Re: Re: Government trying to avoid an open conflict
What I find utterly fascinating is that despite all of that, and despite the fact that most people have become aware of all that (and more), those very same people continue to believe that they still have credibility and trust with the actual citizenry.
Ahh yes, good old Macrovision. Technically, though, it didn't "magnetize" the copy or anything. It stripped the sync signals from the encoding, which made it impossible for VHS players to keep a stable picture.
But those sync signals could be replaced, so Macrovision was not terribly effective as an antipiracy measure. What it was GREAT at was preventing you from being able connect your VHS system to your TV and then playing external video sources through it, which meant everyone had to use those stupid physical switches.
Pretty much this. Everything I've heard law enforcement agencies say, and even what Obama said at SxSW, shouts loud and clear that the government is pretty much declaring war on the tech industry and every citizen who dares to use good tech.
I think he means no non-criminal and non-techie Americans will have encryption. Crooks and geeks will always have strong encryption. It is literally impossible to prevent.
Bull Mountain is a great thing, but first, it's not yet "standard computing equipment" and second, it's not truly random. It's deriving its entropy from things like keystroke timings, etc. It's very very very close to random, not if you're looking for 100% mathematical unbreakability, that's not good enough.
I think World War 2 provides a great example of how important this is. During war, one-time pads are used (they work there because the keys are transferred securely at the base before deployment) by all sides.
Late in the war, the Allies started to be able to break OTP-encrypted messages from the Axis. They were able to do this because Germany's ability to produce random numbers had been degraded (in the day, random numbers were produced by rooms full of people pulling balls out of Bingo cages) and they suffered a shortage. Remember that with OTP, you need a new truly random number for every character in the cleartext.
So they started taking shortcuts that meant that their random numbers, while still being very nearly random, had a slight statistical color to them. It was enough to allow a good percentage of messages to be cracked.
"My understanding of one time pads and book cyphers is that they are not breakable."
Properly done one-time pads are totally unbreakable. Book ciphers are not.
There are two reasons that one-time pads aren't the way most encryption is done, though: you must have a source of truly random numbers (which is not possible on standard computing equipment) and you must be able to transmit the key securely to the other end. It's that last requirement that's the serious problem -- in most situations, if you have a way of securely transferring the key then you could just transmit your message instead.
But it's an exceedingly tiny one. In the US, the system is rigged to ensure that the only political parties who can get people elected are the Republicans and Democrats, and both of those are under corporate control.
I haven't flown commercial in a while, but my understanding is that it's not great fun going through security. But we make the concession because -- it's a big intrusion on our privacy -- but we recognize that it is important. We have stops for drunk drivers. It's an intrusion. But we think it's the right thing to do. And this notion that somehow our data is different and can be walled off from those other trade-offs we make, I believe is incorrect.
This is the most maddening argument of all to me. Airport security and DUI checkpoints are very controversial things that a substantial percentage of the population take grave exception to.
To trot these out as "well, look we all agree on those, so we must all agree on this" is extremely deceptive and manipulative.
This, precisely. I do not think that the way airport security is being done is important at all, and I minimize my flying as a direct result of it. The only reason I put up with it at all is because I literally have no other choice.
Lots do. There has been a very active hobbyist EV community for a long time. The first performance electric sportscar I ever saw was one an engineer I know built about 20 years ago. Didn't do as well as a Tesla, but was competitive with muscle cars of the time.
On the post: Senator Lindsey Graham Finally Talks To Tech Experts, Switches Side In FBI V. Apple Fight
Re: Re:
On the post: Senator Lindsey Graham Finally Talks To Tech Experts, Switches Side In FBI V. Apple Fight
Re: Re: Government trying to avoid an open conflict
On the post: DEA's Definition Of Evidence Control Apparently Doesn't Include Recording Gross Weight Of Seized Substances
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, which is why it is important to correct for this. Which can easily be done by measuring the water content along with the weight.
On the post: Conspiracy Theories Over Steam Game Suddenly Crashing Wrong; Just More Broken Anti-Piracy Code
Re: Re: DRM is not a recent invention
But those sync signals could be replaced, so Macrovision was not terribly effective as an antipiracy measure. What it was GREAT at was preventing you from being able connect your VHS system to your TV and then playing external video sources through it, which meant everyone had to use those stupid physical switches.
On the post: DOJ Officials Hint WhatsApp Likely Next In Line For The Apple Treatment
Re: Re: Their own laws.
On the post: Administration Grants FBI More Raw Access To NSA Data Just As FBI Claims To Be Implementing New Minimization Procedures
Re: Blatant lies or idiocy in action
On the post: Publicity Seeking Florida Sheriff Promises To Put Tim Cook In Jail For Refusing To Decrypt iPhones
Re: Re: I would love to see that
On the post: Can't Make This Up: Paramount Says Star Trek Fan Flick Violates Copyright On Klingon And 'Uniform With Gold Stars'
Re:
On the post: President Obama Is Wrong On Encryption; Claims The Realist View Is 'Absolutist'
Re: Re: Re: The biggest point here is...
On the post: President Obama Is Wrong On Encryption; Claims The Realist View Is 'Absolutist'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hoisted, petard, own...
On the post: President Obama Is Wrong On Encryption; Claims The Realist View Is 'Absolutist'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hoisted, petard, own...
I think World War 2 provides a great example of how important this is. During war, one-time pads are used (they work there because the keys are transferred securely at the base before deployment) by all sides.
Late in the war, the Allies started to be able to break OTP-encrypted messages from the Axis. They were able to do this because Germany's ability to produce random numbers had been degraded (in the day, random numbers were produced by rooms full of people pulling balls out of Bingo cages) and they suffered a shortage. Remember that with OTP, you need a new truly random number for every character in the cleartext.
So they started taking shortcuts that meant that their random numbers, while still being very nearly random, had a slight statistical color to them. It was enough to allow a good percentage of messages to be cracked.
On the post: President Obama Is Wrong On Encryption; Claims The Realist View Is 'Absolutist'
Re: Re: Re: Hoisted, petard, own...
Properly done one-time pads are totally unbreakable. Book ciphers are not.
There are two reasons that one-time pads aren't the way most encryption is done, though: you must have a source of truly random numbers (which is not possible on standard computing equipment) and you must be able to transmit the key securely to the other end. It's that last requirement that's the serious problem -- in most situations, if you have a way of securely transferring the key then you could just transmit your message instead.
On the post: President Obama Is Wrong On Encryption; Claims The Realist View Is 'Absolutist'
Re: Examples of past failures when keys leak...
On the post: President Obama Is Wrong On Encryption; Claims The Realist View Is 'Absolutist'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: DailyDirt: Horsepower? Why Are We Measuring Anything With Horse-Based Units?
Re: EV
On the post: DailyDirt: Horsepower? Why Are We Measuring Anything With Horse-Based Units?
Re: Re:
On the post: President Obama Is Wrong On Encryption; Claims The Realist View Is 'Absolutist'
The weapon of incrementalism
This is the most maddening argument of all to me. Airport security and DUI checkpoints are very controversial things that a substantial percentage of the population take grave exception to.
To trot these out as "well, look we all agree on those, so we must all agree on this" is extremely deceptive and manipulative.
On the post: President Obama Is Wrong On Encryption; Claims The Realist View Is 'Absolutist'
Re: wrong again
On the post: DailyDirt: Horsepower? Why Are We Measuring Anything With Horse-Based Units?
Re:
So a Tesla model S has 1,020 WMP
On the post: DailyDirt: Horsepower? Why Are We Measuring Anything With Horse-Based Units?
Re: supercars...
Next >>