The Code-Breaking Women Who Unmasked Soviet Spies(smithsonianmag.com)
smithsonianmag.com
The Code-Breaking Women Who Unmasked Soviet Spies
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/women-code-breakers-unmasked-soviet-spies-180970034/?no-ist
47 comments
A common practice after the second world was that everything got burned in order to prevent war from accidentally reigniting. Would be interesting to know how much of that practice was used after the cold war.
it's often depicted in movies (hastily burning paperwork when the area is being invaded), but I always thought this was to destroy evidence of any war crimes.
I don't see any bulk ciphertext dump yet, but conclusions after analysis seem to be available at https://archive.org/details/thevenonafiles&tab=collection
If anyone knows if the raw ciphertexts with metadata (say date, source/"lane") are available please share! I think it would be more fun and educational to exercise on real quasi-OTP ciphertexts...
If anyone knows if the raw ciphertexts with metadata (say date, source/"lane") are available please share! I think it would be more fun and educational to exercise on real quasi-OTP ciphertexts...
[deleted]
Headline should read 'The female cypher-breakers who...'
I do hate such abuse of language. Would the Smithsonian have written 'a man mathematician'? Of course not.
I do hate such abuse of language. Would the Smithsonian have written 'a man mathematician'? Of course not.
Alright, we've given you "code-breaking women" per teddyh below.
All: please step away from the title now. There's an interesting historical story here and no need to fill the thread with smoke.
All: please step away from the title now. There's an interesting historical story here and no need to fill the thread with smoke.
This has started to crop up because the term female has taken on negative connotations. Similarly for girl. Thus woman is becoming the all-encompassing word in a way that does not parallel the male terms.
Just curious: what are negative connotations of "female"? I'm not a native speaker.
It's very subtle. "Females" is a term used for women in some of the seedier corners of the internet. It implies grouping women with female animals rather than grouping them together with men as human beings.
I have read your comment several times and still fail to find any meaning to it. Is it some sort of joke/sarcasm ?
It's completely sincere. I have seen it happen plenty of times. A quick search and perusal of the headlines backs me up. [1]
[1] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=referring+to+women+as+females&t=ip...
[1] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=referring+to+women+as+females&t=ip...
Seems to be an extreme fringe position supported by a few articles from Buzzfeed, Jezebel, The Root, Reset Era, a YouTube video, and a reddit post with 7 votes. The rest of the results are about calling women "girls" which can be offensive for obvious reasons.
Perhaps you could point to a specific example where "it implies grouping women with female animals rather than grouping them together with men as human beings."
Perhaps you could point to a specific example where "it implies grouping women with female animals rather than grouping them together with men as human beings."
Unfortunately, an extreme fringe position from a few people with decently wide media reach can be sufficient to establish something as "offensive". Once some people have said it's offensive, people who are more concerned with respectability will probably avoid saying it, which means the people left saying it will, relatively speaking, be less concerned with respectability, and therefore will try less and probably succeed less at being seen as respectable; the word will therefore acquire less respectable connotations due to who uses it, which will provide a stronger motivator for respectability-concerned people to avoid it, and thus the statement "that word is offensive" becomes a self-fulfilling proclamation. I believe a recent, strong example of this was when some people with very wide media reach announced that Pepe the frog was a white nationalist symbol.
>Unfortunately, an extreme fringe position from a few people with decently wide media reach can be sufficient to establish something as "offensive". Once some people have said it's offensive, people who are more concerned with respectability will probably avoid saying it, which means the people left saying it will, relatively speaking, be less concerned with respectability, and therefore will try less and probably succeed less at being seen as respectable; the word will therefore acquire less respectable connotations due to who uses it, which will provide a stronger motivator for respectability-concerned people to avoid it, and thus the statement "that word is offensive" becomes a self-fulfilling proclamation. I believe a recent, strong example of this was when some people with very wide media reach announced that Pepe the frog was a white nationalist symbol.
Well stated. And that's why the busybodies and the bullies who are constantly dictating new rules of acceptable speech for the rest of society to follow must be resisted at every turn. I will not concede one ounce of moral authority to these power-hungry bullies. It's particularly gratifying when one of them attempts to "correct" my speech in person, and I can respond to them right to their smug faces.
