The promising levels of support for Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour leadership race indicate that the Labour Party should not be written off too quickly.
I remember watching TV reports of the cliffhanger Labour Conference in 1981 when Denis Healey beat Tony Benn for the deputy leadership of the Party by a fraction of one percent. The cameras flashed briefly onto the conference floor highlighting a young bearded left-wing activist sporting a badge “Benn for Number 10.” It was Jeremy Corbyn.
In the years that followed the Labour Left was defeated and marginalised. The Labour Party swung to the right, and under the label of New Labour became a mere adjunct of capitalist power, while jettisoning any meaningful attempt to reform capitalism or the British state in a progressive direction. By the end of the 1990s, even before the Iraq War, I ceased to identify with Labour, and saw the way forward - if there were one - as outside the Labour Party. Thus in recent years I have welcomed the birth of Left Unity and the growing number of votes for the Greens and the SNP.
Jeremy Corbyn became an MP in 1983, and during the next thirty-two years, ignored by the corporate media, he was one of the isolated few who never abandoned socialist politics. I admit that I thought his cause inside Labour was hopeless. Yet in 2015 for whatever miscalculated Machiavellian reasons, he secured sufficient nominations from MPs to enter the race for the Labour leadership. Initially cast a joke outsider, his appeal to end austerity, militarism and to promote the cause of ordinary working people has won him widespread support. Aided by a new electoral system where party members plus any Tom, Dick or Harry who coughs up three quid can vote, he now, according to opinion polls, leads the pack in the race for Labour Leader.
I still fear that the Labour establishment in alliance with the security services and the corporate media will stymie his election. And even if elected he will head a parliamentary party in which the vast majority oppose him. Nonetheless something is happening here - and I might have been to too quick to write the Labour Party off.
14 June 2015
The curse of nations
The European, and particularly British, political left is incarcerated in national parochialism
In the mid 1980s a group of socialists in Exeter decided to set up Exeter Labour Briefing which soon morphed into Devon Labour Briefing. We identified with the politics of London Labour Briefing (the capital city of the UK) and adopted the Labour Briefing rubric. At around the same time there was a Brighton Labour Briefing, a Dover Labour Briefing and so on. There were surprises in the bag when an Isle of Wight Labour Briefing was in the pipeline, but nobody expected, nor was there any talk of, for instance, a Calais Labour Briefing.
If there had been we would have said in surprise, “Yes, but their situation is so different; they’re part of French politics - and anyway how can we understand them unless they write in English, and why would they do that.” Very much the same applies today: North Devon may get its own branch of Left Unity, but North Brittany will not. Let’s unpack the obviousness behind all this.
Since the French Revolution, but particularly since the First World War, the nation state has become the main terrain of cultural and political identity. The legal and political structures of the state are the focus of identity and meaning for the state’s citizens, even its socialist ones. Knowledge of the political position facing people in the neighbouring states is usually thin on the ground. In addition, everyone in one state knows (or should know!) the state language, but armed with single language literacy, meaningful communication with citizens from another is rendered difficult to impossible.
The political and cultural zenith of the nation state occurred in the years following the Second World War, when nation-statism was bolstered by state economic planning and the welfare state. Since the 1980s neoliberalism has undermined that dominance to some degree through globalisation at the economic and cultural level; yet the nation state remains the focal point of organisation for popular political activity.
So today the focus of all socialist and progressive activity in Britain is national. No significant political movement in Britain has its HQ outside the UK. British political organisations may affiliate to pan-European organisations, but the key unit of organisation remains national. In contrast, even if they have a national base, many corporations are international in their scope, while the left, trade unions and left-leaning political parties are stubbornly national. The asymmetry of this situation is noteworthy.
So long as pan-European political identity remains non-existent, and while the nation state remains the key unit of legal, political and financial power (even more so since the financial crisis of 2008), there is no option other than social struggle at the national state level. That much is clear. But the way out of the stranglehold of exclusive national identity can only be through downsizing national identification to bring it into balance with other identities: municipal, regional, European, international. To do that requires the acceptance of universal values plus opening up means of international communication.
In the mid 1980s a group of socialists in Exeter decided to set up Exeter Labour Briefing which soon morphed into Devon Labour Briefing. We identified with the politics of London Labour Briefing (the capital city of the UK) and adopted the Labour Briefing rubric. At around the same time there was a Brighton Labour Briefing, a Dover Labour Briefing and so on. There were surprises in the bag when an Isle of Wight Labour Briefing was in the pipeline, but nobody expected, nor was there any talk of, for instance, a Calais Labour Briefing.
If there had been we would have said in surprise, “Yes, but their situation is so different; they’re part of French politics - and anyway how can we understand them unless they write in English, and why would they do that.” Very much the same applies today: North Devon may get its own branch of Left Unity, but North Brittany will not. Let’s unpack the obviousness behind all this.
Since the French Revolution, but particularly since the First World War, the nation state has become the main terrain of cultural and political identity. The legal and political structures of the state are the focus of identity and meaning for the state’s citizens, even its socialist ones. Knowledge of the political position facing people in the neighbouring states is usually thin on the ground. In addition, everyone in one state knows (or should know!) the state language, but armed with single language literacy, meaningful communication with citizens from another is rendered difficult to impossible.
