71–80 of 132 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean like Obama giving a tool to read his email to Putin? Unlikely IMO.
More generally, something along the lines of: "You give us Snowden/limit his asylum claims/etc etc, and we give you favourable trade terms".
Seriously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your augment makes sense, but somehow you're missing the idea that the government has infinite ways to investigate someone outside of breaking encrypted communication. They actually have people who can break into buildings and install keyloggers, or audio bugs, or interview witnesses, or anything you can imagine.
His argument doesn't make sense because it misses the fact that a government is supposed to represent the people, and therefore it should accept the will of the people.
This is a procedural, not technical problem. It almost seems like the standardisation process open to everyone just enables everyone to insert their own backdoors into the standard. One interesting way to solve the problem would be to allow differenct mutually hostile entities to define their own standards (US, Russia, China, FSF, Pirate Bay, whoever) and then encrypt using all of them. That way, even if there is bac…
Before reading this, bear in mind, you wont find many more critical of government than me....That said I have to ask the following: How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it? Essentially law enforcement do need to investigate crime. That has to be right and good for all. Even this anarchist accepts this. Such a situation is fine for "us", and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“I know from firsthand communications that a number of people at N.I.S.T. feel betrayed by their colleagues at the N.S.A.,” Mr. Green said in an interview Tuesday. That's the understatement of the century. NIST is pissed off. Many of these guys move fluidly back and forth from NSA, and clearly they were kept in the dark.
Let's see how they dramatically improve the process then. I hope they don't think statements like "we didn't do it, trust us" are enough. But it's probably best to just forget about NIST and start from scratch with a new standards body with zero influence from the government - any government(how it should be).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you imagine the guy actually living in the USA? He would be annihilated by now.
That's hugely speculative. Just because his car's brakes might fail, it doesn't mean it wasn't an accident.
I hate all this NSA spying but they do have a point - if they cant read the communications of the bad guys, how are they supposed to catch them before it's too late. Isn't there a way to accomplish both objectives of security and preserving constitutional freedoms?
In other words no.
This is a procedural, not technical problem. It almost seems like the standardisation process open to everyone just enables everyone to insert their own backdoors into the standard. One interesting way to solve the problem would be to allow differenct mutually hostile entities to define their own standards (US, Russia, China, FSF, Pirate Bay, whoever) and then encrypt using all of them. That way, even if there is bac…
True, but Russia, China and the US all have a shared interest in working (together?) against Islamic rebels/separatists/militants/terrorists, so they may well cooperate more than you might at first suspect. If you could get some Islamic militants to (develop?) contribute a cryptosystem, then you would be more convincing.
Before reading this, bear in mind, you wont find many more critical of government than me....That said I have to ask the following: How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it? Essentially law enforcement do need to investigate crime. That has to be right and good for all. Even this anarchist accepts this. Such a situation is fine for "us", and…
"How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it?" In my opinion, the 4th amendment says the government needs a good reason and a warrant, and then we all agree they can read my gmail. We don't have to agree they can store, search, and use everyone's gmail for fighting crime, terrorism, or gaining economic advantage over other nations. Forget inter…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it?" In my opinion, the 4th amendment says the government needs a good reason and a warrant, and then we all agree they can read my gmail. We don't have to agree they can store, search, and use everyone's gmail for fighting crime, terrorism, or gaining economic advantage over other nations. Forget inter…
Even if they have a warrant, they can't read a well-encrypted email. What do they do then?