|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Just run this, my computer is clear, maybe.
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 1:49:54 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 09:36:13 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote: peterson wrote: "But I think it very likely that the technology will make it nearly impossible to conduct the sort of wholesale monitoring that has gone on in recent years." Your statement assumes that such "technology" would not be outlawed or circumvented: Yes, it does. And your assumption has no basis in reality, peterson. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Just run this, my computer is clear, maybe.
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 6:15:33 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 10:36:15 AM UTC-7, wrote: On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 12:23:26 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: "But I think it very likely that the technology will make it nearly impossible to conduct the sort of wholesale monitoring that has gone on in recent years." Your statement assumes that such "technology" would not be outlawed or circumvented: It would indeed be a big assumption to expect that there wouldn't be attempts to outlaw or circumvent it. Key-escrow, such as seen in the Clipper chip arrangement would effectively give a govt unlimited potential to abuse, were it to have become the standard and the only encryption choice. But that he expects such attempts to ultimately fail is not entirely unreasonable, given the economic importance of the Internet and the IT industry, the liberal traditions of the Western world, and various other factors. Irrelevant. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Just run this, my computer is clear, maybe.
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 03:15:12 -0800 (PST), wrote:
And your assumption has no basis in reality, peterson. That is unclear. There has been little significant effort in the U.S. to outlaw encryption technology, and there is every reason to believe that such technology can be made either impossible to circumvent, or sufficiently difficult that routing surveillance is impractical. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Just run this, my computer is clear, maybe.
On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 9:18:43 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 03:15:12 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote: And your assumption has no basis in reality, peterson. That is unclear. There has been little significant effort in the U.S. to outlaw encryption technology, Did you not read the clipper chip article? True, the chip was irrelevant by the mid-90's, but its key-escrow smacks of the sort of thing that tyrants would like to have. and there is every reason to believe that such technology can be made either impossible to circumvent, There is already an unbreakable cipher (invented ~100 years ago) but its implementation is currently impractical and extremely likely to remain so. or sufficiently difficult that routing surveillance is impractical. First there shouldn't BE any such thing as routinE surveillance, impractical or not, of US citizens by US govts. Encrypting the content of all messages, even using a split key can also be impractical and difficult but it would, obviously, slow down illegal snooping by a govt. The govt will always want/try to make encryption illegal for private citizens, and we need to be vigilant. But the content is one thing, while metadata is probably even more dangerous in the wrong hands. This can be used for "fishing" purposes and selective enforcement of various (and questionable) laws. Both content and metadata should require a warrant to obtain. Ultimately, we must understand that the freedoms and privacy mentioned in the Bill of Rights are not GRANTED by that document but RECOGNIZED by it and that it places limits on what the govt can do. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Just run this, my computer is clear, maybe.
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Just run this, my computer is clear, maybe.
On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 9:29:12 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2014 03:40:47 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote: On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 9:18:43 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 03:15:12 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote: And your assumption has no basis in reality, peterson. That is unclear. There has been little significant effort in the U.S. to outlaw encryption technology, Did you not read the clipper chip article? True, the chip was irrelevant by the mid-90's, but its key-escrow smacks of the sort of thing that tyrants would like to have. Go to a dictionary and look up the word "significant". Yes, the significant thing is that the govt would even TRY it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Call for Papers: WORLDCOMP'07: conferences in computer science & computer engineering, USA | A. M. G. Solo | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 25th 07 12:55 PM |
Call For Papers: WORLDCOMP'07: conferences in computer science & computer engineering, USA | A. M. G. Solo | Research | 0 | January 17th 07 04:56 PM |
WORLDCOMP'07: Call For Papers/Sessions--multiple int'l. conferences in computer science & computer engineering, USA | A. M. G. Solo (do not reply to this email address) | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 9th 06 11:06 PM |