"If you DON'T use encryption, you help the terrorists win"
"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." Basically, the answer was hinted at by another poster. For anyone who doesn't trust the government, the point to make is that crypto use is currently a red flag. Last year I went through great pains on this list to point out that right now the gubmint probably doesn't even need to break most encrypted messages in order to know something's up. This is only possible because outside of a coporate context few individuals use encryption. If everybody uses encryption, then it matters MUCH less if the government can break any one message. What costs us pennies to encrypt may cost them thousands to break. That's the assymmetry we asyms can exploit. That's where we need to depart from a Tim May lone wolf approach to your friendly, smiling America-loving flag-waving cypherpunks: "If you don't use encryption then you help the terrorists win". This statement has the added irony of being objectively true, according to more international definitions of 'terrorism'. -TD
From: Burning Cows with Strauss <steve@njord.org>(by way of Burning Cows with Strauss <steve@njord.org>) To: cypherpunks@lne.com Subject: Re: "If you use encryption, you help the terrorists win" Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:37:47 -0600
-----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-----
_________________________________________________________________ Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account has exceeded its 2MB storage limit? Get Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
On Monday, October 27, 2003, at 08:50 AM, Tyler Durden wrote:
"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."
Basically, the answer was hinted at by another poster.
For anyone who doesn't trust the government, the point to make is that crypto use is currently a red flag. Last year I went through great pains on this list to point out that right now the gubmint probably doesn't even need to break most encrypted messages in order to know something's up. This is only possible because outside of a coporate context few individuals use encryption.
If everybody uses encryption, then it matters MUCH less if the government can break any one message. What costs us pennies to encrypt may cost them thousands to break. That's the assymmetry we asyms can exploit. That's where we need to depart from a Tim May lone wolf approach to your friendly, smiling America-loving flag-waving cypherpunks: "If you don't use encryption then you help the terrorists win".
I have no patience with "If _EVERYBODY_ did foo, then...." arguments. Contrary to what many of the newcomers (last 5 years) here have argued, crypto anarchy was never about converting the world to one true political system--it was, and is, about those motivated to do so to find ways to drop out of the system and find ways to sabotage the various politicians and socialists and minorities using government to steal from them. Finding ways to destroy large nests of socialists and minority welfare mutants is of course consistent with this individualist approach. But silliness about "if everybody used encryption, then..." is just that, silliness. "First we convert the world to our viewpoint" is an empty philosophy. "Tyler Durden," you have never shown a trace of sophistication or cleverness in the several months you have been on this list. --Tim May
participants (2)
-
Tim May -
Tyler Durden