The political and cultural zenith of the nation state occurred in the years following the Second World War, when nation-statism was bolstered by state economic planning and the welfare state. Since the 1980s neoliberalism has undermined that dominance to some degree through globalisation at the economic and cultural level; yet the nation state remains the focal point of organisation for popular political activity.
So today the focus of all socialist and progressive activity in Britain is national. No significant political movement in Britain has its HQ outside the UK. British political organisations may affiliate to pan-European organisations, but the key unit of organisation remains national. In contrast, even if they have a national base, many corporations are international in their scope, while the left, trade unions and left-leaning political parties are stubbornly national. The asymmetry of this situation is noteworthy.
So long as pan-European political identity remains non-existent, and while the nation state remains the key unit of legal, political and financial power (even more so since the financial crisis of 2008), there is no option other than social struggle at the national state level. That much is clear. But the way out of the stranglehold of exclusive national identity can only be through downsizing national identification to bring it into balance with other identities: municipal, regional, European, international. To do that requires the acceptance of universal values plus opening up means of international communication.
1 June 2015
2015 General Election: the worst but one outcome
The outcome of the May 2015 general election in Britain was unpredictable. For the left the worst but one outcome came about.
Before the release of the exit poll on the night of 7 May, the result of the May 2015 election was uncertain and that uncertainty was one of the few things that gave the election some interest. I thought that the Tories might do better than the polls were suggesting, but I never dreamed that they would end up with an overall majority. One thing that still puzzles me today is the extent of the collapse of Liberal Democrat vote in Lib Dem seats, which is the direct cause of the Tory majority.
In the pre-election uncertainty I ranked the possible outcomes from worst to best. My logic was straightforward. I wanted to see the the political right as weak as possible - no UKIP whip hand on government, no Tory overall majority. And I wanted the left to be as influential as possible and I thought that best achieved with a minority Labour government pushed leftwards by being dependent on the SNP, Greens Plaid Cymru.
The actual outcome was my worst but one possibility.
Below is is the list of possible outcomes as understood before the result was declared. The actual outcome is in bold.
1. A Conservative minority government with a parliamentary majority thanks to support from UKIP and/or Ulster Unionists.
2. A Conservative Government with an overall majority.
3. A Conservative-LibDem Government with an overall majority.
4. A minority Conservative government where UKIP and Ulster Unions do not give it a majority.
5. A grand coalition of Conservatives with a Tory Prime minister.
6. A grand coalition of Conservatives and Labour with a Labour Prime Minister.
7. A Labour-LibDem Government with an overall majority.
8. A minority Labour government which does not command a majority with the SNP, Greens and Plaid Cymru.
9. A Labour government with an overall majority.
10. A minority Labour government which has a majority with support from SNP, Greens, Plaid Cymru.
Before the release of the exit poll on the night of 7 May, the result of the May 2015 election was uncertain and that uncertainty was one of the few things that gave the election some interest. I thought that the Tories might do better than the polls were suggesting, but I never dreamed that they would end up with an overall majority. One thing that still puzzles me today is the extent of the collapse of Liberal Democrat vote in Lib Dem seats, which is the direct cause of the Tory majority.
In the pre-election uncertainty I ranked the possible outcomes from worst to best. My logic was straightforward. I wanted to see the the political right as weak as possible - no UKIP whip hand on government, no Tory overall majority. And I wanted the left to be as influential as possible and I thought that best achieved with a minority Labour government pushed leftwards by being dependent on the SNP, Greens Plaid Cymru.
The actual outcome was my worst but one possibility.
Below is is the list of possible outcomes as understood before the result was declared. The actual outcome is in bold.
1. A Conservative minority government with a parliamentary majority thanks to support from UKIP and/or Ulster Unionists.
2. A Conservative Government with an overall majority.
3. A Conservative-LibDem Government with an overall majority.
4. A minority Conservative government where UKIP and Ulster Unions do not give it a majority.
5. A grand coalition of Conservatives with a Tory Prime minister.
6. A grand coalition of Conservatives and Labour with a Labour Prime Minister.
7. A Labour-LibDem Government with an overall majority.
8. A minority Labour government which does not command a majority with the SNP, Greens and Plaid Cymru.
9. A Labour government with an overall majority.
10. A minority Labour government which has a majority with support from SNP, Greens, Plaid Cymru.
Socialists looking forward after May 2015
Following the Conservative election victory on 7 May 2015, the Left should be guided by the following points:
1. We all lament the new Tory majority government, and the electoral system that gave this party a parliamentary majority with 37 percent of the votes.
2. Socialism, meaning the ending of capitalism, is no longer on the political agenda in Britain, at least in the short and medium term. Nevertheless, we should campaign for a meaningful shift of income and wealth in favour of ordinary working people and struggle for the advancement and protection of civic freedoms and human rights. One only has to look across the Channel to some of Britain’s neighbours to see that such things are possible, even within the framework of capitalism.
