4 ms·
There is so much here to debate about. A) Never trust the cyber feds. B) The NSA is not the place anyone thinks, it’s a Wild West in the most bizarre of places,
by zghst 1y ago
There is so much here to debate about. A) Never trust the cyber feds. B) The NSA is not the place anyone thinks, it’s a Wild West in the most bizarre of places, trust me from experience. C) Cryptology concerns more of than security and exchanging messages or packets, sometimes you don’t even know what kind of thing (living) can and has been decrypted. D) The NSA plays very, very, very dirty. It is like a digital CIA, they are in everything (i.e. cyber spies in various roles at tech/telecom/manufacturer company xyz). E) NEVER LISTEN TO THE DAMN NSA / DRIVEN BY A CULTURE OF EXPLOITATION
- torben-friis 1y ago>sometimes you don’t even know what kind of thing (living) can and has been decrypted. ?
- Y_Y 1y agoOk, aside from not trusting the NSA, could you expand on why someone should trust you?
- heresie-dabord 1y ago> expand on why someone should trust you The point is to trust no one and no thing that we cannot examine freely, closely, and transparently. And to maintain healthy skepticism of any entity that claims to have a virtuous process to do its business.
- dotancohen 1y agoGGP stated: > trust me from experience.
- SV_BubbleTime 1y agoAnd the point is “trust me: trust no one, but especially not them” is the meaning you are ignoring.
- halJordan 1y agoNo it's not. The NSA has been the Federal Govt's designated expert on cryptography since the end of WW2. You are pretending that the current set of NIST standards and every previous NIST standard has not had incredibly intimate contact with the NSA. You're lived experience tells you to trust the NSA, at least as it relates to NIST standards.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]