And it appears that Brandis' ignorance has moved up the chain of command. Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has now put out what may be the single dumbest statement on encryption yet (and that's a pretty high bar). After being told yet again that *safe* encryption backdoors violate basic mathematics, Turnbull became super patriotic about the ability of Australian law to trump mathematics:

"The laws of Australia prevail in Australia, I can assure you of that," he said on Friday. "The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia."

And, then he pulled out the "nerd harder, nerds" argument:

"I'm not a cryptographer, but what we are seeking to do is to secure their assistance," Turnbull said. "They have to face up to their responsibility. They can't just, you know, wash their hands of it and say it's got nothing to do with them."

"I am sure they know morally they should. Morally they should."

So after admitting that he doesn't understand how this works, he's saying that the "moral" responsibility of cryptographers -- who have basically all told him his plan will make people less safe -- is to make people less safe.

Turnbull seems to think he can get around the whole problem by... semantics. You see, if we just redefine things and say we're not asking for "backdoors" then it's fine:

"A back door is typically a flaw in a software program that perhaps the -- you know, the developer of the software program is not aware of and that somebody who knows about it can exploit," he said. "And, you know, if there are flaws in software programs, obviously, that's why you get updates on your phone and your computer all the time."

"So we're not talking about that. We're talking about lawful access."

That bit of word salad suggests that at least a tiny smidgen of actual knowledge made it into his brain. A backdoor is an exploit. But "lawful access" is a backdoor. Pretending they are different suggests a fairly staggering level of ignorance.

Not to be outdone, but Brandis then took his own turn at the podium to spew more ignorance:

Asked how Australia's proposed regime would allow local authorities to read messages sent with either WhatsApp or Signal, Brandis said “Last Wednesday I met with the chief cryptographer at GCHQ ... And he assured me that this was feasible.”

Right. It's pretty well known that intelligence communities can frequently hack into things to get messages, but *not* because of backdoors to encryption but through other flaws. This includes things like keyloggers or other spyware that effective route around the encryption. But that's entirely different than demanding backdoors. And, of course, this all comes about a week after GCHQ's own former boss argued that attacking the end points was a better strategy than backdoors. It's almost certain that what GCHQ told Brandis is that they can be pretty successful in attacking those endpoints, without undermining encryption -- and that message got twisted in Brandis' mind to believe that it meant that there were already backdoors in Whatsapp and Signal (there are not).

This whole thing is a somewhat tragic comedy of errors with completely clueless politicians making policy badly, potentially putting everyone at risk... while astoundingly claiming that laws can trump basic mathematics. What a joke.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

]]>

Support Techdirt and get *Math Is Not A Crime* gear! Order by Oct. 3rd »

But it's not just about encryption. The issue of outlawing math has come up in other contexts that we talk about as well. For example, the patenting of software is one example that has raised concerns about outlawing math. Algorithms are basically just mathematical formulas and not being able to write an algorithm because someone has patented some of it seems particularly stupid. Over a decade ago, Ben Klemens wrote a great book called

And, of course, this enters the copyright realm as well. We're constantly talking about DRM, and a key bit of law that props up bogus DRM systems is Section 1201 of the DMCA, which outlaws any circumvention of DRM. But, many of those circumventions are little more than math as well.

This should be concerning to all of us. Attempting to hold back innovation, privacy and progress by outlawing math is a problem, and that's the reason behind our shirt. Oh, and it's also cool for math teachers and students too. Get yours today, and don't forget to check out the other gear in our super-early holiday sale.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

]]>

- Amazon's Education business unit is aiming to get teachers and students to improve their math skills and attitudes towards math. This "With Math I Can" effort is an attempt to encourage girls (and boys) who aren't confident with numbers to stick with math and math-related subjects. [url]
- A study of nearly half a million boys and girls (14-16yo) from 69 countries shows that there's a negligible gender gap when it comes to math skills. A few countries favored boys over girls in math tests, but a couple of countries also had girls beating the boys. So the differences are chalked up to effort and teaching, not any innate ability differences between boys and girls. [url]
- Apparently, girls seem to do more homework and play less with computers than boys do. According to an OECD report, boys test better at math than girls in many countries -- but girls in Shanghai seem to be
*really*good at math. [url]

