4 ms·

What can you say, if anything, without going into detail?

lesuorac 2mo ago
Everybody here is all so small minded. The government has spent centuries doing spycraft and has a budget in the billions.
- yndoendo 2mo ago
  When you know you can't kill the message, kill the messenger. This is the tactic used when journalist Gary Webb started reporting on the USA involvement with selling crack to Americans so they could fund Contra insurgents in Nicaragua. They did this so well that other news organizations turned on the journalist. I could easily imagine the USA not wanting to patch holes so they have access to the systems and these experts know this.
  - anonymousiam 2mo ago
    The US agency that we entrust with evaluating and recommending our encryption standards is the same one (albeit a different branch) that focuses on breaking encryption. There is an obvious conflict of interest with this arrangement. Many examples of deliberate weakening are documented, especially with the "export approved" stuff that we sell to our allies. This problem goes beyond just encryption, and also involves deliberate data leaking (with plausible deniability). So yes, you don't need to imagine it at all -- the NSA works to create and maintain access to "everything everywhere."
    - woodruffw 2mo ago
      What does this mean? NIST and NSA are not even in the same federal department.
    - edoceo 2mo ago
      Does this mean the NSA could open things I've encrypted using libsodium crypto_box?
      - veeti 2mo ago
        The used algorithms were designed by DJB, not US agencies.
bigyabai 2mo ago
If they worked there recently, they probably grappled with this in some capacity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Typhoon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Typhoon
cushychicken 2mo ago
It was, on a technical level, the most interesting work I’ve ever done. What people say about the US government being ahead of the commercially available technology curve is certainly true. The work I did absolutely had positive impact on the world. People rush to criticize and write off working in the defense sector, but it can be a very rewarding place to work. There are absolutely problems in that sector - bad management and regulatory capture being primary among them. (Ultimately, those are why I left.) It’s hard to judge accurately from the outside. That’s the nature of classified work: by definition, you can’t know what you’re getting yourself into until you’ve jumped with both feet.
- alexashka 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - oh_fiddlesticks 2mo ago
    A bit of an unconstructive, unwarranted jab, if I may say so.
    - iwontberude 2mo ago
      [dead]
  - jckahn 2mo ago
    Is the implication here that we should take the moral high ground and let our adversaries murder us first?
    - justsomehnguy 2mo ago
      It's quite strange what your adversaries become them after you travel to other side of the planet and kill, maim and destroy them.
    - iso1631 2mo ago
      Well that would be fine if it was defence. But it's now the department of war, led by a person who has attacked two countries this year alone.

Everybody here is all so small minded. The government has spent centuries doing spycraft and has a budget in the billions.

yndoendo 2mo ago
When you know you can't kill the message, kill the messenger. This is the tactic used when journalist Gary Webb started reporting on the USA involvement with selling crack to Americans so they could fund Contra insurgents in Nicaragua. They did this so well that other news organizations turned on the journalist. I could easily imagine the USA not wanting to patch holes so they have access to the systems and these experts know this.
- anonymousiam 2mo ago
  The US agency that we entrust with evaluating and recommending our encryption standards is the same one (albeit a different branch) that focuses on breaking encryption. There is an obvious conflict of interest with this arrangement. Many examples of deliberate weakening are documented, especially with the "export approved" stuff that we sell to our allies. This problem goes beyond just encryption, and also involves deliberate data leaking (with plausible deniability). So yes, you don't need to imagine it at all -- the NSA works to create and maintain access to "everything everywhere."
  - woodruffw 2mo ago
    What does this mean? NIST and NSA are not even in the same federal department.
  - edoceo 2mo ago
    Does this mean the NSA could open things I've encrypted using libsodium crypto_box?
    - veeti 2mo ago
      The used algorithms were designed by DJB, not US agencies.

bigyabai 2mo ago

If they worked there recently, they probably grappled with this in some capacity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Typhoon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Typhoon

cushychicken 2mo ago

It was, on a technical level, the most interesting work I’ve ever done. What people say about the US government being ahead of the commercially available technology curve is certainly true. The work I did absolutely had positive impact on the world. People rush to criticize and write off working in the defense sector, but it can be a very rewarding place to work. There are absolutely problems in that sector - bad management and regulatory capture being primary among them. (Ultimately, those are why I left.) It’s hard to judge accurately from the outside. That’s the nature of classified work: by definition, you can’t know what you’re getting yourself into until you’ve jumped with both feet.

alexashka 2mo ago
[flagged]
- oh_fiddlesticks 2mo ago
  A bit of an unconstructive, unwarranted jab, if I may say so.
  - iwontberude 2mo ago
    [dead]
- jckahn 2mo ago
  Is the implication here that we should take the moral high ground and let our adversaries murder us first?
  - justsomehnguy 2mo ago
    It's quite strange what your adversaries become them after you travel to other side of the planet and kill, maim and destroy them.
  - iso1631 2mo ago
    Well that would be fine if it was defence. But it's now the department of war, led by a person who has attacked two countries this year alone.