Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman did not invent public-private-key-encryption. It was invented in secret by mathematicians working at GCHQ before Diffie and Hellman but not publicly acknowledged until 1997 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Ellis
Illegal Math
81–90 of 106 posts
Re: Illegal Math
#82Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman did not invent public-private-key-encryption. It was invented in secret by mathematicians working at GCHQ before Diffie and Hellman but not publicly acknowledged until 1997 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Ellis
Re: Illegal Math
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Now that information is all locked away behind encryption. Moreover, more and more of that persistent information is casual communication that historically would have been securely erased by the whispering winds of time. No judge can grant investigators a time machine to travel back and spy on thousands of conversations over the last 5 years to fish for evidence. But now they can have the next-best thing (and getti…
> But now they can have the next-best thing... I think the discussion will get more useful when we'll stop talking about them and instead will talk about us . In civilized countries, the government represents the people. Law-enforcing organisms are mandated by people. The question is not whether some stranger wants to be able to enforce the law: the problem is whether we want to be able to enforce the law.
It has been empirically proven[1] that the United States is not a democracy. At least not in any meaningful way.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us...
Re: Illegal Math
#84"Encryption is math. Math cannot be illegal."
I wouldn't go so far as to say that the author made no interest points, but statements like this are a perfect example of that STEM worker arrogance stemming from the logical fallacy that just because you control systems which masses of people don't understand but rely on heavily (and make good money doing it in a secure comfortable job), that you have adequate knowledge to make sweeping statements in other areas outside of engineering knowledge.
It isn't the math, but the activity of _applying_ that math in actual communications which is subject to legal statutes and regulation, which I don't pretend to be an expert on, but know enough of my own ignorance about the theory and practice of the law (and having a number of attorneys in the family to check my own tendency toward that aforementioned arrogance) to understand that it isn't a simple freedom of expression or open knowledge issue.
Re: Illegal Math
#85One of the problems with outlawing encryption is that it takes nothing to prove the crime, and therefore it is impossible to prove one's innocence. Would it be possible to outlaw the possession or transfer of data that appears random? Nearly all data is random data, and nearly all processes randomize data. All data could be "proven" to contain information under at least one encryption scheme. It is the ultimate guilt…
This is what scares me the most.
Re: Illegal Math
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel part of the problem is that people recognize what you say, and understand its helpful, even necessary for government to have warranted access. The big BUT however is many of us are losing trust in our governments around the world as digital collection and access has been systematically abused in almost every major developed nation. Until governments can return confidence in their actions and motivations Avoid…
> digital collection and access has been systematically abused in almost every major developed nation. I understand that the NSA issue was a bad surprise for many many people but, actually, who has been damaged by those practices?
So if some stalker has been spying on your children over their web cam, but you/they never find out no one was damaged? If a tree falls in the woods...
Re: Illegal Math
#87Everything is math.
Specific example: chemistry is physics & physics is math. Should all chemical processes be protected on these grounds?
I agree with your conclusion that we should let people secure their own information, but not because the process of securing information is an algorithm derived from math research.
Re: Illegal Math
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel part of the problem is that people recognize what you say, and understand its helpful, even necessary for government to have warranted access. The big BUT however is many of us are losing trust in our governments around the world as digital collection and access has been systematically abused in almost every major developed nation. Until governments can return confidence in their actions and motivations Avoid…
> digital collection and access has been systematically abused in almost every major developed nation. I understand that the NSA issue was a bad surprise for many many people but, actually, who has been damaged by those practices?
Is anyone damaged if I sit in a tree outside your house and watch you take a shower through a crack in the window?
Before I am discovered no one is, but after I am discovered there can be a significant amount of mental anguish.
Re: Illegal Math
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
> digital collection and access has been systematically abused in almost every major developed nation. I understand that the NSA issue was a bad surprise for many many people but, actually, who has been damaged by those practices?
So if some stalker has been spying on your children over their web cam, but you/they never find out no one was damaged? If a tree falls in the woods...
In practice, if I never know, no one has been damaged. Furthermore, if the FBI has been watching over the stalker and they arrest him as soon as he approaches my house, that's good!
Re: Illegal Math
#90Disclaimer: I agree with the author on the encryption debate. However, it's a slippery slope to say that encryption can't be illegal because in is math, and math can't be illegal. It's equivalent to say that making bombs is chemistry, and chemistry can't be illegal. It's an oversimplification. Presenting the practical consequences of a backdoor produces a far more sound argument.
Hum, no, math and chemistry are simply different on that.
Math can not harm anybody because math isn't real, it's speech (yes, maybe except for psychological harm). Chemistry is quite real.
Anyway, I don't see merit on the author's argument. It's true, but useless. The discussion is about protected speech and evidence gathering, nobody is claiming cryptography directly harms people.