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

]]>

- If you thought that quantum cryptography would someday solve all the problems of unauthorized eavesdroppers, some researchers have shown that we'll have to be a bit more careful. Using the Bell inequality to check for attackers isn't necessarily sufficient to certify a quantum key distribution (QKD) as secure, as an eavesdropper could use some quantum hacking to compromise a system with fake detectors. Fortunately, some additional tests can reestablish security and protect against current and future attacks of a specific type. [url]
- Keeping anonymous communications networks anonymous is a bit harder if you can't guarantee there isn't an adversary with the resources to compromise a significant fraction of the network. One solution to this problem might be to include some obfuscation and noise to the network -- and as long as one out of three nodes isn't compromised, messages will be anonymous and untraceable. [url]
- The math challenge of 'graph isomorphism' is supposed to be tough, but if it's downgraded to a less difficult problem, then we might have to move away from number factoring for securing encryption. An algorithmic breakthrough for factoring could allow powerful computers to break into encrypted messages. This wouldn't be the first time we've had to change encryption methods, but this would be a significant development now, given the widespread use of encryption technology that relies on factoring. [url]

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

]]>

- The Secretary Problem (aka the Marriage Problem) is a challenge to find an optimization strategy for the situation of having to choose the most satisfactory option among a series of candidates -- without being able to return to a previous candidate and once a candidate is chosen the decision is final. Mathematician Martin Gardner states that the optimal solution is to interview/date the first 36.8% of candidates, and then as soon as you encounter a candidate that appears better than that first group, you hire/marry that person (which may result in getting stuck with the last candidate). QED. Very romantic, yes? [url]
- If you're following the solution to the Secretary Problem, you might want to employ another technique when you've decided. Forget love potions, just answer a few dozen questions with a potential partner and then stare into her eyes for 4 minutes. [url]
- The commercial Anti-Valentine's Day is actually November 11th -- aka Singles Day. It's the world's biggest online retail sales day that dates back to about 1993, and it's really big in China. [url]

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

]]>

- Ever pick a checkout line at the grocery store and think "I always pick the slowest lane" once you've committed to a particular cashier? The math says that the odds of picking the fastest lane are against you, so you're most likely right that you never pick the fastest line. [url]
- Waiting in line at Disney can be cut short with its Fastpass system, but what does Fastpass really optimize? FYI, Disney doesn't let you hire disabled kids to cut in line anymore. [url]
- The best system for boarding planes is not the one that most airlines use, but Southwest's boarding method does pretty well. A few studies have looked at how to board planes more efficiently, but the Jason Steffen method isn't used by any airline (and there's little incentive for most airlines to change what they're currently doing). [url]

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

]]>

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

]]>

To make matters even more confusing (and/or appealing to lawyers...), Google's original announcement actually promisedVerizon is telling customers that as far as it's concerned, the plans were valid only for one year -- and that's why those initiated last spring are now expiring. I called the carrier's customer service line and, after holding for 15 minutes and then talking in circles to an agent for another 10, was able to get through to a supervisor. That person politely told me he wasn't aware of any two-year commitment and that -- despite my pointing out official documentation to the contrary -- there was nothing he could do to help me.

Of course, as Broadband Reports notes, it appears that the class action lawyers are already swarming around the "misleading advertising" effort, and there's a decent chance of a lawsuit soon. Google's quick promise of credit will probably limit that damage, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Verizon offer something similar pretty quickly as well to minimize the threat of a lawsuit. Either way, the situation is fairly ridiculous -- whether it was crossed signals on whatever deal Google and Verizon had, or if there was just some bad math involved.We understand that some Chromebook Pixel customers may have lost their promotional data, 100MB a month for two years, early… We apologize for this and are working on a solution for those customers.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

