Re: "If you use encryption, you help the terrorists win"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 25 October 2003 04:27 pm, Tyler Durden wrote:
Tim May wrote...
secure (every ask anyone if they believed there was such a thing as effectively 'unbreakable' encryption? Reglar folks always believe SOMEBODY'S got the technology to break what scheme you use, so "why bother").
I have a few friends like this....anyone have suggestions for ways to change their minds? Basically they say things like "If you think the government can't break all the encryption schemes that we have, you're nuts." This guy was a math major too, so he understands the principles of crypto. I feel pretty confident that 2048 bit encryption is reasonably safe for now, but how can I convince others, and how safe should I really feel in that opinion anyway? Steve - -- Steve Wollkind 810 C San Pedro steve@njord.org College Station, TX 77845 http://njord.org/~steve 979.575.2948 - -- All these worlds are belong to us, except Europa. Take off no zigs there. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/mwqO0uexoyuzySARApnNAKCUxOrLDh2gk1Ls5piL1zsnXzhHuwCfUW5l AYtOw2wfT0EqlvhWxo5rup4= =12ec -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I have a few friends like this....anyone have suggestions for ways to change their minds?
Basically they say things like "If you think the government can't break all the encryption schemes that we have, you're nuts." This guy was a math major too, so he understands the principles of crypto.
It is impossible to rationalise long term consequences of data harvesting into immediate threat for most people. The only way to change behaviour in absence of the perceived threat is propaganda ... and those who have means for that have different agendas. What's left is a personal-level propaganda but the effects are negligible. You can't really save anyone. You can, however, make crypto tools that make things easier. Or surveillance tools that make things obvious. The latter, I think, is more effective. Time to open source Echelon ? ===== end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
steve@njord.org wrote:
On Saturday 25 October 2003 04:27 pm, Tyler Durden wrote:
secure (every ask anyone if they believed there was such a thing as effectively 'unbreakable' encryption? Reglar folks always believe SOMEBODY'S got the technology to break what scheme you use, so "why bother"). I have a few friends like this....anyone have suggestions for ways to change their minds? Basically they say things like "If you think the government can't break all the encryption schemes that we have, you're nuts." This guy was a math major too, so he understands the principles of crypto. Simpler solution there then is to say "well, good - that means that the Government can still monitor terrorists, but that the minimum-wage employees answering the helpdesk at AOL can't read though your mail while they are bored."
I feel pretty confident that 2048 bit encryption is reasonably safe for now, but how can I convince others, and how safe should I really feel in that opinion anyway? You don't need to - just convince them that it is safe against casual snoopers (and to be honest, most "sensitive" email the government couldn't give a damn about, but your neighbours would find very interesting indeed :) As long as you get the desired end result (them using crypto) do you really care what they think?
participants (3)
-
Burning Cows with Strauss -
Dave Howe -
Morlock Elloi