5 ms·

I had an idea that a decent compromise is to limit keystrength, but not have any kind of backdoor. This way the vast majority of communication is protected, an

by ars 7y ago

I had an idea that a decent compromise is to limit keystrength, but not have any kind of backdoor. This way the vast majority of communication is protected, and the government can't just spy en mass. But, if there was some specific target they could throw a lot of computing resources at it. But they would need to know in advance who to target, they couldn't just have a wide dragnet. Thoughts?

BLKNSLVR 7y ago
Throwing computing resources at it can be fairly accessible to small groups or even individuals as a result of 'cloud' computing. There are examples of people coordinating a large number of cloud instances for a short amount of time to crack hashes, and it was surprisingly cheap. I don't have a reference on hand though. This also makes it trivial for nation states and larger groups to decrypt whatever data they're able to sniff. It would actually encourage more groups to get into more places where they can sniff more data.
emptybits 7y ago
> if there was some specific target they could throw a lot of computing resources at it 1. Yes, for many (too many) values of they. "Your" government, all governments, so essentially any corporation, or any private individual that can afford time or computing resources and is interested in a target. 2. This scheme doesn't age well. Targets' mandatory low-grade encrypted communications today could be saved as blackmail time capsules, much more easily decrypted with cheap resources in the too-near future.
ffe44 7y ago
If a cipher can be broken by the government, it can also be broken by narco cartels or mafia states. The targets will be key decision makers, not regular citizens, but their decisions, coerced by those mafia states, will harm regular citizens. Unlike physical locks, breaking encrypted data doesn't need physical presence. This means that not just local authorities under an elected Sheriff can break into one's house, but also completely random people from say China or KSA can teleport in, break in and kidnap the data. In the near future we'll have a brain-to-computer-to-internet interface. This will be a big leap forward or backwards as it can be used for rapid collaboration or total undisputable survelliance for a greedy dictator. The crypthography case today will set the precedent for tomorrow. Btw, even the 24/7 thoughts monitoring can be used for good: someone really advanced, a saint-like person, could be giving advice on what's wrong with your thoughts. But we understand that the humanity is far from this level of maturity.
scotty79 7y ago
It's a no go for law enforcement because they want to eventually spy en masse.
AdrianB1 7y ago
There is no need for a compromise - why do that? I have no reason to give up on any of my freedoms, including the ones that I don't care about, I don't use or can be used to do bad things. I am not willing to give up anything, that is a slippery slope, so there is no compromise to do.

by ars 7y ago

BLKNSLVR 7y ago

Throwing computing resources at it can be fairly accessible to small groups or even individuals as a result of 'cloud' computing. There are examples of people coordinating a large number of cloud instances for a short amount of time to crack hashes, and it was surprisingly cheap. I don't have a reference on hand though. This also makes it trivial for nation states and larger groups to decrypt whatever data they're able to sniff. It would actually encourage more groups to get into more places where they can sniff more data.

emptybits 7y ago

> if there was some specific target they could throw a lot of computing resources at it 1. Yes, for many (too many) values of they. "Your" government, all governments, so essentially any corporation, or any private individual that can afford time or computing resources and is interested in a target. 2. This scheme doesn't age well. Targets' mandatory low-grade encrypted communications today could be saved as blackmail time capsules, much more easily decrypted with cheap resources in the too-near future.

ffe44 7y ago

If a cipher can be broken by the government, it can also be broken by narco cartels or mafia states. The targets will be key decision makers, not regular citizens, but their decisions, coerced by those mafia states, will harm regular citizens. Unlike physical locks, breaking encrypted data doesn't need physical presence. This means that not just local authorities under an elected Sheriff can break into one's house, but also completely random people from say China or KSA can teleport in, break in and kidnap the data. In the near future we'll have a brain-to-computer-to-internet interface. This will be a big leap forward or backwards as it can be used for rapid collaboration or total undisputable survelliance for a greedy dictator. The crypthography case today will set the precedent for tomorrow. Btw, even the 24/7 thoughts monitoring can be used for good: someone really advanced, a saint-like person, could be giving advice on what's wrong with your thoughts. But we understand that the humanity is far from this level of maturity.

scotty79 7y ago

It's a no go for law enforcement because they want to eventually spy en masse.

AdrianB1 7y ago

There is no need for a compromise - why do that? I have no reason to give up on any of my freedoms, including the ones that I don't care about, I don't use or can be used to do bad things. I am not willing to give up anything, that is a slippery slope, so there is no compromise to do.