Jimmy Wales and Former NSA Chief Ridicule Government Plans To Ban Encryption 176
Mickeycaskill writes: Jimmy Wales has said government leaders are "too late" to ban encryption which authorities say is thwarting attempts to protect the public from terrorism and other threats. The Wikipedia founder said any attempt would be "a moronic, very stupid thing to do" and predicted all major web traffic would be encrypted soon. Wikipedia itself has moved towards SSL encryption so all of its users' browsing habits cannot be spied on by intelligence agencies or governments. Indeed, he said the efforts by the likes of the NSA and GCHQ to spy on individuals have actually made it harder to implement mass-surveillance programs because of the public backlash against Edward Snowden's revelations and increased awareness of privacy. Wales also reiterated that his site would never co-operate with the Chinese government on the censorship of Wikipedia. "We've taken a strong stand that access to knowledge is a principle human right," he said. derekmead writes with news that Michael Hayden, the former head of the CIA and the NSA, thinks the US government should stop railing against encryption and should support strong crypto rather than asking for backdoors. The US is "better served by stronger encryption, rather than baking in weaker encryption," he said during a panel on Tuesday.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: The money quote (Score:1)
Exactly, just look for the person not leaking data to google and go after them.
if you're dumb enough terrorist to leave your location data on I hope the NSA has you covered.
Re:The money quote (Score:5, Insightful)
The members of government that want to ban encryption simply do not understand the information enterprise. They were born and raised in a world where that was not a part of their day-to-day mindspace, so they fundamentally don't get it. They especially don't understand how important it is for ordinary commerce, and the economy as a whole.
Government is always about a decade or two behind current technological trends, and often passes laws that do great harm and no good because of this. Eventually (10-20 years too late) those laws usually get corrected. But in an age where technology progresses as fast as it does today, a 10-20 year lag can be extremely painful.
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression the Supreme Court had already ruled you can encrypt as the encrypted message is protected speech, too.
That should be the case if not, but I do remember reading that. This was also why the government could get away wth banning export of encryption devices, but not the speech itself.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not proposing a ban outright, they are proposing to ban products that they can't circumvent.
Banks will be able to use encryption because they hand over financial records when asked. Shops will be able to use encryption because they need it and the purchase is logged elsewhere for the government to access anyway.
Facebook, Google and Apple will be banned from using encryption so that the government can simply tap a backbone or two and hoover everything up for later analysis. You won't be able to encr
Re: (Score:2)
Does he support terr'sts?
Yes, the IRA to be specific.
Re: (Score:2)
same as guns (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: same as guns (Score:1)
Same as abortions. Wait, what?
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, before abortions were legal, desperate women would use coat hangers, or go to the local witch doctor.
Re: same as guns (Score:5, Funny)
Gee, when I went to the local witch doctor, he just told me, "Ooh ee ooh aah aah, ting tang walla walla bing bang."
Re: (Score:3)
Did it work?
Re: (Score:1)
Well, the poorer women did. The upper middle class and rich went to "specialists" or out of country.
Re: (Score:3)
LOL - I can't tell you where to find them. They're all around you. To experience that kind of thing, you've got to be in the right place, at the right time, and willing to play along with whatever her needs are. Halifax, Nova Scotia was memorable. I walked off the ship, gawking around. Someone walked up behind me, grabbed my elbow, and told me that I was coming home with her. Nice looking gal - 6 ft tall - lovely but unusual color from her African-Irish-Iroquois ancestry. Beauty. I told her that i w
Re: (Score:1)
So making encryption illegal will stop terrorists from using encryption? You know, the same way that making terrorism illegal stops terrorism.
In a way it almost could. If encrypted communications are illegal, then any party encrypting their communications can be easily identified, apprehended, and arrested before anything unpleasant happens. You no longer need to care about what was in the communication, the existence of the communication becomes enough of a crime to pursue.
However this will just lead to a dramatic increase in use of steganography instead of encryption. Funny cat pics will have embedded text and amateur porn videos will have d
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If encrypted communications were illegal, then everyone who ever buys anything online would be instantly hacked and their bank accounts drained. All internet-facing businesses would basically have to go offline because it would be too easy for people to hack them and steal all the info they have on their customers, including payment information, etc.
The first world, as we know it today, can no longer function without encryption.
Incidentally, computer hacking is already illegal, and we cannot today just fin
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not the same as guns. Guns are physical objects, encryption is not. Encryption is nothing else than a few mathematical formulas. It is impossible to ban thoughts and speech however you can ban guns.
