4 ms·

This is poorly thought out. It’s clear that there were no actual experts in the room. Trust is something we used to count on years ago. Since cryptography has

This is poorly thought out. It’s clear that there were no actual experts in the room. Trust is something we used to count on years ago. Since cryptography has gone mainstream, we don’t rely so much on trust but instead verification and zero knowledge systems. Rather than the clean network, they should be making the Verified and Cryptographically private and secure network.

LatteLazy 6y ago
Admitting cryptography works means 2 things: * people will use it and it will be harder for the US to spy on its own citizens and its "allies" * people might buy superior Chinese products instead of inferior Americans ones. 5G is a perfect example of this. Pages like these also allow the current administration to act tough without actually making any tough decisions or doing much...
throwaway4good 6y ago
Poorly thought out by a bunch of cold warriors that thought they could use America's centralized technological superiority to do damage to their perceived enemy, China. By labeling Chinese technology, network and apps as "unclean". Of course the problem in that is that what if it is no longer you who decides what is clean and what is unclean? Wouldn't you then regret supporting a system that was hierarchy where an app store at the top could turn things on and off, rather than a network where no single authority is in control? Of course these guys lacked the imagination to imagine that. And they certainly didn't think it would happen just 6 months later ...
incrudible 6y ago
You can't cryptographically verify that the system you are using doesn't have backdoors. For this, we rely on trust. It is then only a matter of choosing who to trust with the backdoors into your system. You might have good reasons to prefer to trust a foreign government with the backdoors into your system, but that isn't true for the federal government.
- rasengan 6y ago
  > You can't cryptographically verify that the system you are using doesn't have backdoors Yes you can, there are many methods including but not limited to SGX among other things.
  - incrudible 6y ago
    SGX has critical flaws that may or may not have been put there intentionally. How do you "cryptographically verify" that such vulnerabilities do not exist?
    - rasengan 6y ago
      To be able to exploit these "critical flaws" in SGX is quite difficult in the real world. That said, I agree that it could happen in extraordinary circumstances. If you fall under these extraordinary circumstances, you really shouldn't being using a computer identifiable to you in any serious kind of way nor connecting to anything you had ever historically connected to.
      - incrudible 6y ago
        It's not about me, it's about government infrastructure. How do you procure a system that you don't have to trust, where you can rely on cryptography alone? It's simply not possible. It's not just about CPUs, but all the hardware that goes into running a network.

LatteLazy 6y ago

Admitting cryptography works means 2 things: * people will use it and it will be harder for the US to spy on its own citizens and its "allies" * people might buy superior Chinese products instead of inferior Americans ones. 5G is a perfect example of this. Pages like these also allow the current administration to act tough without actually making any tough decisions or doing much...

throwaway4good 6y ago

Poorly thought out by a bunch of cold warriors that thought they could use America's centralized technological superiority to do damage to their perceived enemy, China. By labeling Chinese technology, network and apps as "unclean". Of course the problem in that is that what if it is no longer you who decides what is clean and what is unclean? Wouldn't you then regret supporting a system that was hierarchy where an app store at the top could turn things on and off, rather than a network where no single authority is in control? Of course these guys lacked the imagination to imagine that. And they certainly didn't think it would happen just 6 months later ...

incrudible 6y ago

You can't cryptographically verify that the system you are using doesn't have backdoors. For this, we rely on trust. It is then only a matter of choosing who to trust with the backdoors into your system. You might have good reasons to prefer to trust a foreign government with the backdoors into your system, but that isn't true for the federal government.

rasengan 6y ago
> You can't cryptographically verify that the system you are using doesn't have backdoors Yes you can, there are many methods including but not limited to SGX among other things.
- incrudible 6y ago
  SGX has critical flaws that may or may not have been put there intentionally. How do you "cryptographically verify" that such vulnerabilities do not exist?
  - rasengan 6y ago
    To be able to exploit these "critical flaws" in SGX is quite difficult in the real world. That said, I agree that it could happen in extraordinary circumstances. If you fall under these extraordinary circumstances, you really shouldn't being using a computer identifiable to you in any serious kind of way nor connecting to anything you had ever historically connected to.
    - incrudible 6y ago
      It's not about me, it's about government infrastructure. How do you procure a system that you don't have to trust, where you can rely on cryptography alone? It's simply not possible. It's not just about CPUs, but all the hardware that goes into running a network.