3. When contrasted with the Tories, Labour is to be preferred - and there remain a small number of Labour MPs who are personally committed to Left causes. Yet the main logic of operation of the Labour Party is to reinforce the existing political system and to maintain and promote capitalist power. In the absence of any electoral pact with Labour (an unlikely possibility) we rightly challenge Labour in elections.
4. Left Unity or any other leftist party is unlikely to become a major electoral force, particularly within the framework of the FPTP electoral system. Progressive voters, even if they are willing to abandon Labour (and after all Labour is a serious contender to the Tories in many seats), have two left-of-Labour options ourselves and the much larger Greens. Exclusive electoralism cannot be an option: Left Unity must be as much a campaigning organisation as it is an electoral one, if it is to serve any purpose.
5. Although the Green Party is not a socialist party, we need to work with and within the Greens and strive for as much synchronisation of policy as possible. In some cases it makes sense for socialists to join the Greens as individuals and to work to build that party. In others building a separate Left Party is the best option. Dialogue between the Left and Greens is always desirable.
6. We must support the progressive demand for an independent Scottish state to be established for the benefit of all the people who live in that territory irrespective of their nationality or ethnicity.
7. We support the continued membership of the EU by all the component units of the British Isles (the UK, the Republic of Ireland and a future independent Scotland). Withdrawal could only benefit nationalist reactionary and ultra-free-market forces in the UK, particularly in England. The Left seeks to realises its objectives not just in the UK but in association with others across the EU member states.
1. We all lament the new Tory majority government, and the electoral system that gave this party a parliamentary majority with 37 percent of the votes.
2. Socialism, meaning the ending of capitalism, is no longer on the political agenda in Britain, at least in the short and medium term. Nevertheless, we should campaign for a meaningful shift of income and wealth in favour of ordinary working people and struggle for the advancement and protection of civic freedoms and human rights. One only has to look across the Channel to some of Britain’s neighbours to see that such things are possible, even within the framework of capitalism.
3. When contrasted with the Tories, Labour is to be preferred - and there remain a small number of Labour MPs who are personally committed to Left causes. Yet the main logic of operation of the Labour Party is to reinforce the existing political system and to maintain and promote capitalist power. In the absence of any electoral pact with Labour (an unlikely possibility) we rightly challenge Labour in elections.
4. Left Unity or any other leftist party is unlikely to become a major electoral force, particularly within the framework of the FPTP electoral system. Progressive voters, even if they are willing to abandon Labour (and after all Labour is a serious contender to the Tories in many seats), have two left-of-Labour options ourselves and the much larger Greens. Exclusive electoralism cannot be an option: Left Unity must be as much a campaigning organisation as it is an electoral one, if it is to serve any purpose.
5. Although the Green Party is not a socialist party, we need to work with and within the Greens and strive for as much synchronisation of policy as possible. In some cases it makes sense for socialists to join the Greens as individuals and to work to build that party. In others building a separate Left Party is the best option. Dialogue between the Left and Greens is always desirable.
6. We must support the progressive demand for an independent Scottish state to be established for the benefit of all the people who live in that territory irrespective of their nationality or ethnicity.
7. We support the continued membership of the EU by all the component units of the British Isles (the UK, the Republic of Ireland and a future independent Scotland). Withdrawal could only benefit nationalist reactionary and ultra-free-market forces in the UK, particularly in England. The Left seeks to realises its objectives not just in the UK but in association with others across the EU member states.
An Ermine in Czernopol by Gregor von Rezzori
A masterpiece which paints a portrait of multicultural and polyglot Central Europe between the World Wars.
The book is a masterpiece, and like many such masterpieces the text is often a struggle to read, in this case as a result of sometimes difficult language, obscure historico-cultural reference and complexity of plot and situation. But don't give up; for me even months after reading Rezzori’s novel the message and images of the book remain in the head.
The story is told through the eyes of a young boy, a character who is self-consciously modelled on the author, an Austrian German from a minor aristocratic family, now living in the interwar period in what had become a provincial town in Romania. Czernopol is the fictional name, but this is a thin disguise for the town, the name of which is Czernowitz.
We are introduced to a wide range of eccentric characters, who are surviving amidst the anomie and confusion of the epoch. Most poignant in the book is the episode towards the end of the growing anti-Semitism in the town which explodes into a pogrom.
Though always perceptive, throughout there is often an unreal quality to the writing. Although the narrator is a child, much of what is written is far from childlike observation. In addition, we are often given huge stretches of description and dialogue from which the narrator is absent.
The book was first published in German in the 1966, but only received its definitive English translation in 2011.
Von REZZORI, Gregor, An Ermine in Czernopol, Nyrb Classics 2011.
The book is a masterpiece, and like many such masterpieces the text is often a struggle to read, in this case as a result of sometimes difficult language, obscure historico-cultural reference and complexity of plot and situation. But don't give up; for me even months after reading Rezzori’s novel the message and images of the book remain in the head.
