My first thought when I saw this letter was that it was Richard Feynman himself, perhaps appropriating the name of someone he knew had been interviewed. It would be entirely consistent with his character to smear himself in order to convince the government that they didn't want him -- just like the letter he wrote to the draft board proclaiming that he was not truly crazy, but was instead precisely crazy enough to not want them to think he was crazy.
Accusing someone of communism in those witch-hunting days was a dangerous thing to do. It seems a bit improbable that Feynman would have done that to himself, knowing that it could jeopardise his participation in other committees/projects/areas that were of interest to him. He wasn't 'forced' to be on the PSAC, it's not like he was trying to get away from jury-duty. He could just as well have said he wasn't interested/able do participate when asked to join.
To me, it would also have seemed a bit out of character, Feynman has demonstrated that he had no big problem speaking his mind, so stealing someone's identity, with the legal risks that represents, especially if it was his estranged wife's, doesn't sound very probable.
But hey, I don't know, I guess I see it as improbable but it's always possible.
Considering that Feynman neither needed nor wanted any role which would require him to hold a security clearance, I think the case of Robert Oppenheimer would, if anything, have encouraged Feynman to thumb his nose at the establishment. He was always one for doing what he thought was right and ignoring the potential fallout -- witness his willingness to testify to spending time in a strip club.
A little gem from the article: "It was an extremely ugly, long (2 years!) divorce hearing: it made the newspapers because of Bell’s allegations of “extreme cruelty” by Feynman, including the notion that he spent all of his waking hours either doing calculus and playing the bongos."
That quote omits the actual alleged "extreme cruelty":
"...the appointee's wife was granted a divorce from him because of appointee's constantly working calculus problems in his head as soon as awake, while driving car, sitting in living room, and so forth, and that his one hobby was playing his African drums. His ex-wife reportedly testified that on several occasions when she unwittingly disturbed either his calculus or his drums he flew into a violent rage, during which time he attacked her, threw pieces of bric-a-brac about and smashed the furniture."
At that time, in those jurisdictions, you could only get divorced under very precise circumstances. One of the few ways was for one spouse, typically the woman, to assert "extreme cruelty."
I don't know any more about this divorce than anyone else here but I do know that at the time people did whatever it took to fit in the required "extreme" criteria.
It seems like there needs to be another approach to redacting text like this. This one doesn't really cut it, apparently. And slips such as 'her' and 'she' was what primarily gave her away here. So the people who published the file should have been way more careful with this.
Yes, which is to not redact text. As you have already found, it is an exceedingly complex problem to do it correctly. But more importantly, when it is done incorrectly, or redactions are made from political motivations (as we've seen excessive evidence of), they are practically impossible to challenge.
>I think that Russia represents danger in saying that the solution to human problems is known, that all effort should be for the state, for that means there is no novelty.
Interestingly, although it seems harder, this sort of analysis is much more reliable with proportional fonts, because the specific width of the gap narrows the number of possibilities down considerably.
You don't really even need to measure widths, since they fall in a grid. Just count the number of characters directly above or below the redacted passage. (For fixed-width, I mean.)
> Through the years that he has been at the California Institute of Technology (REDACTED) he has in my opinion made a definite point of knowing well and cultivating such persons as the president of California Institute of Technology, the dean of the school of physics, department heads (including REDACTED and Linus Pauling), regents of California Institute of Technology, as well as REDACTED.
Well it shouldn't be too much detective work to figure out what Caltech department head Feynman was buddy buddy with other than Pauling. They seemed to feel need to redact the name for some reason.
From all of the references to Caltech implying a personal knowledge of the school, to the continual references to Feynman being a religious skeptic and critical of Republicans, I'd guess this letter was written by a conservative working at Caltech. It would make sense in terms of the initial FBI contact, the acquaintanceship but not friendship with Feynman etc.
The FBI surely must have known about the nasty divorce (the TA mentioned it was very public at the time). So, did that fact get into consideration while evaluating Feynmann?
I might be a bit naive, but I don't want to assume it was a simple witch-hunt.
My first thought when I saw this letter was that it was Richard Feynman himself, perhaps appropriating the name of someone he knew had been interviewed. It would be entirely consistent with his character to smear himself in order to convince the government that they didn't want him -- just like the letter he wrote to the draft board proclaiming that he was not truly crazy, but was instead precisely crazy enough to not want them to think he was crazy.
Accusing someone of communism in those witch-hunting days was a dangerous thing to do. It seems a bit improbable that Feynman would have done that to himself, knowing that it could jeopardise his participation in other committees/projects/areas that were of interest to him. He wasn't 'forced' to be on the PSAC, it's not like he was trying to get away from jury-duty. He could just as well have said he wasn't interested/able do participate when asked to join.
To me, it would also have seemed a bit out of character, Feynman has demonstrated that he had no big problem speaking his mind, so stealing someone's identity, with the legal risks that represents, especially if it was his estranged wife's, doesn't sound very probable.
But hey, I don't know, I guess I see it as improbable but it's always possible.
