Barbie typewriter (2015)(cryptomuseum.com)
cryptomuseum.com
Barbie typewriter (2015)
http://www.cryptomuseum.com/crypto/mehano/barbie/
51 comments
Yeah, I personally think this feature-removal is just plain sexism. Lots of girls enjoy learning new and interesting things to do with math and science, and crypto is an especially great way to introduce kids to abstract thinking.
Not to mention there's the whole "if you remove the feature, how will they ever learn about it" factor .. just plain sexist, imho.
A better, more "pro-girl" approach would be to include the feature and let girls figure out for themselves, if they like it. Also, the boys who might play with these same toys.
Not to mention there's the whole "if you remove the feature, how will they ever learn about it" factor .. just plain sexist, imho.
A better, more "pro-girl" approach would be to include the feature and let girls figure out for themselves, if they like it. Also, the boys who might play with these same toys.
> Yeah, I personally think this feature-removal is just plain sexism.
It probably had nothing to do with sexism per se; rather it probably was a business call made by people who suspected that while some percentage of girls would like that feature, a certain percentage of parents wouldn't find that feature appropriate or scary or simply not something they would consider as suitable for a toy. These people are paid to know their target demographic and to make choices that maximize profit for any given product.
Their assumptions might be rooted in sexism, but I suspect that most of their frame of reference consists of simply knowing how parents and relatives view these products, their sexist attitudes included. That is to say, if these people suspect that a significant percentage parents want to stimulate exact thinking and problem solving skills in their girls, they will translate that to market decisions (which is slowly happening now).
It probably had nothing to do with sexism per se; rather it probably was a business call made by people who suspected that while some percentage of girls would like that feature, a certain percentage of parents wouldn't find that feature appropriate or scary or simply not something they would consider as suitable for a toy. These people are paid to know their target demographic and to make choices that maximize profit for any given product.
Their assumptions might be rooted in sexism, but I suspect that most of their frame of reference consists of simply knowing how parents and relatives view these products, their sexist attitudes included. That is to say, if these people suspect that a significant percentage parents want to stimulate exact thinking and problem solving skills in their girls, they will translate that to market decisions (which is slowly happening now).
It's sexism in the systems sense, not in the personal bigotry sense. The fun thing about sexism (and racism, etc) in the systems sense is that the intentions can be neutral or even positive yet the outcome can still be sexist (or racist, etc).
Maximising profit is not a neutral decision even if it has neutral intentions.
Maximising profit is not a neutral decision even if it has neutral intentions.
>Maximising profit is not a neutral decision even if it has neutral intentions.
Complaining that for profit companies maximize profit makes about as much sense as complaining great white sharks eat meat. Both do what they were evolved for, both die rather quickly if they don't.
Perhaps we shouldn't put great white sharks in petting zoos. Perhaps we shouldn't put our children's well being into the hands of for profit companies.
Complaining that for profit companies maximize profit makes about as much sense as complaining great white sharks eat meat. Both do what they were evolved for, both die rather quickly if they don't.
Perhaps we shouldn't put great white sharks in petting zoos. Perhaps we shouldn't put our children's well being into the hands of for profit companies.
You're assuming the Friedman doctrine[0] is universally accepted as "that's just how companies work". That view is not universal, even if it's the norm in the US and plenty of large companies see it that way internationally.
You might want to look up "social market economy"[1] and what social democracies in Europe think about the social responsibilities of companies (i.e. that they have those in the first place). I know these are foreign concepts in the US but it's what powers the famous German Mittelstand and our economic stability (though at the cost of missing out on some of the rapid growth possible in the US).
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy
You might want to look up "social market economy"[1] and what social democracies in Europe think about the social responsibilities of companies (i.e. that they have those in the first place). I know these are foreign concepts in the US but it's what powers the famous German Mittelstand and our economic stability (though at the cost of missing out on some of the rapid growth possible in the US).
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy
> These people are paid to know their target demographic and to make choices that maximize profit for any given product.
There was no lego for girls, most sets were clearly for boys (via colors and such) and then they made it and it suddenly drove sales big time. It is fair guess that same sets would sell even sooner.
> a certain percentage of parents wouldn't find that feature appropriate or scary or simply not something they would consider as suitable for a toy.
