in California’s facilities regularly report problems with their inmate population using cell phones to conduct “gang business” from behind bars. January’s prison riots in Brazil – which began simultaneously across five facilities in and around Sao Paulo and left several hundred dead and wounded – were coordinated using cell phones. The inmate’s strategy of synchronised riots – only possible with real-time communications – was deliberately designed to cripple the state’s single incident response team.

And while these reports seem to indicate prison cells (pun intended) run amok, Amnesty International provides the following background to police treatment of prisoners and riots in Sao Paulo:

In June Colonel Ubiratan Guimarães, a former high-ranking military police officer, was convicted on charges in connection with the massacre of 111 detainees in the Carandiru detention centre following a riot in 1992. In a historic decision, the jury found him to be responsible for São Paulo’s military police ”shock troops” and that the troops entered the prison with the prior intention of committing as much harm as possible. He was sentenced to 632 years’ imprisonment, but was released pending hearing of his appeal. A further 105 military policemen were awaiting trial for their part in the massacre at the end of 2001. The São Paulo authorities later announced their intention to close Carandiru prison by early 2002.

Further reading on the subject revealed that

A Sao Paulo state appeals overturned his conviction on Wednesday [February 15, 2006] after Mr Guimaraes’ lawyers argued that he was acting on his superiors’ orders.

Could the riots be related to the court decision on Guimaraes? Many articles, such as this one, suggest that prisoners became highly organized in response to attacks by police in 1992. And yet no one seems to be making the connection between the prisoner organization and the recent court procedings about those attacks. The BBC quote “officials” who suggest that prisoners are reacting to “the decision of the state government’s move to isolate its leaders in different prisons.” Something tells me these isolation plans aren’t worthy of a riot on their own, especially when prisoners clearly are able to maintain cell-phone communication and relationships with outside elements. Maybe I’m missing something, but a recent ruling on the police leader charged with the massacre of prisoners seems very related…

Read all about it here:

and here:

Net Losses by James Surowiecki

Check out what the music group R.E.M. has to say:

Net Neutrality levels the internet playing field, insuring that small blogs and independent sites open just as easily as the sites of large media corporations. It allows every voice to be heard by thousands, even millions of people. This freedom is currently under threat because the nation’s largest phone and cable companies have pressured Congress to give them more control over which Web sites work for users based on which corporation pays them the most! If Congress caves, consumer choice will be limited, the free flow of information will be choked off, and the free and open Internet will become a private toll road managed by these large companies.

My memory could be playing tricks on me, but if I’m not mistaken this is an old battle that comes from the early days of the Internet. Seems to me that sometime in the early 1980s MCI was promoting the X.25 protocol along with a “Mail service”. IBM and AT&T also endorsed X.25 and had all sorts of negative things to say about the lack of structure and reliability of TCP/IP. Can’t find a reference today, but the articles are still somewhat vivid in my mind. Vint Cerf however, who just happened to help develop the TCP/IP protocol, was head of the Digital Information Services at MCI and decided to connect MCI’s Mail service to it, thus establishing the direct foundation for today’s Internet. MCI was actively working with the National Science Foundation by the late 1980s to help public organizations run TCP/IP communications over a “high speed” (for the day) network. Meanwhile AT&T and IBM were stewing in their juices, apparently mad as hell that the public was not required to purchase their expensive network hardware and proprietary services in order to communicate over the network. IBM was determined to develop other protocols but finally was forced to admit TCP/IP as the default by the mid 1990s. Now, behold AT&T and the other carriers saying they should be allowed to buy out the public interest and own the network. No surprise, really, but if they are successful then will we really have returned to 1984?

This reminds me of when General Motors, Mack Truck, oil and tire companies (known as National City Lines and led by E. Roy Fitzgerald) managed to buy out all the public transportation providers in Los Angeles in the 1940s. Soon no public transportation was left — the wealthy shareholders had bought a lock on the market. One the competition was gone, and federal anti-trust charges were avoided, Los Angeles residents were increasingly forced to rely on cars, trucks, oil and tires. Some say this group of companies made their money back in the first ten years after they purchased and disassembled the public system.