]]>

- Recent mathematical models are changing the nature of the scientific conversation about consciousness, with one controversial theory suggesting our minds are ultimately non-computable. Could cognition be something other than just extremely advanced computation? [url]
- Computers are now producing mathematical proofs that are essentially beyond human comprehension, or at least beyond our realistic ability to do any double-checking. One recently computed proof involves 13 gigabytes of recorded calculations, or more text than all of Wikipedia. [url]
- Researchers are beginning to understand what happens in the brain to cause Savant syndrome after an injury. Jason Padgett developed the ability to visualize complex mathematical and physical problems after suffering a severe beating, and it's possible that this ability lies dormant in everyone. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

]]>

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

]]>

- Chris McKinlay used his PhD-level math skills to improve his dating experience on OkCupid. Using 12 fake OkCupid accounts and some Python scripts, he scraped millions of responses from 20,000 women... and after 88 first dates with women he found with his own algorithms, he's in a serious relationship. [url]
- About 40 million people in the US are using online dating services like eHarmony, Match.com, etc. And if those dating site users are anything like their counterparts in China, people aren't as fussy about their dates as their profiles might imply -- based on a study of hundreds of thousands of dating interactions on baihe.com (which has 60 million registered users). [url]
- Alli Reed performed her own experiment on OkCupid, trying to determine how awful a woman's profile could be before men would stop messaging her. The one part of her fake profile that wasn't awful was the very attractive profile picture, so the answer should be somewhat obvious. [url]

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

]]>

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

]]>

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

]]>

- Vinay Deolalikar posted his "proof" that P!=NP a few years ago, but it didn't quite stand up to the scrutiny of some mathematicians -- and you, too, can dismiss an extraordinary proof by watching out for a few telltale signs. It's hard to refute
*everyone*who claims to have a P!=NP proof, but there's a roadmap for how to avoid wasting other mathematicians' valuable time. [url] - A. Garrett Lisi has a grand unifying theory of the universe, but maybe he should stick to surfing. Lisi's TEDtalk is amazingly devoid of physics, but the Large Hadron Collider may have the final say about whether "E8" provides any unique insights on the universe. [url]
- In 2012, Japanese mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki posted 500+ pages (on the internet!) that "might" prove the ABC Conjecture. Mochizuki refuses to discuss his proof, and so far, no one else has really been able to tell him he's wrong. [url]

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

]]>

While this is nice, this is just one patent in that particular lawsuit, and Uniloc has dozens of other patents that it's using in other lawsuits. And Uniloc shows no signs of slowing down. Just the other day it filed 12 new lawsuits.Claim 1, then, is merely an improvement on a mathematical formula. Even when tied to computing, since floating-point numbers are a computerized numeric format, the conversion of floating-point numbers has applications across fields as diverse as science, math, communications, security, graphics, and games.Thus, a patent on Claim 1 would cover vast end uses, impeding the onward march of science.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

]]>

One of the key problems is that software patents are essentially patents on mathematical algorithms -- sets of instructions for carrying out a calculation. Since it has long been a principle that you can't patent mathematical formulae or laws of nature, there is a tension there: if software is just mathematics, why should you be able to patent it at all? New Scientist points to an interesting article in the April 2013 issue of Notices of the American Mathematical Society, in which David A. Edwards proposes a radical way of solving that conundrum (pdf):

In particular, he believes it should beAt present, only those things which are made by man are patentable. Thus, the courts have allowed new forms of bacteria which have been engineered to have useful properties using recombinant DNA techniques to be patented but would not allow such a bacterium to be patented if it were naturally occurring even if it were newly discovered. This is the basis for the nonpatentability of computer programs. They are algorithms, which are essentially mathematical formulas, which -- as everyone knows -- are "eternal" and hence discovered by man and not created by him. This argument which, to say the least, is philosophically controversial, leads to our present unfortunate policy. From an economic point of view, there is no rationale for distinguishing between discovery and invention, and we would advocate dropping entirely any subject matter restrictions whatsoever on what can be patented. One should be able to patent anything not previously known to man.