This is true. Large percentage of toy buyers actually, most toys are bought by more distant relatives and friends who prefer to follow all social expectations and wont buy what is not appropriate for gender. Not because they would be evil, but because basically just want to be done with selection quickly and simply and then go their way.
There was no lego for girls, most sets were clearly for boys (via colors and such) and then they made it and it suddenly drove sales big time. It is fair guess that same sets would sell even sooner.
> a certain percentage of parents wouldn't find that feature appropriate or scary or simply not something they would consider as suitable for a toy.
This is true. Large percentage of toy buyers actually, most toys are bought by more distant relatives and friends who prefer to follow all social expectations and wont buy what is not appropriate for gender. Not because they would be evil, but because basically just want to be done with selection quickly and simply and then go their way.
Except for the fact that the feature was never removed or disabled. It’s only Monday morning and it looks like we’re already looking for evidence of a sexism conspiracy and other things to be outraged about!
The coding/decoding feature was omitted from the manuals in the Barbie versions of the typewriter, effectively 'removing' it because you could now only activate it by accident — some young girl probably got quite a surprise when her text came out garbled like that after an accidental key press combination. Actually removing the feature from the PCB means incurring extra costs, so they just left it in.
>It probably had nothing to do with sexism per se;
It is quite common to hear about sexism in the tech industry (especially here), but sexism in the toy industry is where it all starts.
It is quite common to hear about sexism in the tech industry (especially here), but sexism in the toy industry is where it all starts.
FYI, they didn't remove the feature. I thought the article made this clear.
They disabled the feature. Its still there if you know how to enable it. But that's the point: why disable it, if they're going to include it anyway? Because they made a sexist decision to not market it to that version of the product, for girls.
Any toy designed specifically for one sex is sexist by definition.
As a male who is considerably above the recommended age for toys like these, I'm curious what your opinion is on the toys I see in most department stores. To me, they seem to be putting lipstick on a pig: you have things like "engineer Barbie" or "mix your own chemicals lip balm" that involve combining the two packets provided in the box (oh, and designing your own lab coat!). I guess it might raise awareness in girls that STEM is something that they could do, but I don't think it's doing a particularly good job at portraying it. Thoughts?
A lot of STEM toys have been dumbed down to the extreme irrespective of gender.
Growing up in the 80's there was a lot of ads for e.g. chemistry sets that at least allowed for some proper experiments advertised even in comics books targeting relatively small children (I grew up in Norway; I remember ads like that even from comics like Donald Duck & Co which mostly targeted pre-teens), but I instead got handed my dads set from when he was growing up in the 60's, with full set of suitable glass ware, and the books he had, which outlined full sets of experiments "for young boys" that included making gunpowder and assorted proper fireworks, and stuff that included (genuine) warnings of what to avoid to prevent the experiment from exploding.
Nothing outrageously dangerous, but some of them were the kind of things you might expect the teacher to demonstrate in a high-school science class with appropriate care and safety equipment, rather than the kind of stuff you'd even in the 80's expect a hobby chemistry set to actively encourage the way the 60's books did.
And indeed, my main limiting factor in carrying out many of the experiments was that in the intervening years it had become a lot harder to buy a lot of the chemicals listed without being 18 or buying via a business. Though there were still other fun things to do with them. For example, I did find it very amusing when I managed to add a layer of lead to one of my moms silver spoons via electrolysis (the books did have appropriate warnings, so I did know that continuing to use said spoon afterwards would not have been a particularly good idea; but not sufficient warnings to make me consider that perhaps I shouldn't have used the silverware) - my mom was less amused.
Move forward to today, and the 80's children's chemistry sets looks fantastic compared to most of the stuff on sale.
Growing up in the 80's there was a lot of ads for e.g. chemistry sets that at least allowed for some proper experiments advertised even in comics books targeting relatively small children (I grew up in Norway; I remember ads like that even from comics like Donald Duck & Co which mostly targeted pre-teens), but I instead got handed my dads set from when he was growing up in the 60's, with full set of suitable glass ware, and the books he had, which outlined full sets of experiments "for young boys" that included making gunpowder and assorted proper fireworks, and stuff that included (genuine) warnings of what to avoid to prevent the experiment from exploding.