Re: (Score:3)
Um... tell that to Phil Zimmerman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] .
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not the same as guns. Guns are physical objects, encryption is not. Encryption is nothing else than a few mathematical formulas. It is impossible to ban thoughts and speech however you can ban guns.
Right. Works as good as banning drugs, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Drugs are not the same as guns. You don't get physically addicted to guns. You are comparing apples and oranges.
Re: (Score:2)
Drugs are not the same as guns. You don't get physically addicted to guns. You are comparing apples and oranges.
You said banning guns would be easier than encryption because guns are physical objects. When I pointed out drugs are physical objects, too, and bans fail, you move the goal post. So... you think the only people using illegal drugs are physically addicted?
I assume you, like most people, don't really want to ban guns, but just provide certain people with a monopoly on using them. More people have been killed by their own government than by any other cause.
Re: (Score:3)
No you are confused. Guns, drugs and encryption are not the same things. Guns are objects designed to kill people, drug is a material designed to give you euphoria and are physically addictive, encryption is a mathematical concept. It is possible to ban or limit guns, it is very hard to ban drugs because once people get addicted their only purpose in life is to get more drugs, encryption is extremely hard to ban because it is a mathematical concept.
What is so hard to understand?
More people have been killed by their own government than by any other cause
And so what? It just means yo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No I think mostly only the police should be allowed to own guns. Security people should not, if they need guns for something they should call the police.
Re: (Score:2)
No I think mostly only the police should be allowed to own guns. Security people should not, if they need guns for something they should call the police.
LOL. Okay, dude. You're naive, at best. You trust the police? Apparently you haven't been paying attention lately. The police, who are now using military surplus on people in the streets, that are never held accountable for excessive use of force? The police, which the courts have already established have NO obligation to protect anyone?
Here's a clue for you: this will never happen. Banning guns starts with the debate on who will actually have a monopoly on having guns. It will NOT be "just the po
Re: (Score:2)
I agree the US has a gun 'problem', you are ~40X as likely to get murdered by a gunman in the US as you are in UK/AU. It's not just about the lack of regulation in the US, it's a cultural thing. Even when handguns were legal here in Oz and sold in hardware stores (yes, I am that old), most people held the same attitude as they do now - "only cowards and crooks need a gun for self defense". The vast majority of Aussies stron
Re: (Score:3)
One thing about guns that is very similar to drugs, legal varieties of course. Want to reduce their use, then ensure the taxes on them reflect the harm they cause. User pays means the group that users those items, drugs or guns should pay for all the damages caused by those items, no more privatising the profits and socialising the losses. There should be sufficient tax placed upon guns and bullets to ensure that all the damage caused by their illicit, ignorant, clumsy, foolish use is paid for and not by p
Re: (Score:2)
Read my .sig
'nuff said?
In case not, allow me to elaborate. Encryption is performed with some kind of physical object. They won't outlaw the concept, since that is impossible. They will outlaw the tools. You see, it is the same thing as guns. You just haven't thought it through before posting.
Re: (Score:2)
In case not, allow me to elaborate. Encryption is performed with some kind of physical object. They won't outlaw the concept, since that is impossible. They will outlaw the tools. You see, it is the same thing as guns. You just haven't thought it through before posting.
No it is not the same thing, you just haven't thought it through before posting. Encryption is performed by a computing device. You can't ban computers as a whole, because computers are useful devices for a lot of things. Just like cars are dangerous devices but we don't ban cars because they are designed as transport and are useful in society. Guns are designed for only one thing to kill people, they are not useful for anything else. Now you might argue that you can use guns for hunting animals. Yes but th
Re: (Score:2)
Let me begin by saying that you have shown yourself to be a complete idiot, and parroting my words isn't helping your case any. You see, I thought it through. I just understand computers much better than you do apparently. A gun is a barrel, plus a firing pin, etc. An encryption device is, for example, a general purpose computer + software that performs encryption. Barrels aren't banned. Firing pins aren't banned. Metal
Re: (Score:2)
A gun is a barrel, plus a firing pin, etc. An encryption device is, for example, a general purpose computer + software that performs encryption. Barrels aren't banned. Firing pins aren't banned. Metal isn't banned. The banning is of the complete system. Computers aren't going to be banned. Software isn't going to be banned. The complete system will be banned (as there is no other way to do it.) See? No difference.
