4 ms·
I feel like the irony here is that, assuming the director of the NSA is even minimally self-aware, there's actually no way for me to know whether this is: a) a
by ledauphin 7y ago
I feel like the irony here is that, assuming the director of the NSA is even minimally self-aware, there's actually no way for me to know whether this is:
a) an attempt to prevent me from using encryption they can't yet break
- or -
b) reverse-psychology, assuming that a halfway intelligent person would guess this was a case of A, therefore prematurely switching to an untested quantum crypto that they might actually have an _easier_ time breaking.
and honestly, either way I'm left with no actionable information.
- ENOTTY 7y agoWhy not a third option, that the research director of the NSA is giving her honest informed opinion?
- tremon 7y agoBecause that would be ignoring over 25 years of documented history.
- abhayb 7y agoBoth are true because this is a government official. A key skill for a government official is to communicate in a way that gives no information to people who disagree with them. This is a sensible adaptation to their conditions. You disagree with this government official. And for that reason you gain no information from them.
- vardump 7y agoHow about c) making NSA's adversaries nervous by indirectly suggesting that they might be able to break current crypto and monitoring how different parties sending encrypted traffic react to this "information" to discover interesting/high value targets? Side channel information exposure attack against human targets.