The story is told through the eyes of a young boy, a character who is self-consciously modelled on the author, an Austrian German from a minor aristocratic family, now living in the interwar period in what had become a provincial town in Romania. Czernopol is the fictional name, but this is a thin disguise for the town, the name of which is Czernowitz.
We are introduced to a wide range of eccentric characters, who are surviving amidst the anomie and confusion of the epoch. Most poignant in the book is the episode towards the end of the growing anti-Semitism in the town which explodes into a pogrom.
Though always perceptive, throughout there is often an unreal quality to the writing. Although the narrator is a child, much of what is written is far from childlike observation. In addition, we are often given huge stretches of description and dialogue from which the narrator is absent.
The book was first published in German in the 1966, but only received its definitive English translation in 2011.
Von REZZORI, Gregor, An Ermine in Czernopol, Nyrb Classics 2011.
1 May 2015
Education is not employment skills
"There is no difference between academic skills and employment skills,"
This is such utter nonsense it is hard to take seriously a person who would say it. Why? A person with good employment skills is someone (rightly or wrongly) who can sell him or herself to those with money and power. A good academic is someone who can discover the truth despite money and power.
With the subordination of university academic life in Britain to money and power, it will soon be the case that serious academic work can only done outside universities.
I am not making any moral evaluation about seeking employment. We all do it. When I am at work I carry out tasks according to the instructions of someone else. I execute those tasks irrespective of whether I think what I am doing is effective or not, right or wrong.
When I study my state of mind is quite different. I am concerned with what is true. I answer to nobody. Money and power has no purchase. My state of mind is quite different.
This is such utter nonsense it is hard to take seriously a person who would say it. Why? A person with good employment skills is someone (rightly or wrongly) who can sell him or herself to those with money and power. A good academic is someone who can discover the truth despite money and power.
With the subordination of university academic life in Britain to money and power, it will soon be the case that serious academic work can only done outside universities.
I am not making any moral evaluation about seeking employment. We all do it. When I am at work I carry out tasks according to the instructions of someone else. I execute those tasks irrespective of whether I think what I am doing is effective or not, right or wrong.
When I study my state of mind is quite different. I am concerned with what is true. I answer to nobody. Money and power has no purchase. My state of mind is quite different.
Strong Passphrases to withstand brute force attacks
Single case alphanumeric passphrases consist only of small letters and numbers, and are particularly useful when you need to make, copy and write down a strong passphrase.
Here is an example:
How to make a strong single case alphanumeric passphrase
Here's what to do to make a passphrase which will be strong enough to protect you from a brute force attack - i.e. from a hacker trying millions of possibilities a second to crack your passphrase.
1. Take two dice. Throw the dice together onto a flat surface. The dice which lands further to the left is deemed dice 1 while the dice lying further to the right is dice 2.
2. The number shown on dice 1 determines the choice of the horizontal row (numbers in bold), while the number shown on the right-hand dice determines the column (numbers also in bold). From each throw of two dice the selected row and column intersect at a character, which is either a lowercase letter or a number. The character should be recorded on a piece of paper.
3. Throw the pair of dice 16 times and generate 16 alphanumeric characters. Write them down in groups of four to facilitate copying.
Example: 6j1i kfmp 6k8v lwz5
Writing down your passphrase
Writing down your passphrase onto paper means that it cannot be hacked, so you should do this. As Bruce Schneier, the security and cryptography, expert point out:
Simply, people can no longer remember passwords good enough to reliably defend against dictionary attacks, and are much more secure if they choose a password too complicated to remember and then write it down. We're all good at securing small pieces of paper. I recommend that people write their passwords down on a small piece of paper, and keep it with their other valuable small pieces of paper: in their wallet.
I wouldn’t go so far as keeping passwords in my wallet, but the point is well made. But when when writing down, please pay attention to the following:
Avoiding mistakes when writing down the passphrase: This is all too easy to do. It helps that it is already divided into 4-character chunks for copying. Write the numbers much larger than the letters so they are distinguishable. Put a small upward sloping line on on your 1, cross your 7, and place a diagonal line through your O. For the letters, put a big dot over your i, loop your l, write your o very small, round the bottom of your u, point the bottom of your v, and write your z small.
Losing Your passphrase: Loss can best be prevented by possessing a duplicate. Have a memorable place, not necessarily easily accessible, where you keep a backup copy; e.g. written onto the back of an old receipt in a box in the garden shed. Always ensure that there are two copies; it is unlikely that both will be destroyed or mislaid at once.
Others finding your passphrase: Avoid desk drawers, or anywhere near your computer. If you have thousands of books, writing it onto page 138 of one of them would probably be safe, unless a whole team of police are searching your house for it. The passphrase is also of no use to a finder if it is not known what it is the passphrase for.
Additional security: if you are worried about family, friends or colleagues stumbling across it, then you can can have a secret, non-written affix to your passphrase. If your passphrase would be 6j1i kfmp 6k8v lwz5, you can add, for example, a memorable word so it becomes catfish 6j1i kfmp 6k8v lwz5. You write down and store the passphrase without “catfish,” and remember what you have done. Non-specialists could never use your passphrase, even if they found it. And doing this also adds massively to strength of the passphrase.
