Lojban as "Private" Language (was Re: terrorists using lojban)

[thinkit8@lycos.com]

--- In lojban@y..., hfroark@b... wrote:
> Jay Kominek <jay.kominek@c...> wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 thinkit8@l... wrote:
> >> since lojban is itself somewhat of a code, i doubt the feds would
> >> bother to check up on this before the incident.  afterwards, 
you'd
> >> get a lot more lojban experts, particularly in the government.  
of
> >> course these guys aren't particularly the logical type ("there's 
a
> >> magical place full of virgins you will go to when you die").
> > 
> > ba le nu do morsi ku do klama le makfa stuzi be vono balvi gletu 
> ninmu
> 
> > However, there are significantly easier ways to encrypt things 
such 
> that
> > the government can't figure out what they are.
> > 
> > (There are significantly easier ways to avoid having ones 
> information
> > compromised, especially with the processing power of modern 
> computers.
> > So why bother with Lojban?)
> 
> Oddly enough, I was reading some of the extra texts about 
> Lojban, and read about the "competition" between Lojbanists 
> and Esperantists for speakers. One of the proported 
> advantages of Esperanto is the recognizability of many 
> Esperanto congates to Europeans in general, and English 
> speakers in specific. I noted _at that time_ that for 
> some of my considered applications, that that 
> recognizability is in fact a disadvantage. _One_ of my 
> considered uses for Lojban is as a language that I can 
> write in and have some security that even if the text is 
> found that it still probably won't be readable to the 
> finder. Now I am speaking of the types of writings that 
> might show up in a diary or journal. 
> 
> However as Jay said, Lojban by itself is not a very 
> efficient "way[] of avoiding having one information 
> compromised," particually by those with the resourses of 
> the US government. The only advantage to Lojban that I can
> think of is that I can't do PGP en/decoding in my head, or 
> with any reasonable speed with paper to store intermediate 
> results on. 
> 
> On the other hand I have also considered that encrypting 
> Lojban text, instead of English text, might have the effect 
> of slowing cryptanalysis, because patterns have been used 
> for cryptanalysis, and some of those patterns only exist in 
> English or the Germanic languages. Whether or not this 
> would apply to modern cryptography, like PGP and similar 
> programs, I can only speculate. On the other hand, if one 
> was expecting English to come out of one's cryptanalysis 
> and instead got something that looked as weird as Lojban 
> would look to someone unfamiliar with it's existence, one 
> might dismiss that particular attempt as a failure and look 
> at a different key or method.
> 
> I am not learning Lojban solely in order to have a "private" 
> language. Without the logical aspect, I would not have 
> decided to learn it.

of course the greatest benefit is fooling the investigators by 
using "osamas" instead of "osama".