4 ms·

So if we encrypt stuff we are not spied on? Naive....

by TranceMan 14y ago

sdp 14y ago
Encrypting data certainly increases the barrier to entry for spying.
- TranceMan 14y ago
  No it doesn't, it means if somebody doesn't really want to spy on you they just will not waste their time....
  - artichokeheart 14y ago
    Isn't that the definition of a raised barrier? Even if it isn't very high.
  - amckenna 14y ago
    Yes it does. Adding encryption, even if it can be broken through sheer computational power, still increases the price tag associated with spying, therefore increasing the barrier to spying.
homosaur 14y ago
Yeah, but what does it matter then? I can stand outside the bank safe all day and stare at it but unless I know the code I'm still just looking at a locked box. Strong encryption is the same way, feel free to stare at my VPN stream all day, it won't help you.
- TranceMan 14y ago
  You fail to get my point, why do you think that that the US has has little issue with allowing encryption to be used these days? How strong is your 'locked' box? It's only a bunch of 1s and 0s.
  - aeflash 14y ago
    Unless the NSA/FBI/whatever is decades ahead in mathematical research from what is common in academia, or has computers that are many orders of magnitude faster than what we have today, well encrypted data is basically random data to anyone who lacks the keys. That's a pretty tough locked box.
    - TranceMan 14y ago
      And who packages that box?
      - pjscott 14y ago
        You're veering awfully metaphorical, but it might be relevant to point out that the crypto implementations in wide use today are typically open source, and the algorithms themselves are public, and widely reviewed by independent cryptographers who have no incentive to do anything sinister.
        teebs 14y ago
        In fact, they have a good incentive not to do sinister things. If they do, and other cryptographers find out, they will lose a lot of standing in the academic community.
    - temp453463343 14y ago
      "Unless the NSA/FBI/whatever is decades ahead in mathematical research from what is common in academia" I wouldn't be surprised. Basically 9/10 people that study cryptography in the US end up working for the NSA. Look at the NSA's budget, and then look at how many cryptography professors there are. However, that said, IF they managed to decrypt AES somehow, they are severely limited in what they can do with that information. Basically anything they do with the decrypted data has to in no way alert anyone that they have that capability. So that data DEFINITELY can't be used in court, nor for a whole array of other more covert operations.

So if we encrypt stuff we are not spied on? Naive....

sdp 14y ago

Encrypting data certainly increases the barrier to entry for spying.

TranceMan 14y ago
No it doesn't, it means if somebody doesn't really want to spy on you they just will not waste their time....
- artichokeheart 14y ago
  Isn't that the definition of a raised barrier? Even if it isn't very high.
- amckenna 14y ago
  Yes it does. Adding encryption, even if it can be broken through sheer computational power, still increases the price tag associated with spying, therefore increasing the barrier to spying.

homosaur 14y ago

Yeah, but what does it matter then? I can stand outside the bank safe all day and stare at it but unless I know the code I'm still just looking at a locked box. Strong encryption is the same way, feel free to stare at my VPN stream all day, it won't help you.

TranceMan 14y ago
You fail to get my point, why do you think that that the US has has little issue with allowing encryption to be used these days? How strong is your 'locked' box? It's only a bunch of 1s and 0s.
- aeflash 14y ago
  Unless the NSA/FBI/whatever is decades ahead in mathematical research from what is common in academia, or has computers that are many orders of magnitude faster than what we have today, well encrypted data is basically random data to anyone who lacks the keys. That's a pretty tough locked box.
  - TranceMan 14y ago
    And who packages that box?
    - pjscott 14y ago
      You're veering awfully metaphorical, but it might be relevant to point out that the crypto implementations in wide use today are typically open source, and the algorithms themselves are public, and widely reviewed by independent cryptographers who have no incentive to do anything sinister.
      - teebs 14y ago
        In fact, they have a good incentive not to do sinister things. If they do, and other cryptographers find out, they will lose a lot of standing in the academic community.
  - temp453463343 14y ago
    "Unless the NSA/FBI/whatever is decades ahead in mathematical research from what is common in academia" I wouldn't be surprised. Basically 9/10 people that study cryptography in the US end up working for the NSA. Look at the NSA's budget, and then look at how many cryptography professors there are. However, that said, IF they managed to decrypt AES somehow, they are severely limited in what they can do with that information. Basically anything they do with the decrypted data has to in no way alert anyone that they have that capability. So that data DEFINITELY can't be used in court, nor for a whole array of other more covert operations.