Solution to CIA’s Kryptos sculpture is found in Smithsonian vault

Post by Retric » Sat, Oct 18, 2025, 10:17 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #27

nocoiner wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here, I’ll give you this one for free: it’s called tortious interference. As the name suggests, it’s a tort, so you don’t need to sign a contact to be liable.

There would need to be (1) an existing valid contract, (2) knowledge by the defendants of it, (3) intentional and unjustified inducements by the defendants to break it, followed by (4) an actual breach that (5) caused damages. Doesn't seem like that would fit here. This seems like more of an ethical dilemma than a legal one.

Post by tptacek » Sat, Oct 18, 2025, 10:20 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #32

tptacek wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There would need to be (1) an existing valid contract, (2) knowledge by the defendants of it, (3) intentional and unjustified inducements by the defendants to break it, followed by (4) an actual breach that (5) caused damages. Doesn't seem like that would fit here. This seems like more of an ethical dilemma than a legal one.

> There would need to be (1) an existing valid contract, Your (1) is false. You can damage a business relationship that doesn’t involve a signed contract. “Tortious interference with business relationships occurs where the tortfeasor intentionally acts to prevent someone from successfully establishing or maintaining business relationships with others.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

Post by tptacek » Sat, Oct 18, 2025, 10:21 PM UTC

wahnfrieden wrote: post #30

tptacek wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't have anything to do with the thread, and hashing this out would tilt a story about Kryptos sharply towards a story on health policy. He's 79, he's very covered by Medicare.

Where is the rule that comments must stay on topic and avoid diversion? It was a more interesting and informative comment than yours that you've restated here (particularly given that being "very covered by Medicare" does not even counter what you originally replied to, as it will not cover all or perhaps even most costs)

Post by aspenmayer » Sat, Oct 18, 2025, 10:38 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #36

wahnfrieden wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is the rule that comments must stay on topic and avoid diversion? It was a more interesting and informative comment than yours that you've restated here (particularly given that being "very covered by Medicare" does not even counter what you originally replied to, as it will not cover all or perhaps even most costs)

[flagged]

Post by sgustard » Sat, Oct 18, 2025, 11:06 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #22

janalsncm wrote: post #21

So the central controversy in the story is whether the journalist fans should share the solution with the world or keep quiet for the auction. Sanborn wants the money for medical reasons so he needs to maintain a high sale price. The two fans want to share the solution with the world. Presumably the winner of the auction will be buying a severely depreciating asset: the right to know but not disclose the solution. Th…

Do I understand part of the complexity of the situation is that Kryptos is in some sense "crackable" (unlike real cryptography), and these two people sleuthed their way to the answer book without solving it? Which is not quite exactly the same thing as them independently working out a solution; it's more like a nicer and more legal version of breaking into the guy's house and stealing it out of his desk drawer?