Big Brother Obama's Orwellian Internet - TechHui2024-03-29T12:38:24Zhttp://www.techhui.com/forum/topics/big-brother-obamas-orwellian?commentId=1702911%3AComment%3A68149&x=1&feed=yes&xn_auth=noThe utterly stupid thing is,…tag:www.techhui.com,2010-10-04:1702911:Comment:681492010-10-04T04:56:07.634ZPaul Graydonhttp://www.techhui.com/profile/Paul76
The utterly stupid thing is, if there is a way to decrypt it it's automatically less secure. Every method of communication ultimately is, but if you've got a <i>universal</i> key, even if it's one per communication method, it's instantly so insecure as to be laughable. It'll be a ridiculously short period of time until it's hacked, or leaked.
The utterly stupid thing is, if there is a way to decrypt it it's automatically less secure. Every method of communication ultimately is, but if you've got a <i>universal</i> key, even if it's one per communication method, it's instantly so insecure as to be laughable. It'll be a ridiculously short period of time until it's hacked, or leaked. This is the funniest thing I'…tag:www.techhui.com,2010-10-01:1702911:Comment:680542010-10-01T10:24:25.801ZBrianhttp://www.techhui.com/profile/Brian268
This is the funniest thing I've ever heard of. It just.. wouldn't.. work<br></br>
<br></br>
As far as how you would do it? Well you'd have to have an additional decryption key generated whenever a key is generated.. ever.. for everything.. and you'd have to securely communicate that to LEOs.. securely.. somehow.. oh and you'd have to store this along with conversations.. and have a way of linking the conversation (ciphertext) to the key.. and protect the decryption keys.. it would require a massive…
This is the funniest thing I've ever heard of. It just.. wouldn't.. work<br/>
<br/>
As far as how you would do it? Well you'd have to have an additional decryption key generated whenever a key is generated.. ever.. for everything.. and you'd have to securely communicate that to LEOs.. securely.. somehow.. oh and you'd have to store this along with conversations.. and have a way of linking the conversation (ciphertext) to the key.. and protect the decryption keys.. it would require a massive infrastructure to support and it would never work.. blah blah... It's completely ridiculous on an absurdly high number of technical levels and would obviously be more of a vulnerability than anything else even if partially implemented. This is ignoring the fact that.. people just won't implement it?<br/>
<br/>
I mean you could go on about how this is a bad/unfeasible idea due to introducing insecurity, people not complying, how you would prove compliance, how it would only affect people that aren't doing anything bad (or terrorists/criminals that are stupid), etc.. how it would break things.. how it would be worthless since it would take decades for legacy systems that don't use it to migrate out.. how it would simply migrate savvy people to using other communication networks (I've seen pilots using homeless people as comm channels).. how anyone can defeat it with a cheap laptop running legacy/open source code even if they somehow migrated every net-connected computer on the planet to a nonexistent/impossible trusted computing solution.. etc.. but....<br/>
<br/>
No, this just deserves ridicule. Outright mockery. Of the most scornful sort.