One of his arguments is that this would spur people to make more discoveries. But that presupposes mathematicians aren't trying to do that now for glory, peer esteem and tenure, but there's no evidence to suggest that. The same argument is sometimes made in support of software patents -- that they stimulate the production of more software. But that overlooks the fact that the computer industry thrived for decades before the introduction of software patents, and that companies like Microsoft grew into hugely profitable enterprises without them.

That, of course, is exactly what has happened since the introduction of software patents, leading to the following situation today:In a memo to his senior executives, Bill Gates wrote, "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today." Mr. Gates worried that "some large company will patent some obvious thing" and use the patent to "take as much of our profits as they want."

In the smartphone industry alone, according to a Stanford University analysis, as much as $20 billion was spent on patent litigation and patent purchases in the last two years -- an amount equal to eight Mars rover missions. Last year, for the first time, spending by Apple and Google on patent lawsuits and unusually big-dollar patent purchases exceeded spending on research and development of new products, according to public filings.

Since patents only give control over the commercial applications of his or her discovery or invention to the patentee, granting patents on mathematical formulas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena would have no negative side effects on pure science.

In 2002, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dramatically limited the scope of the research exemption in Madey v. Duke University, 307 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The court did not reject the defense, but left only a "very narrow and strictly limited experimental use defense" for "amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry." The court also precludes the defense where, regardless of profit motive, the research was done "in furtherance of the alleged infringer's legitimate business." In the case of a research university like Duke University, the court held that the alleged use was in furtherance of its legitimate business, and thus the defense was inapplicable.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

]]>

- On March 14, 1:59 pm, the Exploratorium in San Francisco (which invented Pi Day in 1988) will be featuring an art installation called "Pi In The Sky." Created by artist ISHKY with the help of a team of artists, designers, and scientists, "Pi In The Sky" will be visible in the sky at more than 10,000 feet over San Francisco. Five synchronized planes equipped with dot matrix technology will skywrite the first 314 numbers of pi, with each number measuring over a quarter-mile in height. [url]
- How "old" is pi? The ancient Babylonians were able to come up with a close approximation of pi (3.125) around 2000 B.C. [url]
- How many digits of pi are required to be able to measure the circumference of the observable universe, with an accuracy of less than the width of a hydrogen atom? The answer is... 39. [url]

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

]]>

- Does pi contain every set of finite number sequences? The answer to that question may not be known, but the first trillion or so digits of pi appear to be statistically random -- with 0-9 appearing with even distributed frequency. [url]
- It's possible to calculate the nth digit of pi without calculating every previous digit. So the gazillionth digit of pi can be verified, if you really need to know it. [url]
- If you're thinking about coming up with a new way to calculate pi, you can check your work for the first several trillion digits. Beyond about 10 trillion digits, you're into record breaking territory, and you'll need to adopt some other strategies. [url]

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

]]>

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

]]>

I'm reminded of that, after seeing Dealbreaker's headline about how world famous mutual fund investor, Bill Gross, of PIMCO, has patented the methodology for his bond fund -- or, as Dealbreaker correctly points out, he "patented a way to count." Indeed, the patent in question, US Patent 8,306,892 is somewhat hideous, describing not much more than the concept of an algorithm that weights regions based on GDP. The key claim:It is conceded that one may not patent an idea. But in practical effect that would be the result if the formula for converting BCD numerals to pure binary numerals were patented in this case. The mathematical formula involved here has no substantial practical application except in connection with a digital computer, which means that if the judgment below is affirmed, the patent would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself.

