2 ms·
It’s a trade off. There’s no cognitive dissonance, just refusal to work towards better compromises. Lovely argument, though. Euphemistically it’s clear you’re
by masscrypteria 7y ago
It’s a trade off. There’s no cognitive dissonance, just refusal to work towards better compromises. Lovely argument, though. Euphemistically it’s clear you’re very passionate about this issue. Maybe my hacker news throwaway should’ve been called cryptopassion
- jki275 7y agoThere is no compromise. There is either security, or there is not. You want the not, because you prioritize government access to all communications over privacy. The rest of the world disagrees with you.
- masscrypteria 7y agoNo, not true. Crypto isn’t perfect as is, and involves levels of security. Two party crypto has two parties who could leak the data. Two party with exceptional access has three. Current crypto is susceptible to brute force via shor’s and quantum The rest of the world absolutely does not agree with you. It’s just that a lot of people here live in a bubble.
- jki275 7y agoCurrent crypto is possibly subject to attack due to implementation defects. You're throwing out word salad that you clearly don't understand on this subject -- but hey, let's take your statement as fact for a hypothetical second. Since as you say, "Current crypto is susceptible to brute force via shor’s and quantum", then there's no need for backdooring algorithms, since they're all already broken. I mean, none of that is accurate, but given your argument you're asking for something you don't need because you already have it.