Content deleted Content added
m Made the changes made in revision 187210154, which seems to have been accidentally reverted |
Linked to article on 9/11 attacks rather than article on that date; put "Origin" and "Modern usage" headings under "Etymology"; removed "Example" section (nothing special about that code); etc. |
||
Line 6:
{{Orphan|date=January 2008}}
An '''idiot code''' is a [[code]] whereupon the "[[syntax]]" or "rules" of [[communication]] are worked out between the parties. This type of communication is akin to the hand signals used by armies in the field.{{Fact|date=January 2008}}
== De-coding ==
There are only two ways to break this code:{{Fact|date=January 2008}}
# Know what the rules are.
# See enough of the messages to work out the rules.
The problem with number 1 is that this type of information passing is set up before usage and is extremely hard to decipher as the message is "hidden in plain sight". Anybody intercepting this message probably would not even know it is a communication.{{Fact|date=January 2008}}
The problem with number 2 is that you would need several verified messages of this type to determine the rules of communication.{{Fact|date=January 2008}}
== Disadvantages ==
The drawbacks of this type of message passing is that is it extremely limited. A [[codebook]] would be needed to effectively communicate complex information. Simple information such as "yes" or "no" can be built into phrases and have several variants. However, complex information such as "Meet a man with red hair under the Bass Bridge at 12:43 and be sure to wear a black cloak and a fedora so he recognises you" would be much harder unless you have constructed your rules to allow for this type of information to be passed.{{Fact|date=January 2008}}
==
=== Origin ===
An early use of the term appears to be by George Perrault, a character in the science fiction book ''Friday''<ref>[http://members.aol.com/siure/heinlein3.htm ''Friday''] (1982) by [[Robert Heinlein]]: page 163</ref> by [[Robert Heinlein]]:
Line 33 ⟶ 27:
::The simplest sort [of code] and thereby impossible to break. The first ad told the person or persons concerned to carry out number seven or expect number seven or it said something about something designated as seven. This one says the same with respect to code item number ten. But the meaning of the numbers cannot be deduced through statistical analysis because the code can be changed long before a useful statistical universe can be reached. It's an idiot code... and an idiot code can never be broken if the user has the good sense not to go too often to the well.<ref>The Web: [http://www.asherblack.com/quotations.html Quotations] - Asher Black</ref>
== Modern
Richard Miniter, author of ''Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror'', was quoted in an interview by UPI Technology News:<ref>UPI Technology News: [http://archive.infopeace.de/msg02819.html “Terrorists prove elusive” by Gene J. Koprowski], [[23 October]] [[2003]].</ref>
Line 42 ⟶ 36:
:A sample idiot code might be as follows: “The package will arrive in Germany tomorrow,” said Miniter. “But the word ‘package’ really is code for a bomb. Only the sender of the message and the receiver know the real meaning.”
Terrorism expert Magnus Ranstorp said that the men who carried out the [[
== References ==
| |||