It doesn't take a patent specialist to figure out that this is basically patenting a spreadsheet for weighting countries on a few different factors. It seems to be theA computer-implemented method of managing a fixed income financial index, the method comprising: storing in a computer memory a regional weight for each of a plurality of regions of the world, each of the regional weights based at least in part on a gross domestic product for the region; storing in a computer memory, for each of the plurality of regions, a category weight for each of a plurality of categories of fixed income financial instruments issued from the region; storing in a computer memory asset data for a universe of fixed income instruments representing each of the plurality of categories of instruments in each of the plurality of regions, the fixed income instruments comprising one or more of the following: (i) fixed income securities, (ii) fixed income derivatives, or (iii) fixed income forwards; programmatically allocating, via execution of instructions by one or more computer processors, one or more constituent instruments from the universe of fixed income instruments to each of the plurality of categories in each of the plurality of regions; programmatically determining a constituent weight for each of the constituents allocated to each of the plurality of categories in each of the plurality of regions; programmatically calculating a subindex for each of the plurality of categories in each of the plurality of regions, each subindex based at least in part on the allocated constituents and the respective constituent weights, wherein the constituent weights for a first subindex comprise market capitalization weights and the constituent weights for a second subindex comprise gross-domestic product weights; and programmatically transforming the subindices, the category weights, and the regional weights into a value for the financial index.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

]]>

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

]]>

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

]]>

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

]]>

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

]]>

Lawler insists the math doesn't add up because without that marketing push, the number of subscribers would be much lower. HBO claimed that Lawler's math was right. And it may be. For now. But that's really dangerous thinking.More importantly, it wouldn’t include the cost of sales, marketing, and support — and this is where HBO would really get screwed. Going direct to online customers by pitching HBO GO over-the-top would mean losing the support of its cable, satellite, and IPTV distributors. And since the Comcasts and the Time Warner Cables of the world are the top marketing channel for premium networks like HBO, it would be nearly impossible for HBO to make up for the loss of the cable provider’s marketing team or promotions.

Think about it: Every time someone signs up for cable or satellite service, one of the inevitable perks is a free six- or 12-month subscription to HBO. And those free subscriptions are rarely, if ever, cancelled once the trial period ends.

We've pointed out before that it's quite tempting for legacy players to think that they can wait out disruptive innovation. They talk about how the new products and services aren't good enough or don't make enough money to bother getting into that space. Often they'll directly talk about how the new services don't make the same amount of revenue as the old ones (or they'll make some crack about "dollars into dimes.") And, of course, they insist that

MG Siegler has a great post talking about this very concept as it relates to HBO, responding to Lawler (again) and his recent interview of an HBO exec during a panel at TechCrunch Disrupt. Once again, HBO insisted that Lawler was right and that "the math didn't make sense." But Siegler points out, correctly, that

That, in a nuthsell, is what most companies fail to do. It's why Clayton Christensen's book sells so well, even though very, very few companies have any idea how to do what Apple did and "eat its own." But the point is there. If you focus on "the math," you're going to miss the market and be way, way too late. Back to Siegler:Put it all together and you get remarkable story about a device that, under the normal rules of business, should not have been invented. Given the popularity of the iPod and its centrality to Apple’s bottom line, Apple should have been the last company on the planet to try to build something whose explicit purpose was to kill music players. Yet Apple’s inner circle knew that one day, a phone maker would solve the interface problem, creating a universal device that could make calls, play music and videos, and do everything else, too—a device that would eat the iPod’s lunch. Apple’s only chance at staving off that future was to invent the iPod killer itself. More than this simple business calculation, though, Apple’s brass saw the phone as an opportunity for real innovation.

He's right. And the more you look at the economics of innovation, the easier it is to understand why innovation always beats math. It's because "the math" that people do is of a static world, for the most part. They use past performance and metrics built on a different market. They don't understand how quickly a new market grows, and how much larger its overall potential is. And that's because we have difficulty in mentally dealing with non-zero sum markets, preferring to think that it's a one-for-one switch. But, it's not. Innovation expands markets in new and unexpected ways, often quite rapidly (though also, deceptively slowly at first, because the growth is often in a tangential market that people don't even recognize).Moore's statement about HBO is correct. The math is not in favor of selling HBO access directly to consumers. But if we're just thinking about this from a pure product perspective, I don’t think anyone would disagree that this is what we all want. HBO is choosing not to build the service we will love,they're choosing the short-term money. The safe bet. The math.

But if they don’t diverge from this path, it will lead to their demise. Innovation always beats math, eventually. That, you can take to the bank.

So they come up with spreadsheets and "models" that try to predict when the math says it's time to switch. And all of that time

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

]]>