I did say that was my first thought -- the article makes a good case and I'm mostly convinced by it.
Considering what happened with Robert Oppenheimer[1], I doubt Feynman would smear himself.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppenheimer_security_hearing
Considering that Feynman neither needed nor wanted any role which would require him to hold a security clearance, I think the case of Robert Oppenheimer would, if anything, have encouraged Feynman to thumb his nose at the establishment. He was always one for doing what he thought was right and ignoring the potential fallout -- witness his willingness to testify to spending time in a strip club.
1 reply →
A little gem from the article: "It was an extremely ugly, long (2 years!) divorce hearing: it made the newspapers because of Bell’s allegations of “extreme cruelty” by Feynman, including the notion that he spent all of his waking hours either doing calculus and playing the bongos."
That quote omits the actual alleged "extreme cruelty":
"...the appointee's wife was granted a divorce from him because of appointee's constantly working calculus problems in his head as soon as awake, while driving car, sitting in living room, and so forth, and that his one hobby was playing his African drums. His ex-wife reportedly testified that on several occasions when she unwittingly disturbed either his calculus or his drums he flew into a violent rage, during which time he attacked her, threw pieces of bric-a-brac about and smashed the furniture."
Still sounds kind of vague. What, precisely, does the word "attacked" refer to?
13 replies →
if only we could all live in a world where the highest form of domestic abuse was calculus and playing drums.
At that time, in those jurisdictions, you could only get divorced under very precise circumstances. One of the few ways was for one spouse, typically the woman, to assert "extreme cruelty."
I don't know any more about this divorce than anyone else here but I do know that at the time people did whatever it took to fit in the required "extreme" criteria.
2 replies →
It said "including", not "exclusively", and continued loud music is a well-known psychological torture used in detainee interrogation...
1 reply →
It seems like there needs to be another approach to redacting text like this. This one doesn't really cut it, apparently. And slips such as 'her' and 'she' was what primarily gave her away here. So the people who published the file should have been way more careful with this.
Flash forward to modern times...
"It's okay, we're only collecting metadata."
Yes, which is to not redact text. As you have already found, it is an exceedingly complex problem to do it correctly. But more importantly, when it is done incorrectly, or redactions are made from political motivations (as we've seen excessive evidence of), they are practically impossible to challenge.
The difference of length between "he" and "she" would be enough to reveal that information.
They just draw a black box over the text in the PDFs now...
(No joke)
Yes, but now they remove the underlying text too. It was fun while it lasted.
6 replies →
Enjoyed the article liked the 'lofi' images with typewriter text, am using the smear image as wallpaper.
Would it not be entirely in character if Feynman had picked up echos of the profiling process and smeared himself? Obviously can't be this letter.
Feynman was in fact critical of the Soviet Union:
>I think that Russia represents danger in saying that the solution to human problems is known, that all effort should be for the state, for that means there is no novelty.
(from 'The Meaning Of It All', Ch. II)
Interesting comment in the blog (by Raphael) http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/07/11/smeared-richard-fe...
> With regard to the censored words, I would argue that they are probably “my former husband,” instead of “my ex-husband, the”.
Author reply:
> Yeah, it’s possible. I don’t put a lot of faith in character length analysis, [...]
Is there any type-set technology on proving possibilities for redacted texts?
Typewriter text is fixed width, so I imagine they get an average width for one character then calculate the number of characters in each redacted bit.
What had you in mind?
Interestingly, although it seems harder, this sort of analysis is much more reliable with proportional fonts, because the specific width of the gap narrows the number of possibilities down considerably.
1 reply →
You don't really even need to measure widths, since they fall in a grid. Just count the number of characters directly above or below the redacted passage. (For fixed-width, I mean.)
> Through the years that he has been at the California Institute of Technology (REDACTED) he has in my opinion made a definite point of knowing well and cultivating such persons as the president of California Institute of Technology, the dean of the school of physics, department heads (including REDACTED and Linus Pauling), regents of California Institute of Technology, as well as REDACTED.
Well it shouldn't be too much detective work to figure out what Caltech department head Feynman was buddy buddy with other than Pauling. They seemed to feel need to redact the name for some reason.
From all of the references to Caltech implying a personal knowledge of the school, to the continual references to Feynman being a religious skeptic and critical of Republicans, I'd guess this letter was written by a conservative working at Caltech. It would make sense in terms of the initial FBI contact, the acquaintanceship but not friendship with Feynman etc.
Why would someone working at Caltech be interviewed in Idaho? The ex-wife theory seems a whole lot more credible.
I have no idea but as long as we're speculating there is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_National_Laboratory and this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_I
The FBI surely must have known about the nasty divorce (the TA mentioned it was very public at the time). So, did that fact get into consideration while evaluating Feynmann?
I might be a bit naive, but I don't want to assume it was a simple witch-hunt.
Without looking, I would have guessed Edward Teller, but the gender thing shoots that down.
The letter was not anyway near Teller's style of writing.
Was Teller a bible-swearing kind of person?
Maybe not a smear...
If it were his wife, it seems just as likely she knew something of his character...