Well you could try to do that but since encryption is just math, banning it realistically in any way or form is basically impossible. The difference is that guns are physical objects and that is a lot easier to handle or ban, guns are also a lot harder to create than software. To create encryption you only need a general purpose computer and the thoughts in your brain. To use encryption you only need to download it from somewhere. It's like the difference between a store selling physical counterfet copies o
Re: (Score:2)
Who the fuck told you that? The internet pre-dates SSL by quite some time. I am not even going to address what you wrote, since it is merely a re-hashing of your cluelessness. Since you clearly can't understand what I'm writing, have no idea what you are talking about, and refuse to learn anything it's time for this sound: Plonk
Re: (Score:2)
Who the fuck told you that? The internet pre-dates SSL by quite some time. I am not even going to address what you wrote, since it is merely a re-hashing of your cluelessness. Since you clearly can't understand what I'm writing, have no idea what you are talking about, and refuse to learn anything it's time for this sound: Plonk
And that is exactly why the old Interweb was totally unsafe. If you do any online shopping or handle critical documents you need encryption period. Don't let the plonk hit you on your way out.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not the same as guns. Guns are physical objects, encryption is not. Encryption is nothing else than a few mathematical formulas. It is impossible to ban thoughts and speech however you can ban guns.
Ah. The abstinence approach to guns... Why would you think abstinence works with guns? We've seen it not work with sex. What *did* work in reducing teenage pregnancies was sex education, not preaching abstinence.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. The abstinence approach to guns... Why would you think abstinence works with guns? We've seen it not work with sex. What *did* work in reducing teenage pregnancies was sex education, not preaching abstinence.
That is because sex and guns are not the same things. Just like drugs, there is a chemical element to it that motivates you physically to have sex. You can't ban sex and expect it to just work, because your body (teenagers especially) is constantly pumping out hormones to make you want to have sex. If there was no chemical element to it, banning it would be really easy. In the same way totally banning all drugs isn't going to work in the long run.
I don't see why this is so hard to understand, just because y
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. The abstinence approach to guns... Why would you think abstinence works with guns? We've seen it not work with sex. What *did* work in reducing teenage pregnancies was sex education, not preaching abstinence.
That is because sex and guns are not the same things. Just like drugs, there is a chemical element to it that motivates you physically to have sex. You can't ban sex and expect it to just work, because your body (teenagers especially) is constantly pumping out hormones to make you want to have sex. If there was no chemical element to it, banning it would be really easy. In the same way totally banning all drugs isn't going to work in the long run.
I don't see why this is so hard to understand, just because you don't like it, banning or limiting guns is a possibilty.
What's hard to understand is the rationale that because 0.001% of $FOO owners are responsible, we need to take away $FOO from the other 99.99% of $FOO owners. It doesn't matter what $FOO actually is - when you propose that the state bans something that is responsibly used by 99.99% of owners you better have a damn good reason, especially when the numbers show that residential swimming pools have a death rate roughly 4-5 *TIMES* higher than residential fiream ownership.
If you've got a good reason for why you
Re: (Score:2)
What's hard to understand is the rationale that because 0.001% of $FOO owners are responsible, we need to take away $FOO from the other 99.99% of $FOO owners. It doesn't matter what $FOO actually is - when you propose that the state bans something that is responsibly used by 99.99% of owners you better have a damn good reason, especially when the numbers show that residential swimming pools have a death rate roughly 4-5 *TIMES* higher than residential fiream ownership.
Yes it matters what $FOO actually is. It depends on what the thing is used for. Let's do a $FOO=Nuclear weapon, I would think most nuclear weapon owners would be responsible so why ban civilians owning nuclear weapons? What about $FOO=Sarin gas?. You can see your line of reasoning is ridiculous.
If you've got a good reason for why you'd want to ban guns but not residential swimming pools when the death rate for guns is lower, I'd like to hear it.
Because guns are designed to kill people, that's why. Swimming pools are not designed primarily to kill people, they actually have other purposes. But yes if swimming pools have a high death rate it also means we nee
Re: (Score:2)
What's hard to understand is the rationale that because 0.001% of $FOO owners are responsible, we need to take away $FOO from the other 99.99% of $FOO owners. It doesn't matter what $FOO actually is - when you propose that the state bans something that is responsibly used by 99.99% of owners you better have a damn good reason, especially when the numbers show that residential swimming pools have a death rate roughly 4-5 *TIMES* higher than residential fiream ownership.
Yes it matters what $FOO actually is. It depends on what the thing is used for. Let's do a $FOO=Nuclear weapon, I would think most nuclear weapon owners would be responsible so why ban civilians owning nuclear weapons? What about $FOO=Sarin gas?. You can see your line of reasoning is ridiculous.