Nothing outrageously dangerous, but some of them were the kind of things you might expect the teacher to demonstrate in a high-school science class with appropriate care and safety equipment, rather than the kind of stuff you'd even in the 80's expect a hobby chemistry set to actively encourage the way the 60's books did.
And indeed, my main limiting factor in carrying out many of the experiments was that in the intervening years it had become a lot harder to buy a lot of the chemicals listed without being 18 or buying via a business. Though there were still other fun things to do with them. For example, I did find it very amusing when I managed to add a layer of lead to one of my moms silver spoons via electrolysis (the books did have appropriate warnings, so I did know that continuing to use said spoon afterwards would not have been a particularly good idea; but not sufficient warnings to make me consider that perhaps I shouldn't have used the silverware) - my mom was less amused.
Move forward to today, and the 80's children's chemistry sets looks fantastic compared to most of the stuff on sale.
> A lot of STEM toys have been dumbed down to the extreme irrespective of gender.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_U-238_Atomic_Energy_La...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_U-238_Atomic_Energy_La...
"But dad I want to play with Barbie!"
--"Not until you break the cipher!"
--"Not until you break the cipher!"
It does sound a lot like STEM-washing (cf. greenwashing).
Indeed it seems weird - search Amazon for "secret diary" and you'll find a whole lot of products aimed almost exclusively at girls.
I think the question is whether it was seemed to "cross over" into "spy gear" - while secret diaries are very much a "girly" toy category, spy gear is very much focused at boys.
I think the question is whether it was seemed to "cross over" into "spy gear" - while secret diaries are very much a "girly" toy category, spy gear is very much focused at boys.
In 2016, Mattel/Barbie ran (or still runs?) a "Barbie Spy Squad" series of toys and merchandising complete with movie and McDonald's promos, so while rather late (and obv better than never), the toy manufacturers are at least aware of the market segment.
I don't think it is the intended idea but the fact that the coding/decoding facilities are not in the manual but still on the device actually make it even more exciting. It has a secret feature for writing secrets, you can't get more secret than that.
Nowadays, adding a not-so-secret feature could be used to generate buzz.
Nowadays, adding a not-so-secret feature could be used to generate buzz.
According to David Kahn's The Codebreakers, the Kama Sutra lists secret writing as one of the 64 arts that women should know and practice.
> Toys aimed toward girls have been steadily improving. I have noticed a great rise particularly in STEM-focused toys and I am excited (and jealous) to see with what the next generation will grow up.
My daughter just turned 1, and I'm super duper excited to see this as well. And if we can't find the kind of toy we want, we'll make it.
My daughter just turned 1, and I'm super duper excited to see this as well. And if we can't find the kind of toy we want, we'll make it.
Yeah a coworker told me she had developed a super sophisticated encryption technique to write in her diary because her brother would keep decrypting it lol
I'm reminded of "Barbiephonic (redux)"[0], although it's only related in the sense that through this story I found yet another story involving Barbie and crypto[1].
> And the other thing lying around on those open shares were recordings of names. To reach a wide audience they’d recorded some unstoppably perky young woman reciting kids’ first names, Aaron, Abbot, Abby, Abigail, Adana, Adena, in an upbeat barbie-girl voice, every single one. And there I was with a pile of free disk space, university bandwidth, wget and why not.
> There were seventeen thousand of them.
> After a bit of experimentation, I figured out how to stitch them all together with .4 seconds of silence between each. The resulting audio file was almost five hours long; four hours and forty five minutes of relentless Barbiedoll voice reciting seventeen thousand first names in alphabetical order.
> To my knowledge, nobody has ever listened to the whole thing.
> Of the six attempts I’m aware of, four were called off when the death threats started, one due to the near-breakup of the couple making the attempt, and one person drinking themselves to unconsciousness at about the 90 minute mark. I’m not saying that to make a joke. I’m telling you because this is real and it’s an SCP-grade psychic biohazard. No highly esteemed deed was committed here; this is not a place of honour.
The "SCP-grade psychic biohazard" is not that much of an exaggeration, by the way.
[0] http://exple.tive.org/blarg/2015/12/05/barbiephonic-redux/
[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/12/inter...