Well stated. And that's why the busybodies and the bullies who are constantly dictating new rules of acceptable speech for the rest of society to follow must be resisted at every turn. I will not concede one ounce of moral authority to these power-hungry bullies. It's particularly gratifying when one of them attempts to "correct" my speech in person, and I can respond to them right to their smug faces.
It's generally the extreme fringe misogynist groups that use the term females almost entirely to the exclusion of "women."
I'm rather surprised I'm getting so much pushback on this here, of all places. I thought it would be pretty obvious to most of the English as first language population here.
I'm rather surprised I'm getting so much pushback on this here, of all places. I thought it would be pretty obvious to most of the English as first language population here.
English is not my first language, but if I understand correctly, "woman" is often a noun and "female" is often an adjective; but the usage can be interchanged.
The articles that you link say that using "female" as a noun is somewhat demeaning. OK, I can agree with that.
What I don't get is how using "female" as an adjective can be demeaning at all? This is a different question that seems very surprising as a non-native speaker. Using the noun "woman" as an adjective (in apposition) is maybe grammatically correct, but sounds very strange to me.
The articles that you link say that using "female" as a noun is somewhat demeaning. OK, I can agree with that.
What I don't get is how using "female" as an adjective can be demeaning at all? This is a different question that seems very surprising as a non-native speaker. Using the noun "woman" as an adjective (in apposition) is maybe grammatically correct, but sounds very strange to me.
There are people who argue that all kinds of things are demeaning or offensive. For example, some have argued that "person with disabilities" should be preferred over "disabled person" because using the word "person" first emphasizes their humanity. I heard someone claim that saying "I'm going to go home and sleep to recharge my batteries" is demeaning (to yourself!) because you're talking about yourself like a machine.
As far as I know, these notions do not usually come from (a) studies showing e.g. that, if you have people read text using one phrase or the other, and then give them questions designed to evaluate their opinions of disabled people, you see an actual effect; or from (b) a statistically significant sample of actual disabled people saying they really would prefer one phrase over the other; but usually from (c) an academic thinking something up and writing about it, and other people reading about it and adopting the new phraseology so as to avoid the chance of being called "insensitive". Sometimes it makes it out of academia and we end up hearing about it.
As far as I know, these notions do not usually come from (a) studies showing e.g. that, if you have people read text using one phrase or the other, and then give them questions designed to evaluate their opinions of disabled people, you see an actual effect; or from (b) a statistically significant sample of actual disabled people saying they really would prefer one phrase over the other; but usually from (c) an academic thinking something up and writing about it, and other people reading about it and adopting the new phraseology so as to avoid the chance of being called "insensitive". Sometimes it makes it out of academia and we end up hearing about it.
> I'm rather surprised I'm getting so much pushback on this here, of all places. I thought it would be pretty obvious to most of the English as first language population here.
I suspect it's not obvious to the overwhelming majority of English speakers that there is some problem with referring to females as females, or describing them as female.
In my observation, claiming that using the word "female" to refer to females is somehow problematic is the fringe view. Not the other way around.
I suspect it's not obvious to the overwhelming majority of English speakers that there is some problem with referring to females as females, or describing them as female.
In my observation, claiming that using the word "female" to refer to females is somehow problematic is the fringe view. Not the other way around.
This seems to be an interesting case, where using "female(s)" as a noun is the usage that some people have objected to, and now this spills over into people avoiding the usage of "female" as an adjective. Well, I suppose that kind of evolution is par for the course with any word that ends up getting deemed offensive.
>Just curious: what are negative connotations of "female"? I'm not a native speaker.
I am, and I'm not aware of any. But if there are, they probably grew out of the weird taboos that, in some segments of English-speaking culture, tightly control what terms one is permitted to use when speaking about gender-related issues. Most of us, fortunately, don't consider ourselves bound by these taboos.
I am, and I'm not aware of any. But if there are, they probably grew out of the weird taboos that, in some segments of English-speaking culture, tightly control what terms one is permitted to use when speaking about gender-related issues. Most of us, fortunately, don't consider ourselves bound by these taboos.
Then why not simply write “The code-breaking women who…”? There’s no need to abuse the language pointlessly.
I'm not English native speaker, why is it abuse? There is also book "Code Girls: The Untold Story of the American Women Code Breakers of World War II" that uses the same term.
"Female" is an adjective and "women" is a noun.
In English you can very often use a noun to qualify another noun (like in "house brick"), but it's rare for "A B" to mean "B which is an A" (more often it's something like "B for an A" or "B concerning an A").
