6 ms·

No no no. Firstly this is just an arms race between you and the most sophisticated, well resourced and technically savvy surveillance organisation that has ever

by polemic 13y ago

No no no. Firstly this is just an arms race between you and the most sophisticated, well resourced and technically savvy surveillance organisation that has ever existed. Secondly, this strategy might temporarily protect a tiny knowledgable fraction of the population, which is of no real consequence to society in general.

jfoutz 13y ago
Yes, we all know who will win in an arms race between me and google.
rdl 13y ago
Fortunately the same principles of physics and mathematics apply to both me and Google (and the #3 or #4 most powerful/smart organization, NSA). I trust science a lot more than I trust either every member of every organization to obey the law, or the law to remain both public and supportive of my interests.
- dnautics 13y ago
  don't be so sure. The NSA is probably far, far ahead in mathematics.
  - rdl 13y ago
    Absolutely true in 1970, but probably much less true now (they probably ARE experts in traffic analysis, though, since ~no one but intel agencies cares about that yet). Academia and commerce tend to surpass the government in every OTHER area where they participate, it's just that no one cared pre-70s. I don't think they're using their huge budget efficiently, just like every other government/military program. The bulk of their budget and effort is going to collection, mainly satellites, physical installations, staffing for those, etc. Judging by what I've seen of USG security, their COMSEC side (defense) is actually comparatively weaker than best practices in most of the high-end civilian world. Their only saving grace is a focus on physical separation and hardware implementations; otherwise they'd be totally pwned, and they seem to be moving "into the cloud" which will lose their their existing advantages. And, if they had a magic way to factor or whatever, it would be so highly classified (like Enigma break in WW2)that they could never use it on anything which wasn't totally justifiable through other plausible means, and of such incredible value (like "killing OBL" or higher), that I can act as if they can't factor.
    - dnautics 13y ago
      I'm pretty sure the NSA has an active program to recruit high-level strictly theoretical mathematicians specializing in algebra and algebraic analysis (typically at the undergrad level). Agree that the US's COMSEC is degrading, rapidly. As is the USN's nuke reactor program. Sigh.
      - rdl 13y ago
        They do, although the vast majority of NSA staff are more like computer techs/middle managers/etc. Sadly. It's also a lot harder, IMO, to convince a top theoretical mathematician to go to NSA vs. remain in public, since there aren't exactly amazing resources NSA can offer (better chalk?), compared to someone who needs access to multi-million or billion dollar resources. In exchange for better chalk (and access to other classified work, sure), you can't publish, so you'll never win a Fields, be respected by your mom, etc. (A guy who really is into nuclear physics could be tempted by DOE, by comparison.) I think NSA would have a much easier time recruiting "true believers" in US national defense than anything else. i.e. "yes, you're an expert in theoretical math, but rather than doing purely abstract stuff, you can help protect your country from the evil terrorists!". An easier case when the threat was existential nuclear annihilation from a USSR your relatives may have fled in the past, than now where we're going up against mud hut dwellers who can't afford shoes and take over planes with boxcutters. NSA also does the bullshit "EOE" recruiting, particularly in the high school and undergrad level. Sorry, but most high level math people are not particularly "diverse". Plus, go to the math department at top universities. Find the US citizen. Find the US citizen who isn't particularly counterculture or does recreational drugs or whatever. Convince him to work for GS/GG wages (maybe $100k, tops?) vs. a tech startup or a hedge fund. With paralyzing bureaucracy, uncertain funding in the next 10-20 years, and stifling work rules. I would not want to be the NSA's recruiting department.
        dnautics 13y ago
        good points.
Zigurd 13y ago
> this is just an arms race For encryption, that's not really true. If armor were like encryption then one inch of armor would be a billion times more resistant than half an inch. The strength of encryption can be calculated to be on a cosmic scale infeasible to crack.
- polemic 13y ago
  The theory of it doesn't really matter. How can you share encryption keys securely if all system is traffic is transparent? Ultimately, You might be able to temporarily reduce the attack surface, but you will always be massively mismatched. The point is, a technical solution is a band aid solution for a technical elite happy to live half outside of "normal" society. The only way to convey similar protections on the rest of the population is through strong legislation.
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    Key exchange can also be secured. Ephemeral keys can make it difficult to sustain an attack on key storage at endpoints. The everyday use of strong encryption would be a lot more than a "band aid." It would mean securing our right to be secure in our documents against any attack, legal or technical. It would become a right any individual could enforce against all comers.
    - polemic 13y ago
      This is exactly what I mean about an arms race. If an agency is legally entitled to access private keys, for example, through legalised hacking of your home computer via backdoors installed by cooperative corporations, you're back to square one. If the network controllers make the so-called metadata of who talked to who and when, they've got a heck of lot of data to start with. If the control as much computer power and as much of the world expertise on crypography as some people claim, maybe they can break crypto in ways that appear mathematically unlikely now. Arms race. You cannot win with purely technical means when you fundamentally lack control over the technology.

