Many governments now have no fear of encryption - trust no one....
SHA-1024 Should only take a million square foot datacenter filled with GPUs an hour or so.
Julian Assange: Cryptographic Call to Arms
111–120 of 281 posts
Re: Julian Assange: Cryptographic Call to Arms
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
There have been no charges laid against Julian Assange. The only 'dodgy situation' as you put it is that there has been so much effort to get him extradited to Sweden by a UK government who would not normally be interested in 'allegations' without substance from abroad.
There have been no charges laid against Julian Assange Isn't this because he refuses to undergo questioning? As I understood it, the laws under which he is to be charged prohibit laying charges against him until they question him. So in this case, to say he has not been charged is devoid of meaning.
He offered to be questioned from the embassy, where he cannot be extradited from. Officials said no.
He offered to go in for questioning under the condition that it was agreed that there would be no extradition. Officials said no.
So he sought asylum in the embassy under the pretense that he would otherwise face torture and death at the hands of the United States. Ecuador agreed that this was a valid concern, so they let him stay.
Seems telling.
Re: Julian Assange: Cryptographic Call to Arms
#113I agree with the sentiment, but Assange's prose is a little dense. Maybe it's OK for his target audience, as I assume the layman won't be reading cryptome.org. What we really need is a champion to explain in relatable, plain English why encryption is essential even for mom and dad, and to explain it in a more mainstream venue. I think a big reason why people don't encrypt mail, etc., is because: 1) they don't know wh…
It's a very hard problem IMO. Not just finding the words, but everything. For example, before learning linux to a degree where it wasn't a pain to use as a desktop, I thought it made no sense to waste time learning this or that security feature (like email encryption), because an expert would probably be able to fuck me anyway. Now that I have a better understanding, and I can mentally trace the information from end…
Can the downvoter show his face and elaborate? Thanks
Re: Julian Assange: Cryptographic Call to Arms
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, the whole point of distributing huge "insurance" data in an encrypted form is that the key is tiny. It's possible to maybe censor distribution of a 10GB file, at least generally, but it would be exceedingly difficult to prevent distribution of a 128-256 bit key. Literally you could shout it from the rooftops. Nothing remains sensitive forever. It's likely everything in the "insurance file" would be public and m…
It may be sensitive, but have you ever tried to put in an FOI request for anything . The entire process is marred by bureaucracy. Wikileaks would have a role to play even if there were no classification system . Don't underestimate how hard it is to get a good historical record :-)
I actually supported Wikileaks (and thank god didn't donate!) back when they were publicizing public-but-not-popular information, like about corporate malfeasance, public government documents, etc. Which is partially why I'm so pissed at Julian Assange for hijacking it into a largely anti-US agenda. ("Collateral Murder" had a really obvious spin when released, which was intentional; if they'd just dropped the video without commentary it would have been much more defensible.) Obviously I'm also against the illegal disclosure of any sensitive or classified government data; the correct recourse for someone like PFC Manning is to bring issues up through the chain of command, and if that fails, to the IG, and failing that, to Congress or the judicial system.
Re: Julian Assange: Cryptographic Call to Arms
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your argument is a non sequitur: states are necessary, therefore states are not systems through which coercive force flows. I did not say that at all. I am OK with states being systems through which coercive force flows, because I think channeling and supervising said force usually results of less of it flowing than otherwise would. Can you imagine a state that doesn't wield violence? That's what a state is. It's har…
I believe his point is that taken to its logical conclusion, states are able to do all of the things that they do because there is inevitably the consequence of violence for non-compliance. All of your examples result in violence for disobedience: destroying infrastructure, breaking laws, ignoring subpeonas. A core idea is that property ownership requires the threat of violence to work; don't pay your rent but don't…
Regardless of whether a state exists or not, the only meaningful definition of "property" includes a threat of violence. It is not meaningful to say "this is mine" without the implied threat of violence against those who would take it - whether carried out by the individual themselves or outsourced to the local emperor.
Without property there is not commerce, there is not agriculture, no civil growth and development to speak of.
Re: Julian Assange: Cryptographic Call to Arms
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it matter? I'm not debating the principles of the Constitution here, but rather the American focus on the document rather than the principles themselves.
I don't think the principles are common knowledge. Of course they matter.
I think his deflection of your question suggests he was using them as rhetorical literary devices.
Re: Julian Assange: Cryptographic Call to Arms
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your argument is a non sequitur: states are necessary, therefore states are not systems through which coercive force flows. I did not say that at all. I am OK with states being systems through which coercive force flows, because I think channeling and supervising said force usually results of less of it flowing than otherwise would. Can you imagine a state that doesn't wield violence? That's what a state is. It's har…
All kinds of organizations and people build infrastructure; churches and companies also promulgate laws and provide dispute-resolution forums. What distinguishes the state from other organizations that perform similar tasks is that the state holds a monopoly on (legitimate) violence. This is not a "narrow and immature" point of view; this is the normal definition. Quoting Wikipedia: The most commonly used definition…
Perhaps a good intuition pump is how we react when this breaks down. If some group within a state's borders is using violence (i.e. sending soldiers to attack skyscrapers in another country), the attacked country has a cassus belli against the harboring country.
This feature is so critical to how the modern system treats territorial integrity that we sometimes refer to states which can't control violent groups within their own borders as "failed states."
Re: Julian Assange: Cryptographic Call to Arms
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a very hard problem IMO. Not just finding the words, but everything. For example, before learning linux to a degree where it wasn't a pain to use as a desktop, I thought it made no sense to waste time learning this or that security feature (like email encryption), because an expert would probably be able to fuck me anyway. Now that I have a better understanding, and I can mentally trace the information from end…
Can the downvoter show his face and elaborate? Thanks
I wasn't the downvoter, but I suspect they may have been pointing out you are missing the forest for the trees.
"The people" don't need detailed explanations about why one form of technology is "more secure" than another. Instead they need motivation to care about security from their government.
Re: Julian Assange: Cryptographic Call to Arms
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
There have been no charges laid against Julian Assange Isn't this because he refuses to undergo questioning? As I understood it, the laws under which he is to be charged prohibit laying charges against him until they question him. So in this case, to say he has not been charged is devoid of meaning.
He offered to be questioned from the embassy, where he cannot be extradited from. Officials said no. He offered to go in for questioning under the condition that it was agreed that there would be no extradition. Officials said no. So he sought asylum in the embassy under the pretense that he would otherwise face torture and death at the hands of the United States. Ecuador agreed that this was a valid concern, so they…
I don't remember the reason for the first one, but in regards to the second line item, I am told that again, their legal process simply does not allow them to make such promises.
Honestly, to me it looks a lot like Assange's argument boils down to, "I've asked for special treatment, but they won't give it to me. Clearly, they are conspiring against me."
Re: Julian Assange: Cryptographic Call to Arms
#120This xkcd strip was never more on-topic than now.