The form "Woman X" is relatively recent (it's appearing because using "female" for humans is becoming mildly taboo), so it seems odd to someone who isn't used to it.
In English you can very often use a noun to qualify another noun (like in "house brick"), but it's rare for "A B" to mean "B which is an A" (more often it's something like "B for an A" or "B concerning an A").
The form "Woman X" is relatively recent (it's appearing because using "female" for humans is becoming mildly taboo), so it seems odd to someone who isn't used to it.
The terms aren't perfectly symmetric and interchangeable so the Smithsonian is doing the sensible thing to avoid making it sound like they're talking about some species of fish.
It's a problem of the english language. But it's stupid nonetheless.
Why does the gender matter? I hate headlines like this
> The story of Venona’s female code breakers has never been publicly told in full. Benson interviewed some of them for a classified internal history of Venona, only portions of which have been declassified and released online. More important, while the exploits of Gardner and other men have been the focus of entire books, the women themselves did not talk about their work—not to their friends, not to their families, hardly to each other. Most took the secret to their graves.
Can you see why gender matters?
Can you see why gender matters?
It is very clear from reading the history of code breaking that those aspects has nothing to do with gender. Much of methods and actions made in code breaking has been intentional burned, and practically everything else is regularly classified as top state secrets in order to conceal the capability of code breaking. To say that those are part of a gendered issue implies that those practices did not exist, only applied to female code breakers, or that male code were more likely to disregarded orders and break the law.
What remains is a meta argument that book writers and self-biographers are biased towards writing about male code writers once information get declassified. The article is not focused on that, nor does it make that claim explicit. The gender political aspects exist mostly in the tile and in that short paragraph, with a barely noticeable hint later on that the reason why code breaking made up from 90% women was that men got drafted and put on front lines while code breaking was mostly voluntarist that joined the female corp. The female dominance at code breaking stopped once the male-only draft ended.
What remains is a meta argument that book writers and self-biographers are biased towards writing about male code writers once information get declassified. The article is not focused on that, nor does it make that claim explicit. The gender political aspects exist mostly in the tile and in that short paragraph, with a barely noticeable hint later on that the reason why code breaking made up from 90% women was that men got drafted and put on front lines while code breaking was mostly voluntarist that joined the female corp. The female dominance at code breaking stopped once the male-only draft ended.
That maybe the books focus on some of the topics. But maybe it would have been a better book had it just focused on the code breakers and how imoortnant they were.
Society has changed alot. And all this setting the score right stuff is going to rip us apart. So every time we have to point out how bad somebody had it and who their operrssors were it is going just casue more division.
And in this case I think pointing anyof that out when telling this story is just a distraction from a real story that everybody could enjoy; that we had awesome people who did awesome shit that helped win a war.
I am not saying that the stories of oppression or injustice can't be told. Just when they are please don't try and hitch it to the far better time proof story. Eg if you want to wrtie a book about how some men did bad things and focus on on vile some men are you can do that. But at least advertise it as a book with intent to spread hate to parties not actually involved. That way when you write about "code breakers" without a gender being the main focus people can enjoy it without being distracted on either end of the spectrum.
It will come on off much more natural and powerful if when women were written about if they were done so in the same manner as men. Simply write the story "The code breakers ..." and readers will happily discover the identity of the actors in the book.
But then again people who like to point gender out often have other ajendas than simply waiting about something that could universally interest people.
(Typing from phone while holding baby. Sorry for spelling or grammar issues ).
Society has changed alot. And all this setting the score right stuff is going to rip us apart. So every time we have to point out how bad somebody had it and who their operrssors were it is going just casue more division.
And in this case I think pointing anyof that out when telling this story is just a distraction from a real story that everybody could enjoy; that we had awesome people who did awesome shit that helped win a war.
I am not saying that the stories of oppression or injustice can't be told. Just when they are please don't try and hitch it to the far better time proof story. Eg if you want to wrtie a book about how some men did bad things and focus on on vile some men are you can do that. But at least advertise it as a book with intent to spread hate to parties not actually involved. That way when you write about "code breakers" without a gender being the main focus people can enjoy it without being distracted on either end of the spectrum.
It will come on off much more natural and powerful if when women were written about if they were done so in the same manner as men. Simply write the story "The code breakers ..." and readers will happily discover the identity of the actors in the book.
