HI,
TD wrote- that, increased use of crypto implies increased cost of monitoring.
If a larger population starts using cryptography, we
can compare it to U.S mail. The govt. any way can't go
through all the snail mails due to its sheer volume.
They rely on other methods to detect and nullify
terror threats. Even if every one started using
encryption, the govt will not spend any money to
decrypt all the messages. The govt will use other
mechanisms(intelligece) to detect which cipher text is
worth breaking. More people using cryptography is good
for the crypto community, in terms of dollars,interest
and development in this particular area.
Sarath.
--- Tyler Durden
Tim May wrote...
"But silliness about "if everybody used encryption, then..." is just that, silliness."
You seem to miss my point here (and in general), and since this is probably the closest area in which we agree, I'd suggest it's worthwhile examining this.
Let's first of all agree that the proliferation of crypto is a good thing. If crypto is rarely used, then MY usage of it is actually almost worse (depending on context) than using it. More than that, increased use of crypto implies increased cost of monitoring. The $$$ nature of the assymmetry is mirrored precisely by the calculational assymetry. Ideally, it seems to me that this should be exploited.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/