Did you just equate a single firearm with a nuclear weapon?
If you've got a good reason for why you'd want to ban guns but not residential swimming pools when the death rate for guns is lower, I'd like to hear it.
Because guns are designed to kill people, that's why. Swimming pools are not designed primarily to kill people, they actually have other purposes. But yes if swimming pools have a high death rate it also means we need more regulations for swimming pools and how they are designed and safety concerns for them, but that only means we need regulation for both swimming pools AND guns.
The swimming pool death rate is 4x-5x higher than firearm death rate. There is no "IF" about it - both numbers are on the CDC website (different pages on the same website). If we restrict the stats to children only, then the swimming pool death rate is around 20x the firearm death rate.
Regardless of what $FOO is "designed for", if it is measured, in practice and over the course of decades, to be safer than swimming pools then what it is designed fo
Re: (Score:2)
Did you just equate a single firearm with a nuclear weapon?
Yes because that exactly shows why your argument is stupid. Gun nuts like to say that the 2nd amendment gives them right to own *any* weapon with no limitations, even weapons created long after the amendment was written, but then when you ask about a nuclear weapon then of course that isn't in the list. But if the 2nd amendment doesn't have a clause about a nuclear weapon why can't I own one? You can then go down the list and ask about: attack helicopter, missile launcher, tank, land mines, rpg e.t.c
There a
Re: (Score:2)
The horse has bolted, the global financial system depends on encryption for their bread and butter. Doesn't matter what a retired IRA supporter thinks.
Re: (Score:2)
It may no be a gun but encryption algorithms are classed as a "munition" by US/UK/AU. Exporting a controlled algorithm to a foreign country was tightly controlled up until the late 80's - early 90's when Phil Zimmerman released PGP and demonstrated that the export controls could be circumvented by a changing a #define in legally exportable code.
The horse has bolted, the global financial system depends on encryption for their bread and butter. Doesn't matter what a retired IRA supporter thinks.
Yes and defining encryption as "munition" is beyond stupid. You might as well just ban math for all the good it will do.
Re: (Score:1)
The essence of the gun-ban arguments is that the guns will be more difficult for criminals to get a hold of, which means fewer criminals will have them, which means fewer innocent people will die.
It is obviously quite dubious, since criminals that can't get guns will get other means of killing people. And anyway the numbers of lives that are (in theory) saved pale in comparison to the number of people that die from automobile accidents every day. The motivation is not actually saving lives (since there ar
Re: (Score:2)
Gun control actually works in a lot of other countries.
[citation needed]
Hint: I'll save you some trouble, by pointing out that there's no correlation between gun ownership and crime rates, and the governments of some of those disarmed nations you love so much have killed millions of their people in the last century alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's fairly easy to tell encrypted stuff from unencrypted stuff. It's hard to tell the difference between strong and weak encryption without actually trying to decrypt it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you arrest them for having them. How hard a concept is that?
Re: (Score:2)
So making encryption illegal will stop terrorists from using encryption?
Incredibly it seems that it will, at least for some subset of terrorists.
If you head over to Facebook or Twitter you can find lots of people and groups supporting terrorism and encouraging people to become terrorists, e.g. by joining IS or committing crimes. It seems crazy because surely they must know that it isn't safe, that their private Facebook messages are not really private, but actually the security services don't try too hard to catch people this way because they want the intel that Facebook chatte
Re: (Score:2)
talking about guns... how is encryption a bigger problem then guns and mass shootings?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right, we should just do away with all laws. Criminals will be dealt with efficiently by citizens' guns -- no more need for police. Just like in the good old West.
The point is that laws should be focused on the harmful activity rather than on banning the tools that criminals happen to use. If you make the tools illegal then you are just making good people who might use the tools for legitimate purposes criminals. Making it illegal to use encryption is like saying that it is illegal to lock on your door because it makes it harder to police to search your home.
Banning encryption? (Score:5, Insightful)
Banning encryption seems like the War On Drugs...destined to be an utter failure.
I hate the way most media portrays users of encryption as probable criminals or as being "up to no good". They rarely see that encryption can be a good thing (and usually is, frankly).
But lets not get all "facty" and let reality get in the way of scaring the goobers. Besides, they're too busy posting every detail of their life on Facebook to worry about stuff like that.