Typing your passphrase
You may choose to store your password electronically, so when you wish to use it you can copy and paste. Theoretically, it could be hacked, but if you keep it in a passworded file (e.g. Word, Excel) on your computer - or on a memory stick, then it is pretty safe from hacking, unless the hacker is specifically targeting your passphrase on your devices. But remember that computers can break, get lost, be stolen or be confiscated, and once out of your possession the passphrase is accessible to someone else and no longer to you unless you have backup copies. Storing your password anywhere online is a big mistake, unless of course it is encrypted. When typing your passphrase into a file for safekeeping, it is a good idea to write the numbers in bold, so they are clearly distinguished from the letters.
What makes a passphrase strong?
The strength of a passphrase depends on how many combinations or permutations there are in which to hide the key. Let us take the example of a combination padlock with three dials, with each cylinder containing 10 digits (0-9). There are exactly one thousand permutations. If the lock had four dials there would be 10 000 permutations.
To make a passphrase stronger on a computer we can do three things:
1. Increase the number of characters of the passphrase (i.e. passphrase length).
2. Increase the range of characters we are using. Using only numbers alone (0-9) we have ten permutations per character. If we add in small letters (a-z) we have 36 permutations per character, and if we also use capital letters we have 62 permutations per character - and so on.
3. Make absolutely sure that the characters are random. That means that the choice of any character is not determined by any other. If there is a pattern (e.g. 2, 4, 6, 8) the passphrase is weak and can be cracked more easily. The human brain does not produce good randomness; it has to be achieved by throwing dice or using well shuffled cards.
How to measure the strength of a passphrase
The strength of a passphrase is measured in units called bits of entropy. If the passphrase is one of two permutations the passphrase strength is one bit of entropy: if it one of four equally possible permutations, then it is two bits of entropy strength. If there are eight permutations, then the entropy is three bits. A billion (1000,000,000) different possibilities to choose from is 29.9 bits of entropy.
How many bits are necessary for a safe passphrase?
At the present time, it is the opinion of experts is that a passphrase of 80 bits is sufficient for all practical purposes. It would take several linked computers running for decades to crack such a passphrase, not something that a hacker or even the state would undertake.
How many random characters do you need for an 80 bit passphrase?
The answer depends on the range of characters you use: if you use just numbers (1-0), then you need 25; if you use numbers and a single case, e.g. small letters (1-0, a-z) then you need 16; if you use both cases (1-0, a-z, A-Z) with numbers, you need 14 and if you use all the characters on the keyboard (e.g. =, + ?, etc), then only 13.
What is most convenient for you is a matter of choice, but I believe that using a single case alphanumeric passphrase is the most effective because a 16 character passphrase is manageable, and it not worth making it shorter by two or three characters, if the cost is having to use the shift key repeatedly and having to search the keyboard for special characters.
Is it certain that an 80 bit password is sufficient?
Well it is unless two things happen. First, computers become a lot more powerful than they are at present. And second, your adversary is willing to spend a great deal of computer power and time (that is months and years) on cracking your passphrase. So what can you do to make your passphrase stronger still?
First you can make the single case alphanumeric password longer by throwing more dice. Twenty-five characters takes you over the 128 bits, which is claimed to be an ideal. Second, adding an unusual word affix to the start of your passphrase adds around 10 bits of entropy. And/or you can add a few special characters in the password. Don’t add letters because you might make dictionary words which will lessen the entropy.
But when you enter the territory of 80 bits plus, your weakest link is not likely to be your passphrase any more.
Here is an example:
6j1i kfmp 6k8v lwz5
- Copy the passphrase. Keep the passphrase safely on a piece of paper and/or on your computer. DO NOT STORE ONLINE.
- The characters are written down in groups of four for convenience. IGNORE THE SPACES WHEN TYPING IN. You type in this: 6j1ikfmp6k8vlwz5
- The passphrase consists of 16 random characters. All the letters (a-z) are lowercase. The numbers (0-9) are in bold to help distinguish them from the letters. IGNORE THE BOLD WHEN TYPING IN.
- The passphrase has more than 82 bits of entropy. (A cracking programme working at 350 billion guesses a second would take 400 000 years to work through the permutations)
How to make a strong single case alphanumeric passphrase
Here's what to do to make a passphrase which will be strong enough to protect you from a brute force attack - i.e. from a hacker trying millions of possibilities a second to crack your passphrase.
1. Take two dice. Throw the dice together onto a flat surface. The dice which lands further to the left is deemed dice 1 while the dice lying further to the right is dice 2.
2. The number shown on dice 1 determines the choice of the horizontal row (numbers in bold), while the number shown on the right-hand dice determines the column (numbers also in bold). From each throw of two dice the selected row and column intersect at a character, which is either a lowercase letter or a number. The character should be recorded on a piece of paper.