> And the other thing lying around on those open shares were recordings of names. To reach a wide audience they’d recorded some unstoppably perky young woman reciting kids’ first names, Aaron, Abbot, Abby, Abigail, Adana, Adena, in an upbeat barbie-girl voice, every single one. And there I was with a pile of free disk space, university bandwidth, wget and why not.
> There were seventeen thousand of them.
> After a bit of experimentation, I figured out how to stitch them all together with .4 seconds of silence between each. The resulting audio file was almost five hours long; four hours and forty five minutes of relentless Barbiedoll voice reciting seventeen thousand first names in alphabetical order.
> To my knowledge, nobody has ever listened to the whole thing.
> Of the six attempts I’m aware of, four were called off when the death threats started, one due to the near-breakup of the couple making the attempt, and one person drinking themselves to unconsciousness at about the 90 minute mark. I’m not saying that to make a joke. I’m telling you because this is real and it’s an SCP-grade psychic biohazard. No highly esteemed deed was committed here; this is not a place of honour.
The "SCP-grade psychic biohazard" is not that much of an exaggeration, by the way.
[0] http://exple.tive.org/blarg/2015/12/05/barbiephonic-redux/
[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/12/inter...
>> To my knowledge, nobody has ever listened to the whole thing.
The Youtube mirror [0] has 1,890 views. What is a "view"?
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_s7GL6ZdG4
The Youtube mirror [0] has 1,890 views. What is a "view"?
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_s7GL6ZdG4
A YouTube "view" means that someone played the content for ~30 seconds.
Mattel sometimes made some really neat Barbie toys. I'm sure a toy typewriter would have been pretty cool, with or without its ability to encode messages!
I remember, as a kid, my sister got a "Talk With Me" Barbie, which was a doll that could be attached to a computer(serial port!) and configured to speak your name with its animatronic mouth. The CD-ROM came with some games that would also trigger the doll to speak. I was a boy, so I really wasn't into Barbie, but I was really wowed by that toy and wished my Star Trek toys could do the same! For its time, it was pretty innovative.
I remember, as a kid, my sister got a "Talk With Me" Barbie, which was a doll that could be attached to a computer(serial port!) and configured to speak your name with its animatronic mouth. The CD-ROM came with some games that would also trigger the doll to speak. I was a boy, so I really wasn't into Barbie, but I was really wowed by that toy and wished my Star Trek toys could do the same! For its time, it was pretty innovative.
I don’t know anything about cryptography. Would this have been useful for spies? Please tell me spies somewhere in the past were sending and receiving messages on a Barbie typewriter.
I would say probably not, since there were only 4 variations of a simple substitution cypher, e.g. you could encrypt some text with option 1-4, and to decrypt you picked option 1-4... i.e. anyone could decrypt using the barbie typewriter and a maximum of 4 attempts... not really secure at all.
>simple substitution cypher
And for those that are unaware, substitution ciphers have been unsecure for over a millennium now. So relying on nobody guessing you used a Barbie typewriter isn't an option either.
And for those that are unaware, substitution ciphers have been unsecure for over a millennium now. So relying on nobody guessing you used a Barbie typewriter isn't an option either.
It's much worse than that. Simple substitution ciphers are as secure as writing in a custom font: you only have to figure out which letter is represented by each symbol. This is usually not difficult when using frequency analysis or, heck, even brute force with some dictionary lookups to see which attempt contained the most existing words.
> Would this have been useful for spies?
Not in the slightest. If you would rank all types of encryption by strength, this would be one of the weakest ones, right between writing the text upside down and choosing a custom font.
Not in the slightest. If you would rank all types of encryption by strength, this would be one of the weakest ones, right between writing the text upside down and choosing a custom font.
It's a little like Enigma, except that the substitution is static, not changing on each key press.
It's nothing like Enigma: no plugboard, no sequence of rotors that can be switched out, and (as you've noted) no new alphabet on each keypress.
Enigma is not that easy to crack, even today. I wouldn't compare it to a simple substitution cipher as to laymen that sounds like it was some pretty good shit even if it wasn't as good as Enigma.
Enigma is not that easy to crack, even today. I wouldn't compare it to a simple substitution cipher as to laymen that sounds like it was some pretty good shit even if it wasn't as good as Enigma.
It's a useful prop for spies posing as little girls. As seen on The Americans.
