5 ms·
No, it wouldn't, because we have different ideas of which people comprise each group. I would apply strict scrutiny and the tightest limits to the angels group
by CapitalistCartr 11y ago
No, it wouldn't, because we have different ideas of which people comprise each group. I would apply strict scrutiny and the tightest limits to the angels group. Its obvious from past behavior the government, especially prosecutors, favor adding to both groups at their convenience.
- slg 11y agoThis is not an argument for encryption. This is an argument for who has the keys. It is much easier to reach a compromise on the latter than the former.
- Retric 11y agoI don't think so. Personally I think breaking encryption should be setup to cost ~100 million in computer time at a minimum each time. IMO, this represents a reasonable compromise where rogue agents are simply not going to stalk their ex. The point is this needs to be the kind of choice where the president is in on the call. Not simply a secret that can be sold to foreign governments within a week.
- pixl97 11y ago>setup to cost ~100 million in computer time at a minimum each time. Which means every X months that cost drops by half. Hopefully you don't need to keep your secrets very long. In 10 years with the rate of Moores law it will cost you a few thousand dollars at most to crack it. Your idea is bad and puts peoples lives at danger.
- Retric 11y agoMoors law is dead. https://asteroidsathome.net/boinc/cpu_list.php https://asteroidsathome.net/boinc/cpu_list.php Q1 2011 330$ i7 2600k 29.64 GFLOPS / computer. Q1 2016 336$ i7-4790K 43.78 GFLOPS / computer. Five years < 50% speed boost. And let's not forget some people can overclocked that 2600k from 3.4ghz to 5.2+ Ghz where people are having issues getting the 4790K that high even with a 4ghz base clock. GPU's got faster for longer, but they where using older processes. Also, for live systems you can always re encrypt.