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
| |
1
|
a
|
b
|
c
|
d
|
e
|
f
|
2
|
g
|
h
|
i
|
j
|
k
|
l
|
3
|
m
|
n
|
o
|
p
|
q
|
r
|
4
|
s
|
t
|
u
|
v
|
w
|
x
|
5
|
y
|
z
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
6
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
0
|
3. Throw the pair of dice 16 times and generate 16 alphanumeric characters. Write them down in groups of four to facilitate copying.
Example: 6j1i kfmp 6k8v lwz5
Writing down your passphrase
Writing down your passphrase onto paper means that it cannot be hacked, so you should do this. As Bruce Schneier, the security and cryptography, expert point out:
Simply, people can no longer remember passwords good enough to reliably defend against dictionary attacks, and are much more secure if they choose a password too complicated to remember and then write it down. We're all good at securing small pieces of paper. I recommend that people write their passwords down on a small piece of paper, and keep it with their other valuable small pieces of paper: in their wallet.
I wouldn’t go so far as keeping passwords in my wallet, but the point is well made. But when when writing down, please pay attention to the following:
Avoiding mistakes when writing down the passphrase: This is all too easy to do. It helps that it is already divided into 4-character chunks for copying. Write the numbers much larger than the letters so they are distinguishable. Put a small upward sloping line on on your 1, cross your 7, and place a diagonal line through your O. For the letters, put a big dot over your i, loop your l, write your o very small, round the bottom of your u, point the bottom of your v, and write your z small.
Losing Your passphrase: Loss can best be prevented by possessing a duplicate. Have a memorable place, not necessarily easily accessible, where you keep a backup copy; e.g. written onto the back of an old receipt in a box in the garden shed. Always ensure that there are two copies; it is unlikely that both will be destroyed or mislaid at once.
Others finding your passphrase: Avoid desk drawers, or anywhere near your computer. If you have thousands of books, writing it onto page 138 of one of them would probably be safe, unless a whole team of police are searching your house for it. The passphrase is also of no use to a finder if it is not known what it is the passphrase for.
Additional security: if you are worried about family, friends or colleagues stumbling across it, then you can can have a secret, non-written affix to your passphrase. If your passphrase would be 6j1i kfmp 6k8v lwz5, you can add, for example, a memorable word so it becomes catfish 6j1i kfmp 6k8v lwz5. You write down and store the passphrase without “catfish,” and remember what you have done. Non-specialists could never use your passphrase, even if they found it. And doing this also adds massively to strength of the passphrase.
Typing your passphrase
You may choose to store your password electronically, so when you wish to use it you can copy and paste. Theoretically, it could be hacked, but if you keep it in a passworded file (e.g. Word, Excel) on your computer - or on a memory stick, then it is pretty safe from hacking, unless the hacker is specifically targeting your passphrase on your devices. But remember that computers can break, get lost, be stolen or be confiscated, and once out of your possession the passphrase is accessible to someone else and no longer to you unless you have backup copies. Storing your password anywhere online is a big mistake, unless of course it is encrypted. When typing your passphrase into a file for safekeeping, it is a good idea to write the numbers in bold, so they are clearly distinguished from the letters.
What makes a passphrase strong?
The strength of a passphrase depends on how many combinations or permutations there are in which to hide the key. Let us take the example of a combination padlock with three dials, with each cylinder containing 10 digits (0-9). There are exactly one thousand permutations. If the lock had four dials there would be 10 000 permutations.
To make a passphrase stronger on a computer we can do three things:
1. Increase the number of characters of the passphrase (i.e. passphrase length).
2. Increase the range of characters we are using. Using only numbers alone (0-9) we have ten permutations per character. If we add in small letters (a-z) we have 36 permutations per character, and if we also use capital letters we have 62 permutations per character - and so on.
3. Make absolutely sure that the characters are random. That means that the choice of any character is not determined by any other. If there is a pattern (e.g. 2, 4, 6, 8) the passphrase is weak and can be cracked more easily. The human brain does not produce good randomness; it has to be achieved by throwing dice or using well shuffled cards.
How to measure the strength of a passphrase
The strength of a passphrase is measured in units called bits of entropy. If the passphrase is one of two permutations the passphrase strength is one bit of entropy: if it one of four equally possible permutations, then it is two bits of entropy strength. If there are eight permutations, then the entropy is three bits. A billion (1000,000,000) different possibilities to choose from is 29.9 bits of entropy.
How many bits are necessary for a safe passphrase?
At the present time, it is the opinion of experts is that a passphrase of 80 bits is sufficient for all practical purposes. It would take several linked computers running for decades to crack such a passphrase, not something that a hacker or even the state would undertake.
How many random characters do you need for an 80 bit passphrase?
The answer depends on the range of characters you use: if you use just numbers (1-0), then you need 25; if you use numbers and a single case, e.g. small letters (1-0, a-z) then you need 16; if you use both cases (1-0, a-z, A-Z) with numbers, you need 14 and if you use all the characters on the keyboard (e.g. =, + ?, etc), then only 13.
What is most convenient for you is a matter of choice, but I believe that using a single case alphanumeric passphrase is the most effective because a 16 character passphrase is manageable, and it not worth making it shorter by two or three characters, if the cost is having to use the shift key repeatedly and having to search the keyboard for special characters.
