Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

Post by jakeogh » Fri, Jul 10, 2015, 12:25 AM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #220

jakeogh wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I agree with you that people have inalienable or natural rights." Great. So what's your reason?

I'm back with the signers of the Declaration of Independence: "endowed by their Creator". And that's why their inalienable - because nobody has the legitimate authority to supercede His giving of these rights.

Couldn't agree more. I was deliberately avoiding the creator angle, mostly because (I think) it's not necessary to believe in a creator to grok the morality of equal rights (oldmanjay said it better). Perhaps I misunderstood your comment about deists. I sincerely appreciate the discussion.

Post by selimthegrim » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 10:43 PM UTC

graycat wrote: post #208

cortesoft wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first part is why I always find these talks silly. Encryption (at least the kind they are talking about) is just math - all the laws in the world aren't going to change the math. You can't legislate away the knowledge of that math; even if you force Apple or Google to insert your backdoor into THEIR implementation of the crypto, that doesn't mean that a 'terrorist' couldn't just use their own implementation of t…

Fully correct. I have Bruce Schneier, Applied Cryptography, Second Edition: Protocols, Algorithms, and Source Code in C, ISBN 0-471-11709-9, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1996. That material's not going away. And, in addition, I have some nicely short, not difficult to read, source code. About all the math needed for PGP is in an elementary number theory book -- I have several sufficient references. > That cat is ou…

Schneier has a newer and more useful update to that book with a co-author

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication

Re: Code Specialists Oppose U.S. and British Access to Encrypted Communication