"If you use encryption, you help the terrorists win"

Dave Howe DaveHowe at gmx.co.uk
Mon Oct 27 04:27:00 PST 2003


steve at 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?





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list