Is it certain that an 80 bit password is sufficient?
Well it is unless two things happen. First, computers become a lot more powerful than they are at present. And second, your adversary is willing to spend a great deal of computer power and time (that is months and years) on cracking your passphrase. So what can you do to make your passphrase stronger still?
First you can make the single case alphanumeric password longer by throwing more dice. Twenty-five characters takes you over the 128 bits, which is claimed to be an ideal. Second, adding an unusual word affix to the start of your passphrase adds around 10 bits of entropy. And/or you can add a few special characters in the password. Don’t add letters because you might make dictionary words which will lessen the entropy.
But when you enter the territory of 80 bits plus, your weakest link is not likely to be your passphrase any more.
19 April 2015
Ordinary working people and the working class
The term ordinary working people is better understood than working class.
Often in political discussion there is a slippage between the terms “working class” and “ordinary working people.” The distinction is important for social theory. In Marxist terminology the former refers to those who have surplus value pumped out of them because they make things, while the latter are people who simply sell their labour power in order to live (e.g. the call-centre workers, lorry drivers, etc). The word “ordinary” is added to exclude those whom Karl Renner called the Dienstklasse, persons who sell their labour power in exchange for high privilege, e.g. judges, and are thus economically and politically attached to, and advantaged in, the existing political order.
In political campaigning, if not in social analysis, the term (ordinary) working people does well enough. The point remains today, as it did a couple of decades ago, that a majority of ordinary working people have an economic and political interest in transcending (abolishing, going beyond) the existing structures of capitalism, and are yet frustrated in understanding that fact or, even if they do, being unable to do anything to effectively bring about change.
Often in political discussion there is a slippage between the terms “working class” and “ordinary working people.” The distinction is important for social theory. In Marxist terminology the former refers to those who have surplus value pumped out of them because they make things, while the latter are people who simply sell their labour power in order to live (e.g. the call-centre workers, lorry drivers, etc). The word “ordinary” is added to exclude those whom Karl Renner called the Dienstklasse, persons who sell their labour power in exchange for high privilege, e.g. judges, and are thus economically and politically attached to, and advantaged in, the existing political order.
In political campaigning, if not in social analysis, the term (ordinary) working people does well enough. The point remains today, as it did a couple of decades ago, that a majority of ordinary working people have an economic and political interest in transcending (abolishing, going beyond) the existing structures of capitalism, and are yet frustrated in understanding that fact or, even if they do, being unable to do anything to effectively bring about change.
5 April 2015
The death of Margaret Thatcher: a cause for celebration?
On 8 April 2013, after over a decade suffering from dementia, Margaret Thatcher, British Prime Minister (in office 1979-90) died.
I have always felt it wrong to take Schadenfreude in a death. Nevertheless, news of the passing of Margaret Thatcher in April 2013 filled me with a sudden rush of satisfaction, contentment and even pleasure. The fact is human beings can control up to a point what they do, but never how they feel.
On a May morning in 1979, I was seventeen years old - and shattered after listening to the radio throughout the night - when Margaret Thatcher and her Conservative party won a forty-four seat majority in the House of Commons. Dad was glum, but optimistic that it might be a one term government - after all, there had been three changes of government in the 1970s, so one further change seemed distinctly possible. But it was Fred Coombs, the chairman of local Liberals, who on one of his regular Saturday morning visits to our house was nearer the mark with his pessimistic comment: “These bastards will be in for a generation.”
Worse, though, was to follow. Not only did Thatcher and her Tory successor, John Major, go on to win three more general elections, but such was the transformation in British society that Thatcherism was able to cause the remoulding of the Labour Party in her own image. That was the fate of Labour in the hands of Blair and his New Labour careerists and disciples in the mid 1990s.
However, back in the early days of the 1980s, the newness of Thatcherism and the personality of Thatcher herself divided the country into bitter hostile camps. While Thatcher asked, “Is he one of us?” we asked the reverse question, “Is he or she one of them?” and if so, we seldom had much to do with them. Culturally and socially we lived an anti-Tory existence and, until the mid 1980s, we had a Labour Party which had the purpose of reversing the market fundamentalism and petty-minded bigotry of the Tory Government.
Thatcher, her legacy and her successors beat us. She destroyed the mild gains of social democracy in post-war Britain, and her ideas, with only slight modification, were adopted by Labour under Blair after 1994. I despised her for who she was and everything she did. But I still think it is wrong to celebrate someone's death.
I have always felt it wrong to take Schadenfreude in a death. Nevertheless, news of the passing of Margaret Thatcher in April 2013 filled me with a sudden rush of satisfaction, contentment and even pleasure. The fact is human beings can control up to a point what they do, but never how they feel.
On a May morning in 1979, I was seventeen years old - and shattered after listening to the radio throughout the night - when Margaret Thatcher and her Conservative party won a forty-four seat majority in the House of Commons. Dad was glum, but optimistic that it might be a one term government - after all, there had been three changes of government in the 1970s, so one further change seemed distinctly possible. But it was Fred Coombs, the chairman of local Liberals, who on one of his regular Saturday morning visits to our house was nearer the mark with his pessimistic comment: “These bastards will be in for a generation.”
