161–170 of 196 posts
So either we give - by adjusting our attitude or if we choose to stay entrenched on our position, then go all the way and nuke the crap out of them.
I don't like middle of the road solutions... maybe it's just me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you'll be surprised how effective can a crackdown be once a government sets its mind to it. Effective like prohibition was? Or the war on drugs? All that will happen is people will stop using macOS and Windows because that is all the US government can pressure.
Are you trying to compare the amount of people that can distill moonshine or smuggle drugs to the amount of people capable of writing secure encryption software? The effectiveness of limiting proliferation is tied directly to the difficulty and the scarcity of the human capital involved, this is why restricting the proliferation of small arms which can be build by anyone with some machining experience is near impossi…
This is Edward Snowden's fault. Let's look at the facts: * Edward Snowden declared war against terrorists. * Edward Snowden started indescriminently bombing villages in the middle east. * Edward Snowden created massive ill will against America, then left a huge power vacuum in the region by pulling out after, dare I say it, conducting terrorism against the native inhabitants. So, Ed, wherever you are, this is your fa…
"Indescriminately(sic) bombing?" "conducting terrorism?" I led a platoon in Iraq, and we did nothing of the sort. I'm fine with opposition to U.S. foreign policy; this is just lazy slander, and it shows a very shallow understanding of what actually happened.
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…
The problem is not awareness of privacy and financial sec issues. The problem is how do you prevent the next Boston Bombing or Paris. Since we don't have a good answer to that, what else do expect them to do?
You can do the obvious things like stop bombing the living shit out of Middle East, etc. but that would only reduce the amount of radicalized people. The best you can do is to push it down below the "crazy noise floor" - because you ultimately can't prevent random people with a particularly destructive mental condition or an axe to grind from shooting people up. Not even if you turn the country into a police state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Isn't he being briefed by US intelligence agencies?
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…
> Are they also aware that the exact same technology is used to protect their online banking? 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 onlin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Keep your generalizations to yourself. There is a wide array of Republicans who believe in limited government not cracking private security because it doesn't belong there. McCain is a nice guy but is an extreme hawk.
It's a political party. The whole point of one is to get people behind a general platform. Even keeping in mind that two-party systems tend to be extremely factional by practical necessity, the view that the GOP is the "party of limited government" is nothing but propaganda.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are they also aware that the exact same technology is used to protect their online banking? 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 onlin…
It shouldn't be hard to believe because there is no difference whatsoever . You could do bank transactions over chat, you could run chat over bank transactions. Both are fundamentally the same thing. The mathematical model that says that Alice exchanges information with Bob is not a simplification, it's fundamentally how it works. Content is arbitrary and doesn't matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you claiming that OpenBSD never had or has exploits that the NSA could or can use to access systems running it? Because if so that would be a heck of a lofty claim.
Given the context, he probably meant cracking a private key given just the public key and accessing servers at will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It shouldn't be hard to believe because there is no difference whatsoever . You could do bank transactions over chat, you could run chat over bank transactions. Both are fundamentally the same thing. The mathematical model that says that Alice exchanges information with Bob is not a simplification, it's fundamentally how it works. Content is arbitrary and doesn't matter.
Put more simply. If the terrorist wants to stay safe they would exploit any loophole. If conversation is backdoored but banking is not, they could use online banking and code word type messages in transaction descriptions that move trivial amounts of money back and forth between multiple accounts.