Re: (Score:2)
"destined to be an utter failure" depends what you are trying to accomplish. :)
I really think what they are trying to do is create a society where you don't have to hide what you are doing and everything is permissible and acceptable. i think that is a noble goal
Re: (Score:2)
I really think what they are trying to do is create a society where you don't have to hide what you are doing and everything is permissible and acceptable.
I sense...SARCASM. Let's check...
Sarcasm Detector activated.....scanning....scanning....sarcasm FOUND.
Scan finished.
Start another scan?
Re: (Score:2)
o yea of little utopian faith
Re: (Score:2)
o yea of little utopian faith
I have to admit, my faith in anything and everything is at an all-time low these days. I doubt even the most sensitive scientific instruments could detect what little is left.
Re: (Score:2)
;)
Re: (Score:2)
Science makes faith detectors? Sounds like you have more faith in science than I do ...
All-time low = 0%.
Faith? Never had it, never will. Faith is for suckers. It's believing in something without any proof, and homie don' play dat way!
Re: (Score:2)
o i think i have one of those and the dial is stuck on 11/0
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hate the way most media portrays users of encryption as probable criminals or as being "up to no good".
I have only seen quotes of government officials saying this - not reporters. However if a reporter says this, he obviously doesn't know what the little lock icon on his web browser means while he's doing online banking.
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY
See how that works?
Re: (Score:2)
The reliability with which all american media takes the government line on any story is disheartening.
Jimmy Wales wails whether web will wreck wankers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wikipedia won't wait for Washington waterboarders
Re: (Score:2)
clearly Jimmy needs to change his name
That'll be popular (Score:4, Insightful)
Break all ability to make payments or move money online.
At the very least, any cryptography with known security vulnerabilities (such as the NSA wants) would not be PCI compliant. But it's unlikely that any bank would use an older version of TLS or SSL for online banking either.
Re: (Score:2)
I just checked a bunch of big banks and credit card companies, plenty still support TLS 1 and 1.1 which will be pci non-compliant next June. chase, discover, BMO harris....
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I don't know much about mandatory PCI scanning, but for the organization site I handle PCI compliance for, I was forced to remove TLS 1.0 support to get a passing scan already.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends which level of PCI compliance your organization was seeking at the time, earlier in the year you could get by with older
Re: (Score:2)
Most nations have versions of Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Real time tracking of all banking. No paperwork needed.
The other option for all other nations is the setting of standard banking interconnect encryption is set at a tame level and the NSA and GCHQ can read it all in real time.
Re: That'll be popular (Score:2)
The link you sent didn't say "all banking" - it said transactions of $10,000 or more are reported by the banks, not intercepted. Even the US has similar reporting requirements to the IRS.
This is about having a tamper-proof connection, safe against crime and anyone else. It's not just the NSA who would benefit from weak encryption.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a huge issue. If a nation is too good with banking encryption it gets US diplomatic pressure until its banking system starts to report on every "international" account or movement of funds.
The issue about "safe against crime and anyone else" is that the US and UK military have so many generations of experts, staff at many shared bases globally that work with local staff on the the same export grade decryptio
Banning encryption (Score:4)
Give me some scissors (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, when a big company transmits your name/address/SSN/DOB in the clear with no encryption, some new credit cards will be opened in your name.
Re: (Score:2)
We had the case not too long ago where the US did not allow exporting of certain encryption technologies. So business would actually use weak encryption with known vulnerabilities. Not quite plain text but pretty bad. Good encryption is of vital importance to commerce.
Please add this to the FAQ (Score:1)
This debate was settled years ago. It's a bad idea. Can someone please create a FAQ so that we can redirect misguided legislators and media drones?
Re:Please add this to the FAQ (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is most government security agencies aren't saying "ban all encryption" but are saying "just give us 'law enforcement only' backdoors into all encryption." They try to present this as some kind of reasonable compromise, but they ignore the giant, gaping hole they'd create. No backdoor can be totally secured as "law enforcement only." At some point, someone will figure out how to spoof their way in. And then that "wonderful-encryption-with-government-backdoors" will be worthless. Except the politicians prefer to ignore this problem and just shout "TERRORISTS COULD USE ENCRYPTION" louder and louder as if that's an argument against it. (Terrorists also breathe air. We should ban all air!)
Re: (Score:3)
I can't believe anybody is able to suggest "government-only backdoors" while keeping a straight face, in the wake of this recent epic FAIL based on exactly the same premise [schneier.com].
