Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 146 posts

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

#41

Post by aspenmayer »

tptacek wrote: post #39
aspenmayer wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found their aside relevant to my interests as a fellow HN reader. The guidelines also advise against fulminating; you made your point, and I think it’s fair that theirs also stands.

That's fine, I'm just always going to respond to something on HN worded as "where is the [HN] rule that". :)

I am happy that you are concerned with the guidelines, and I don’t want to protest too much. I appreciate your contributions to HN more than my own most days, and I do hope I don’t rustle your feathers.

> That's fine

seems to conflict with your concerns about the upthread conversation being derailed to a certain reading:

> 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.

As the auction proceeds would ostensibly fund healthcare costs, it seems on topic to muse about the costs being covered by Medicare, or not. If they would be covered by Medicare, the claims of healthcare costs not being met are all the more interesting and discussion-worthy.

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

#42

Post by Retric »

do_not_redeem wrote: post #37
Retric wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

They aren't doing it with the intent to damage his business. They're just doing something they would have done anyway. You can't claim tortious interference just because someone throws a wrench in your business plans. Sanborn has about as much of a case as Microsoft has against Linus Torvalds for creating Linux and hurting their sales of Windows. (I'll give you this one for free: none.)

> They aren't doing it with the intent to damage his business.

That’s arguable. They sent him an email concerned about the harm of disclosure with the upcoming auction. They then apparently got offended by the offer of money to sign an NDA which calls their future motives into question as they now had a beef with the guy.

Saying the actions themselves were not improper is also a defense, and could be perfectly viable even if they had beef with the guy.

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

#43

Post by themafia »

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…

Make the auction include the physical piece of art itself. Then you're buying a tangible and transferable asset. I think the CIA has enough money it can endeavor to replace it. What value does a cracked puzzle even have to them?

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

#44

Post by Retric »

tptacek wrote: post #34
Retric wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

OK, but the interference still needs to be improper!

Agreed, though I’m not sure if it would be considered proper or improper here.

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

#45

Post by tptacek »

Retric wrote: post #42
do_not_redeem wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't doing it with the intent to damage his business. They're just doing something they would have done anyway. You can't claim tortious interference just because someone throws a wrench in your business plans. Sanborn has about as much of a case as Microsoft has against Linus Torvalds for creating Linux and hurting their sales of Windows. (I'll give you this one for free: none.)

> They aren't doing it with the intent to damage his business. That’s arguable. They sent him an email concerned about the harm of disclosure with the upcoming auction. They then apparently got offended by the offer of money to sign an NDA which calls their future motives into question as they now had a beef with the guy. Saying the actions themselves were not improper is also a defense, and could be perfectly viable…

"To be improper, interference must be wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself, such as a statute, regulation, recognized rule of common law, or an established standard of trade or profession."

They don't need a defense: nobody has yet stated a claim!

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

#46

Post by Retric »

tptacek wrote: post #45
Retric wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They aren't doing it with the intent to damage his business. That’s arguable. They sent him an email concerned about the harm of disclosure with the upcoming auction. They then apparently got offended by the offer of money to sign an NDA which calls their future motives into question as they now had a beef with the guy. Saying the actions themselves were not improper is also a defense, and could be perfectly viable…

"To be improper, interference must be wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself, such as a statute, regulation, recognized rule of common law, or an established standard of trade or profession." They don't need a defense: nobody has yet stated a claim!

It was claimed they committed copyright infringement and they admit to photographing his works as part of this discovery.

It actually being copyright infringement is questionable, but if so it would be improper behavior.

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

#47

Post by tptacek »

Retric wrote: post #46
tptacek wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"To be improper, interference must be wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself, such as a statute, regulation, recognized rule of common law, or an established standard of trade or profession." They don't need a defense: nobody has yet stated a claim!

It was claimed they committed copyright infringement and they admit to photographing his works as part of this discovery. It actually being copyright infringement is questionable, but if so it would be improper behavior.

Yep! That'd be a real claim. I hadn't seen that earlier.

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

#48

Post by [deleted] »

ricksunny wrote: post #8

I like this comment: Victor Wong writes, “If they don’t have the method,” she said, “it’s not solved,” she said. That does raise a philosophical point to the craft of intelligence gathering. Speaking as a professional librarian, I do applaud the use of ATI (access to information) to find the appropriate data -- it's akin to a WW2 unit capturing an Enigma codebook.

[deleted]

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

#49

Post by ProjectArcturis »

It seems to me that if a puzzle has gone unsolved for 35 years despite many very skilled people trying hard to solve it... It is not actually a good puzzle?

Like, here - here's a code that no one will ever solve: ITIWKSMNDIWKD WJSIKWMWMSONQ

Turn that into a sculpture and put it outside the CIA.

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

#50

Post by gamblor956 »

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

That's not a tort in American law. In this country contractual arrangement is required for tortious interference.
Post reply on HN