by polemic 13y ago

jfoutz 13y ago

Yes, we all know who will win in an arms race between me and google.

rdl 13y ago

Fortunately the same principles of physics and mathematics apply to both me and Google (and the #3 or #4 most powerful/smart organization, NSA). I trust science a lot more than I trust either every member of every organization to obey the law, or the law to remain both public and supportive of my interests.

dnautics 13y ago
don't be so sure. The NSA is probably far, far ahead in mathematics.
- rdl 13y ago
  Absolutely true in 1970, but probably much less true now (they probably ARE experts in traffic analysis, though, since ~no one but intel agencies cares about that yet). Academia and commerce tend to surpass the government in every OTHER area where they participate, it's just that no one cared pre-70s. I don't think they're using their huge budget efficiently, just like every other government/military program. The bulk of their budget and effort is going to collection, mainly satellites, physical installations, staffing for those, etc. Judging by what I've seen of USG security, their COMSEC side (defense) is actually comparatively weaker than best practices in most of the high-end civilian world. Their only saving grace is a focus on physical separation and hardware implementations; otherwise they'd be totally pwned, and they seem to be moving "into the cloud" which will lose their their existing advantages. And, if they had a magic way to factor or whatever, it would be so highly classified (like Enigma break in WW2)that they could never use it on anything which wasn't totally justifiable through other plausible means, and of such incredible value (like "killing OBL" or higher), that I can act as if they can't factor.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    I'm pretty sure the NSA has an active program to recruit high-level strictly theoretical mathematicians specializing in algebra and algebraic analysis (typically at the undergrad level). Agree that the US's COMSEC is degrading, rapidly. As is the USN's nuke reactor program. Sigh.
    - rdl 13y ago
      They do, although the vast majority of NSA staff are more like computer techs/middle managers/etc. Sadly. It's also a lot harder, IMO, to convince a top theoretical mathematician to go to NSA vs. remain in public, since there aren't exactly amazing resources NSA can offer (better chalk?), compared to someone who needs access to multi-million or billion dollar resources. In exchange for better chalk (and access to other classified work, sure), you can't publish, so you'll never win a Fields, be respected by your mom, etc. (A guy who really is into nuclear physics could be tempted by DOE, by comparison.) I think NSA would have a much easier time recruiting "true believers" in US national defense than anything else. i.e. "yes, you're an expert in theoretical math, but rather than doing purely abstract stuff, you can help protect your country from the evil terrorists!". An easier case when the threat was existential nuclear annihilation from a USSR your relatives may have fled in the past, than now where we're going up against mud hut dwellers who can't afford shoes and take over planes with boxcutters. NSA also does the bullshit "EOE" recruiting, particularly in the high school and undergrad level. Sorry, but most high level math people are not particularly "diverse". Plus, go to the math department at top universities. Find the US citizen. Find the US citizen who isn't particularly counterculture or does recreational drugs or whatever. Convince him to work for GS/GG wages (maybe $100k, tops?) vs. a tech startup or a hedge fund. With paralyzing bureaucracy, uncertain funding in the next 10-20 years, and stifling work rules. I would not want to be the NSA's recruiting department.
      - dnautics 13y ago
        good points.

Zigurd 13y ago

> this is just an arms race For encryption, that's not really true. If armor were like encryption then one inch of armor would be a billion times more resistant than half an inch. The strength of encryption can be calculated to be on a cosmic scale infeasible to crack.

polemic 13y ago
The theory of it doesn't really matter. How can you share encryption keys securely if all system is traffic is transparent? Ultimately, You might be able to temporarily reduce the attack surface, but you will always be massively mismatched. The point is, a technical solution is a band aid solution for a technical elite happy to live half outside of "normal" society. The only way to convey similar protections on the rest of the population is through strong legislation.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  Key exchange can also be secured. Ephemeral keys can make it difficult to sustain an attack on key storage at endpoints. The everyday use of strong encryption would be a lot more than a "band aid." It would mean securing our right to be secure in our documents against any attack, legal or technical. It would become a right any individual could enforce against all comers.
  - polemic 13y ago
    This is exactly what I mean about an arms race. If an agency is legally entitled to access private keys, for example, through legalised hacking of your home computer via backdoors installed by cooperative corporations, you're back to square one. If the network controllers make the so-called metadata of who talked to who and when, they've got a heck of lot of data to start with. If the control as much computer power and as much of the world expertise on crypography as some people claim, maybe they can break crypto in ways that appear mathematically unlikely now. Arms race. You cannot win with purely technical means when you fundamentally lack control over the technology.