4 ms·

They can say what they want - when mathematics and the state of reality are against you, your not going to win. High quality free and open source cryptography s

by yarg 8y ago

They can say what they want - when mathematics and the state of reality are against you, your not going to win. High quality free and open source cryptography software is readily available and no joint statement is going to change that. They can throw someone in jail for failing to reveal a single password - but if they are given a password and cannot prove the existence of additional unrevealed passwords, there is very little that they can do.

whatshisface 8y ago
>High quality free and open source cryptography software is readily available and no joint statement is going to change that. "With the signing of the International Protect Peace and Stability Accords, it will now be considered a criminal act to design or deal cybermunitions, unless done in the service of an allied military or a specially vetted corporation." Sure, national governments can't completely eliminate everything they ban, but do you really think that you and I will be encrypting anything in a world where that's illegal? If the penalty for encrypting information is made higher than the expected value risk of having your own systems breached, then the only ones who will be willing to circumvent that law will be people with extremely sensitive communications, like criminals. So, no, in this case saying that "the math is against you," is like telling a DEA agent that the chemistry is against them - sure, people still cook in trailers, but the government has done a lot to stop it.
- phkahler 8y ago
  So only criminals will have encryption.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - jjoonathan 8y ago
    Right, but they're not looking to control criminals, they're looking to control you, so that's fine.
- yarg 8y ago
  That's fine, but unless they're going to ban all (user generated) high bandwidth media as well, they're going to have a hard time (at least without deeply backdoored perpetually networked processors). Finding the optimal encoding for some piece of data is extraordinarily hard (I suspect NP complete, but I don't have any resources to back myself up), so it should be comparably difficult to prove that deliberate and (relatively) low bandwidth inoptimalities are intentional - it is very hard to prove the existence of an encrypted steganographic channel within some high bandwidth data stream. It's a game of cat and mouse in which the mouse is going to get increasingly good at turning invisible.
  - dannyw 8y ago
    How easy is it to find child pornography on the internet? If they declare non-backdoored encryption software to 'munitions for terrorism', and lay terrorism charges on the CEO of GitHub, you bet platforms will self-censor.
    - yarg 8y ago
      My guess would be disturbingly so. Platforms sure, but it's far harder to pull down distributed software, or software outside of your jurisdiction.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
No. De-facto governments can get their way. Sure, they'll always be holes, but it will be very hard for a regular joe to not only get their hands on the right tech, but then to use it effectively. And then to have enough money to for the ensuing legal battle when the judge orders him to sit in jail until he provides his password.
yarg 8y ago
You're.

by yarg 8y ago

whatshisface 8y ago

>High quality free and open source cryptography software is readily available and no joint statement is going to change that. "With the signing of the International Protect Peace and Stability Accords, it will now be considered a criminal act to design or deal cybermunitions, unless done in the service of an allied military or a specially vetted corporation." Sure, national governments can't completely eliminate everything they ban, but do you really think that you and I will be encrypting anything in a world where that's illegal? If the penalty for encrypting information is made higher than the expected value risk of having your own systems breached, then the only ones who will be willing to circumvent that law will be people with extremely sensitive communications, like criminals. So, no, in this case saying that "the math is against you," is like telling a DEA agent that the chemistry is against them - sure, people still cook in trailers, but the government has done a lot to stop it.

phkahler 8y ago
So only criminals will have encryption.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jjoonathan 8y ago
  Right, but they're not looking to control criminals, they're looking to control you, so that's fine.
yarg 8y ago
That's fine, but unless they're going to ban all (user generated) high bandwidth media as well, they're going to have a hard time (at least without deeply backdoored perpetually networked processors). Finding the optimal encoding for some piece of data is extraordinarily hard (I suspect NP complete, but I don't have any resources to back myself up), so it should be comparably difficult to prove that deliberate and (relatively) low bandwidth inoptimalities are intentional - it is very hard to prove the existence of an encrypted steganographic channel within some high bandwidth data stream. It's a game of cat and mouse in which the mouse is going to get increasingly good at turning invisible.
- dannyw 8y ago
  How easy is it to find child pornography on the internet? If they declare non-backdoored encryption software to 'munitions for terrorism', and lay terrorism charges on the CEO of GitHub, you bet platforms will self-censor.
  - yarg 8y ago
    My guess would be disturbingly so. Platforms sure, but it's far harder to pull down distributed software, or software outside of your jurisdiction.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

No. De-facto governments can get their way. Sure, they'll always be holes, but it will be very hard for a regular joe to not only get their hands on the right tech, but then to use it effectively. And then to have enough money to for the ensuing legal battle when the judge orders him to sit in jail until he provides his password.

yarg 8y ago

You're.