What an awesome informational resource.
I really wish they had a Random Article button like Wikipedia does.
I really wish they had a Random Article button like Wikipedia does.
It probably wouldn't be too hard to put something together with a JavaScript bookmarklet and their archive page. http://www.cryptomuseum.com/crypto/list.htm
I was thinking along the same lines... but a man can dream!
(I don't like the site THAT much that I would bother with creating a dedicated js bookmarklet I suppose is what I am saying)
Not saying I wouldn't install it if somebody else were to do so... ;)
(I don't like the site THAT much that I would bother with creating a dedicated js bookmarklet I suppose is what I am saying)
Not saying I wouldn't install it if somebody else were to do so... ;)
CREATE A BOOKMARK! Use the following for the url ( OF THE BOOKMARK ):
javascript:(function(){var a = document.querySelectorAll('li a'),l = a.length;window.location.href = a[Math.floor(Math.random() * l)].href;})();
NOTE: this JavaScript will only work properly ( AS A BOOKMARK ) on the list page. i.e. http://www.cryptomuseum.com/crypto/list.htm
Instructions:
1. create the bookmark as instructed above...
2. go to the list page @ url above...
3. CLICK THE BOOKMARK!
javascript:(function(){var a = document.querySelectorAll('li a'),l = a.length;window.location.href = a[Math.floor(Math.random() * l)].href;})();
NOTE: this JavaScript will only work properly ( AS A BOOKMARK ) on the list page. i.e. http://www.cryptomuseum.com/crypto/list.htm
Instructions:
1. create the bookmark as instructed above...
2. go to the list page @ url above...
3. CLICK THE BOOKMARK!
Haha, thanks a bunch!
The code worked perfectly once I placed it into a bookmark!
The code worked perfectly once I placed it into a bookmark!
I wonder if this feature came about not because it was originally in the "requirements", but because the layout of the hardware key matrix/wire routing may have not been decided completely, and it was easier to include several selectable lookup tables in the masked ROM than have to change the mask (at great cost) later. Then someone thought of adding the ability to change it at runtime, perhaps for testing, and the rest is history...
...and in case the alternate lookup tables don't seem to map to any keyboard layout, here's an example showing that a typical keyboard more often than not does not have the rows and columns in "physical" order: http://map.grauw.nl/articles/keymatrix.php
...and in case the alternate lookup tables don't seem to map to any keyboard layout, here's an example showing that a typical keyboard more often than not does not have the rows and columns in "physical" order: http://map.grauw.nl/articles/keymatrix.php
One of the more unusual bits of Barbie Typewriter lore was that in at least one instance, an ultra-right wing terrorist cell based in Northern Ireland was using these for communication[1].
No indication if the cell was utilizing the "encryption" capabilities of the Barbie typewriter or just putting it to work as the cheapest, most disposable means of conveying demands but the Barbie logo makes an amusing juxtaposition to the operator's violent history (including 72(!) prior convictions). Every time this story surfaces, part of me wants to believe that someone somewhere is still using substitution cyphers for serious ends.
[1] https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/jai...
No indication if the cell was utilizing the "encryption" capabilities of the Barbie typewriter or just putting it to work as the cheapest, most disposable means of conveying demands but the Barbie logo makes an amusing juxtaposition to the operator's violent history (including 72(!) prior convictions). Every time this story surfaces, part of me wants to believe that someone somewhere is still using substitution cyphers for serious ends.
[1] https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/jai...
and now i have the mental image of a stereotypical terrorist, with a black ski mask and a kalashnikov on a strap on his back, hunched over his pink-and-purple barbie typewriter. amazing. thank you
Or maybe a Hello, Kitty AR-15:
https://www.cnet.com/news/a-hello-kitty-assault-rifle-that-a...
https://www.cnet.com/news/a-hello-kitty-assault-rifle-that-a...
[deleted]
Something like this with a built-in tablet stand would be cool.
Back in elementary, my friends and I had an entire word replacement bank to talk about crushes, teachers, etc. in code. Later on, we would constantly make new pigpen ciphers. Isn't it a stereotype that girls love secrets?
Toys aimed toward girls have been steadily improving. I have noticed a great rise particularly in STEM-focused toys and I am excited (and jealous) to see with what the next generation will grow up.