But then again people who like to point gender out often have other ajendas than simply waiting about something that could universally interest people.
(Typing from phone while holding baby. Sorry for spelling or grammar issues ).
> It will come on off much more natural and powerful if when women were written about if they were done so in the same manner as men. Simply write the story "The code breakers ..." and readers will happily discover the identity of the actors in the book.
Both are not mutually exclusive - you can do both.
Both are not mutually exclusive - you can do both.
You can but at the risk of deviding people. And most definitely alienating some people.
The the entire men vs women is toxic. Every man can't be held responsible for for what some man did in the past. We are different people and not identified by our gender. The same holds tire doe women. What a man or woman does mentally really should not even be a topic. Making it one will only create sides that people are forced to join. It also brings up a bunch of questions that str not productive to society. Like which group is better ? If you answer either group you now become sexiest. It is just as bad to say women code better than men vs men code better than women. That is where every one of these gender separations of groups lead too. It is toxic and vile. And nobody should support it.
The the entire men vs women is toxic. Every man can't be held responsible for for what some man did in the past. We are different people and not identified by our gender. The same holds tire doe women. What a man or woman does mentally really should not even be a topic. Making it one will only create sides that people are forced to join. It also brings up a bunch of questions that str not productive to society. Like which group is better ? If you answer either group you now become sexiest. It is just as bad to say women code better than men vs men code better than women. That is where every one of these gender separations of groups lead too. It is toxic and vile. And nobody should support it.
Honestly, I can't see your point. The article merely highlights role of women in code breaking which wasn't known in the past. They don't say women were better than men. I don't see anything in the article as men vs women.
I am not talking about th book directly but the notions brought up by parrent post.
I am purly talking about about always grndeting the person ehoadr the achivment.
I also may have gone off topic a bit.
Edit. I am out and about. I probably should not try to convey this stuff from a phone while distracted. My arguments are not directe at the book. But it there was a bullseye it would still be on the board.
I am purly talking about about always grndeting the person ehoadr the achivment.
I also may have gone off topic a bit.
Edit. I am out and about. I probably should not try to convey this stuff from a phone while distracted. My arguments are not directe at the book. But it there was a bullseye it would still be on the board.
Please don't break the site guidelines by introducing extraneous flamebait into threads. It leads to extraneous flamewars.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
what's the issue. I stated by opinion. If you don't like it, well, so be it
The issue is that we don't want flamewars on HN, nor is this a place for arbitrary statements of opinion. Please post in accordance with the site guidelines or not at all.
The article talks about it. Right near the beginning
"Enrolled in beauty school after graduation—cosmetology being one of the few fields open to women in the 1940s"
or
"At the peak of the Cold War—which was also the peak of the baby boom, an era when American women were urged to spend their lives as homemakers"
"Enrolled in beauty school after graduation—cosmetology being one of the few fields open to women in the 1940s"
or
"At the peak of the Cold War—which was also the peak of the baby boom, an era when American women were urged to spend their lives as homemakers"
I get that. These types of headlines tend to try to highlight the fact, that these programmers are WOMEN. Well, yeah, ok, I don't care, and people shouldn't care, if programmers want to have an "inclusive" community.
Do you understand where I'm coming from?
Do you understand where I'm coming from?
Because it is trying to highlight the fact, that these programmers are WOMEN. Nothing to do with being "inclusive" community. If you feel this is a problem then well, too bad.
pvg(1)
When you start pointing out genders you automatically make something that was "inclusive" into a bunch of smaller exclusionary groups.
In today's age women can be just as offense as man can to groups who don't identify as either. Breaking a unified group even further.
All do the "Women who ..." And "Women in ..." Inititives are only causing harm by creating segregation. And in the long run fevloping separate cultures around a core topic.
We don't have to have our genders as the main focus to be "inclusive"
We simply need to be programmers.
In today's age women can be just as offense as man can to groups who don't identify as either. Breaking a unified group even further.
All do the "Women who ..." And "Women in ..." Inititives are only causing harm by creating segregation. And in the long run fevloping separate cultures around a core topic.
We don't have to have our genders as the main focus to be "inclusive"
We simply need to be programmers.
well put! Most people don't realise how divisive identity politics is.
If it's declassified, are the raw cipher publically available (the decoded and nondecoded ones)?