Is this guy for real? :) (Score:1)
North American needs stronger encryption. and more warrants for data collection/seizure. The only thing weak encryption does is support corruption within the criminal justice enforcement system. If a judge issues warrant for whatever material(s) do whatever you will with it. However that's with a warrant. Weak encryption just encourages NSA/DOJ/FBI and local PD. to piggy back bull- boogeyman terrorist/fear policies/practices inherited from the bush administration. I'm all for law enforcement. But there need
[citation needed] (Score:2)
I'm assuming that the intentionally vague title is just more slashdot trolling.
The UK government it talking about it -- the US government is requiring all government agencies to stop using HTTP [cio.gov], while ignoring the problems it might cause.
They're trying to get us to all go to HTTPS, but I'm planning on making everything available over FTP instead.
Is the URL encoded in browser SSL as well? (Score:2)
I had a particularly anal landlord not long ago, and we relied on their wifi, and he didn't want anyone downloading torrents, and went so far as to block nearly every port, as well as blocking any URL containing 'torrent'. So of course a torrent file couldn't be downloaded, but searching Google for 'torrent' would result in no page loading, and even news sites like TorrentFreak.com came up blank. (Yes, a brilliant strategy. I wasn't act
Re: Is the URL encoded in browser SSL as well? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More interested in how secure and private HTTPS is - I have a feeling that there are aspects that are more public than we'd think... Anyone want to configure their router so that it blocks particular terms like this, and see what happens when you try it with an HTTPS URL? (I never asked how he did it, it might be something like a 'parental blocking' feat
Common sense (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A face to face meeting to exchange one time pads set up on a leaky computer network
Using advance encryption from a web site thats always been under constant observation.
The software works but just been interested made all network connections by a person to that website interesting.
The public is been pushed to find, use or seek or consider different strong encryption. The very act of loo
"wikipedia is not censored" is a conceit (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact wikipedia is not censored according to the laws of China, but it is censored according to the laws of United States. Naturally this doesn't appeal to the Chinese government when it's available to Chinese citizens. No doubt if it wasn't censored according to the laws of United States then this wouldn't appeal to the United States government (or other governments with similar views to the US).
Facepalm (Score:2)
This is yet another instance of ignorant fear mongers attempting to ban what they don't understand.
But UK gov isn't any smarter (Score:5, Insightful)
Government has done a lot of retarded things over the years. This will just be another one.
Re: (Score:1)
Government has done a lot of retarded things over the years. This will just be another one.
Just when I thought they couldn't make the US look any more retarded. I'd say let them ban encryption, this will remove the necessity of the existence of their department with it's out of control budget and put the gap in technology development between the US and Russia over the top. What the hell, they're already 25+ years ahead of the US over there anyway. What the hell is up with this election thingy anyway, not one candidate directly appears to be owned, is the mafia getting all cloak and dagger or a
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, a supporter of big pharma, perhaps your choice was Obama? Sure, why don't you come a little closer with that 'yellow pill' of yours, I'd be glad to show you right where you can put it. Perhaps you should take a look at where all the surveillance started, some say that GCHQ is a subsidy of the NSA, but we were all aware of where this behavior started and know perfectly well where this will happen next.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Kill another Grange supporter? Y or N. Why yes. I would have no reason for this if you weren't here. And you must be the 'peanut butter pill.' STFU ho. Try that shit to my face and you'll get your face dimpled ho. Try it again!
There is no lesson in it for the dead, representation and democracy was proven out the window with JFK in '63 via the Biltmore gangsters backed by banksters. Ho? Heh, you must be jest for like the last 50 years or so, or you are really into theater. Perhaps you should find another reason, and maybe a moving van, or a lobotomy. Come on over and give me a dimple there sweetie if you feel you must, I'm here for you, I'm your huckleberry.
Re:This is in the UK (Score:5, Insightful)
"Hello, My name is David Cameron, MP, and I'm the Prime Minister of the UK. Today I would like to put forward a bill to ban all forms of mathematical science and studies, because they are an essential building block of encryption, and that fuels unacceptable behaviours that we can't snoop on. Pretty Please."
Re: (Score:2)
If a service is secure along the length of transmission, go for the encoding, decoding systems at one end TEMPEST.
If that is secure, ensure a nation picks a junk international standard that is weak by design.
Get to the OS developers, equ
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Soviet "Mask" material was then worked on after the 1920's under John Tiltman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
The UK had all Russian systems under total collection into the 1940's . Correct use of one time pads made Russia very difficult in the early 1950's but Russia had so much traffic it reverted to fast advance systems that the NSA a
Re: (Score:2)