Crypto-making vs Crypto-breaking

[Tim May]

I'll take this challenge, silly as it is.

On Saturday, May 3, 2003, at 01:50  PM, Eric Cordian wrote:

> Cypherpunks often think of Crypto as the state-killing technology which
> will free us all from the clutches of inculcation in the collectivist
> mentality.
>
> It should be noted, however, that advances in complexity theory or 
> quantum
> computing that would render cryptography useless, would also have a
> detrimental effect on the state apparatus.
>
> So I pose a question.  You have two boxes.  In the first is crypto so
> powerful that it will keep peoples data safe for 1000 years, against 
> all
> advances in mathematics, with perfect forward secrecy.
>
> In box number two is technology that will break any crypto designed by
> mankind in the next 1000 years.
>
> You are allowed to take the contents of one of the boxes, and publish 
> it
> on the Internet.  You wish to do maximum damage to the state, free the
> Sheeple, enable Tim's libertopian vision of the future, crush 
> totalitarian
> centralized government, and make the world safe for flowers and other
> living things.
>
> Which box do you pick?  And why?

By "any crypto designed by mankind" I assume you are excluding one-time 
pads, which are not breakable by any amount of computer power and any 
amount of mathematical knowledge. I assume you are referring to public 
key approaches, where _conceivably_  mathematical advances or almost 
inconceivable advances in computer power could result in PK ciphers 
being broken.

Assuming your conditions are exactly as you state, I would of course 
pick box number ONE.

We still outnumber those in government, and what they have to hide is 
mostly of little interest to me or my causes (troop movements, 
submarine positions, etc.). Also, they can easily fall back to 
courier-delivered one-time pads, which are not part of the assumption, 
as I see it. (If you are including even one-time pads being broken, 
then you are assuming magic, which is not interesting.)


Thus, having a way to securely and untraceably communicate and transact 
business is much more important than being able to read THEIR bullshit 
communications.

That was easy.

And the cool thing is that every indication is that cipher-making is 
still pulling away from cipher-breaking by leaps and bounds, so it 
looks to me that we are falling further into the right choice.


--Tim May
"That government is best which governs not at all." --Henry David 
Thoreau