101–110 of 196 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe try and find non-establishment candidates to run (who are not out of their gourd) and vote for them :)
Do you humorously pretend in your comment that you don't know about Bernie Sanders?
I love how Republicans believe that outlawing guns won't stop criminals from having guns while at the same time believing that outlawing encryption will keep criminals from using encryption. Encryption methods are far easier to transport and spread illegally than gun are.
Dianne Feinstein, who is supposed to be representing the interests of Silicon Valley, has been beating the anti-encryption drum for some time now.
At least McCain's constituency doesn't include the people who are decrying this.
DiFi is not only worse and earlier than McCain on this issue, but she's intentionally ignoring the people it is her job to represent.
And you cry "Republicans!". Okay.
> "...News emerging from Paris — as well as evidence from a Belgian ISIS raid in January — suggests that the ISIS terror networks involved were communicating in the clear, and that the data on their smartphones was not encrypted." https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151118/08474732854/after...
> CIA director John Brennan said that "there are a lot of technological capabilities that are available right now that make it exceptionally difficult, both technically as well as legally, for intelligence and security services to have the insight they need to uncover it ... And I do hope that this is going to be a wake-up call."
Is it really worth leaving a thoughtful comment about such an ignorant statement? It's clear to me that these people have no idea what encryption actually is and only have a cursory understanding of what it does. They're aware that criminals and terrorists can use encryption to communicate covertly. That's why they want to ban it. Are they also aware that the exact same technology is used to protect their online bank…
Yes they are -- that's why it's not a matter of passing a one-page bill overnight, but rather a more complex piece of legislation that in order to be done right, need time and bi-partisan involvement.
And I found it hard to believe you don't see a difference between encrypting your bank transaction, and encrypting your online conversation.
Disclosure: I'm against all type of bans on any encryption.
This is the guy who gave us Sarah Palin. He needs to go away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you humorously pretend in your comment that you don't know about Bernie Sanders?
Is he really non-establishment? I realize he's an Independent 'Social Democrat' or whatever, but he's been in Washington since 1991. He's pretty well established IMO.
We really need to set an age limit on how old people can get while staying in office before being forced to retire. We already prevent people younger than 40 from running for President. Why should we let people older than 65 do it? What's the difference?
No. This makes little sense, is arbitrary and absurd. We need people to be qualified by measurable factors like degrees, years working in a particular field, ability or intelligence and/or other relevant facts. John McCain is a good man, I think he has good intentions, and is very qualified for certain positions. This is just not one of them, and it isn't because I disagree with him (I do), it is because he isn't qua…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are living in a delusion, they can't crack the standard encryption that comes with openssh, and that is the type of thing they want to ban. People can easily hide data streams inside video-streams/ text-files/images to circumvent trivial screening. The government won't be able to do anything effective without massive costs and draconian measures. Not to mention people outside the US can carry on however they like…
You've missed the 2nd half of my post I see, I said that if any even half arsed measures are going to be in place the crackdown will become more effective with time. If you can stall or slow down the evolution of open encryption sufficiently so state actors can catch up then that's effectively makes that encryption useless. Today for example the NSA can break weak DSA configurations, and factor weak RSA keys in 2-3 y…
The threat you describe sounds like a race. But in fact, it's more like a switch. Right now the world is pre-quantum. When the switch is flipped, to post-quantum, a lot of algorithms will break. But not all of them.
See http://pqcrypto.org/ for some interesting reading.
Post-Quantum Cryptography, Bernstein, 2009: http://www.e-reading.club/bookreader.php/135832/Post_Quantum...
Regarding your point, I don't think that people here are being dismissive of your ideas. You're quite right. But there are reasons to be positive about the future, while highlighting the negatives. Isn't it so interesting that certain algorithms can be safe in a pqcrypto world?
Notice where the algorithms spring up from. You mention a hackathon, but that's not where these algorithms root. They're from universities. And universities are interesting. If the legislation will face resistance, it will probably be from academics, like in the last crypto war.