Worse, though, was to follow. Not only did Thatcher and her Tory successor, John Major, go on to win three more general elections, but such was the transformation in British society that Thatcherism was able to cause the remoulding of the Labour Party in her own image. That was the fate of Labour in the hands of Blair and his New Labour careerists and disciples in the mid 1990s.
However, back in the early days of the 1980s, the newness of Thatcherism and the personality of Thatcher herself divided the country into bitter hostile camps. While Thatcher asked, “Is he one of us?” we asked the reverse question, “Is he or she one of them?” and if so, we seldom had much to do with them. Culturally and socially we lived an anti-Tory existence and, until the mid 1980s, we had a Labour Party which had the purpose of reversing the market fundamentalism and petty-minded bigotry of the Tory Government.
Thatcher, her legacy and her successors beat us. She destroyed the mild gains of social democracy in post-war Britain, and her ideas, with only slight modification, were adopted by Labour under Blair after 1994. I despised her for who she was and everything she did. But I still think it is wrong to celebrate someone's death.
28 March 2015
The working class and socialist consciousness
Capitalism can, but does not inevitably, produce either class or socialist consciousness
There is debate among the left today about the passivity of ordinary working people in Britain and elsewhere in the face of mushrooming inequality and general economic insecurity. But what, if anything, do developments tell us about working class and socialist consciousness?
In the last two centuries, the development of capitalism in western Europe produced the preconditions for class consciousness, i.e. a relatively homogenous geographically-stable proletariat which experienced a shared sense of its own exploitation and oppression. The working class - if here understood to be all those who live by selling their labour power - came to comprise a majority of the population; and a majority of those who were working class saw themselves as such.
Class consciousness is a necessary but an insufficient condition for socialist (or even social democratic) consciousness: if self-recognition of class were all that were needed, then socialism would have been successfully achieved in Western Europe and in North America. What went wrong?
Marx was right to suggest that capitalism produced within itself the seeds (i.e. the potential) for its own destruction (i.e. a vast exploited working class with an interest in transforming the system), but was wrong in his prediction that proletarian concentration, homogenisation and universal impoverishment would (i) continue uninterrupted as an sociological fact, and (ii) that – even if it did – it would of itself lead to socialist consciousness. History has taught us otherwise.
The movement for social progress - whether for amelioration of conditions within capitalism or for the overthrow of capitalism altogether - is political. The production and reception of political ideas and practices are indeed influenced in major part by the class structure, but politics is not a mere reflection of class structure. Political structures and systems of ideas exist to some extent independently of class relations, have their own history and rhythms of development.
Looking at Britain in the last decades, it seems that the development of the working class, in all its economic and political aspects, can facilitate socialist consciousness, as it did in Britain in the last century up until the 1970s (Hobsbawm: The Forward March of Labour Halted). Or capitalist development can undermine both class and socialist consciousness in the working class, as has happened under market fundamentalism which has held sway from the 1980s. The actual situation depends on a combination of economic, political and ideological factors, which is why the answers are always going to be found in analysis not dogma.
There is debate among the left today about the passivity of ordinary working people in Britain and elsewhere in the face of mushrooming inequality and general economic insecurity. But what, if anything, do developments tell us about working class and socialist consciousness?
In the last two centuries, the development of capitalism in western Europe produced the preconditions for class consciousness, i.e. a relatively homogenous geographically-stable proletariat which experienced a shared sense of its own exploitation and oppression. The working class - if here understood to be all those who live by selling their labour power - came to comprise a majority of the population; and a majority of those who were working class saw themselves as such.
Class consciousness is a necessary but an insufficient condition for socialist (or even social democratic) consciousness: if self-recognition of class were all that were needed, then socialism would have been successfully achieved in Western Europe and in North America. What went wrong?
Marx was right to suggest that capitalism produced within itself the seeds (i.e. the potential) for its own destruction (i.e. a vast exploited working class with an interest in transforming the system), but was wrong in his prediction that proletarian concentration, homogenisation and universal impoverishment would (i) continue uninterrupted as an sociological fact, and (ii) that – even if it did – it would of itself lead to socialist consciousness. History has taught us otherwise.
The movement for social progress - whether for amelioration of conditions within capitalism or for the overthrow of capitalism altogether - is political. The production and reception of political ideas and practices are indeed influenced in major part by the class structure, but politics is not a mere reflection of class structure. Political structures and systems of ideas exist to some extent independently of class relations, have their own history and rhythms of development.
Looking at Britain in the last decades, it seems that the development of the working class, in all its economic and political aspects, can facilitate socialist consciousness, as it did in Britain in the last century up until the 1970s (Hobsbawm: The Forward March of Labour Halted). Or capitalist development can undermine both class and socialist consciousness in the working class, as has happened under market fundamentalism which has held sway from the 1980s. The actual situation depends on a combination of economic, political and ideological factors, which is why the answers are always going to be found in analysis not dogma.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)