4 ms·

Actually, if I go to the trouble of encrypting my data, I have nothing against someone storing it indefinitely. That's the whole point of encryption — it no lon

by jwr 13y ago

Actually, if I go to the trouble of encrypting my data, I have nothing against someone storing it indefinitely. That's the whole point of encryption — it no longer matters who has the data, it only matters who has the key.

Ma8ee 13y ago
The problem with that is that what might be considered safe today might not be it tomorrow, whether it is some undetected flaw in the encryption implementation or even in the algorithm you are using, or if someone builds an effective quantum computer. edit: That was odd downvotes. Anyone care to explain?
- 77887 13y ago
  >>That was odd downvotes. Anyone care to explain? There seem to be a bunch of people that will down-vote every little thing. Unfortunately it has become quite sizable now. Just watch them down-vote this comment. They really are Re..tards.
Dirlewanger 13y ago
Those prime numbers aren't staying unsolved forever. Then again, with quantum computing still a ways off, I think we're good.
- bad_user 13y ago
  Not all public key cyphers are based on the difficulty of factorizing huge primes. Quantum computing only solves a small subset of problems we have, but it doesn't solve NP. AES-256 takes 2^256 guesses to break by brute force and by using Grover's quantum algorithm that's only improved to 2^128. It is something, but I can bet that AES-256 will at some point become insufficient due to Moore's law, not due to quantum computing - a theory that has originated in the 1980-1981 and that has yet to yield actual machines that we can use. And of course, Moore's law also works in our favour, since with more power and specialized chips, we'll be able to use bigger keys that aren't likely to be breakable by Moore's law or Quantum computing in the next century or even millennium. As long as we cannot reduce NP problems to P, then virtually unbreakable cryptography is possible. Also, cryptography as a (mathematical) field is pretty new.
  - claudius 13y ago
    > not due to quantum computing - a theory that has originated in the 1980-1981 and that has yet to yield actual machines that we can use. Uhm – classical computer science originated sometime in the early 19th century (possibly earlier) in the form of analytical engines and the first actually usable machines[0] were created just a bit before World War II. General relativity originated before WWI and was first used well after WW II. Quantum mechanics was invented at the beginning of the last century and the first usable LASERs were built in the 1960s. Really, 30 years is not that long in the context of ‘hard’ science. Even in the ‘fast-moving’[1] field of software engineering, people still use SMTP (1982), TCP/IP (1975) and FTP (1971). [0] ‘Usable’ in the same sense that QC are not usable yet because people can perfectly factor 15 without Shor’s algorithm. [1] Because it’s young and hence easy to discover new stuff.
    - bad_user 13y ago
      Given the accelerated R&D that happened since the 70-ties in computer science, the huge resources that this industry can throw at problems and the fact that quantum computing can theoretically solve many important problems for us, 30 years is a long time. I'm not saying that it won't happen eventually. I'm only saying that Moore's law is a more imminent threat to current encryption methods and that quantum computing still doesn't solve NP and as long as NP is not P, unbreakable encryption is a reality that quantum computing won't change.
      - claudius 13y ago
        The problem here is that QC is not lagging behind in the field of computer science (all the theories are there) nor the field of hardware engineering (the engineers can build every we tell them to), but in (condensed matter) physics. And physics is something you can only speed up so much, especially given that there are many other equally exciting, high-profile projects (think LHC).
adamman 13y ago
You have nothing against someone storing it indefinitely, but I bet you have a problem with them now thinking you might be a bad guy. Will they listen to your phone calls to find out if you are in fact a bad guy?
- uxp 13y ago
  True. In a perfect scenario I would rather the NSA not store my communications at all, and have them no reason to even look at me to assume I am either good or bad. But, unfortunately, looking at the absolute pushback from congress and the white house over this whole thing, it's pretty clear the citizens have absolutely 0 say in the matter. After all, we're just ignorant sheep. They're the ones will all the knowledge and we should just trust them. We're not going to be able to change the NSA's policies or magically make everyone follow the constitution and the law to the T overnight. This is a compromise on our end. The NSA may have a large amount of resources for storing and running attacks on my emails, but they don't have limitless resources. For every hour they spend bruteforcing my keys to recover a sappy "Just thinking of you <3" to my wife, the less time they're spending bruteforcing someone else's emails.
nathan_long 13y ago
True, but the storage part should make you more paranoid about key length. "For how many years do I want this to remain uncrackable?" is the question.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by jwr 13y ago

Ma8ee 13y ago

The problem with that is that what might be considered safe today might not be it tomorrow, whether it is some undetected flaw in the encryption implementation or even in the algorithm you are using, or if someone builds an effective quantum computer. edit: That was odd downvotes. Anyone care to explain?

77887 13y ago
>>That was odd downvotes. Anyone care to explain? There seem to be a bunch of people that will down-vote every little thing. Unfortunately it has become quite sizable now. Just watch them down-vote this comment. They really are Re..tards.

Dirlewanger 13y ago

Those prime numbers aren't staying unsolved forever. Then again, with quantum computing still a ways off, I think we're good.

bad_user 13y ago
Not all public key cyphers are based on the difficulty of factorizing huge primes. Quantum computing only solves a small subset of problems we have, but it doesn't solve NP. AES-256 takes 2^256 guesses to break by brute force and by using Grover's quantum algorithm that's only improved to 2^128. It is something, but I can bet that AES-256 will at some point become insufficient due to Moore's law, not due to quantum computing - a theory that has originated in the 1980-1981 and that has yet to yield actual machines that we can use. And of course, Moore's law also works in our favour, since with more power and specialized chips, we'll be able to use bigger keys that aren't likely to be breakable by Moore's law or Quantum computing in the next century or even millennium. As long as we cannot reduce NP problems to P, then virtually unbreakable cryptography is possible. Also, cryptography as a (mathematical) field is pretty new.
- claudius 13y ago
  > not due to quantum computing - a theory that has originated in the 1980-1981 and that has yet to yield actual machines that we can use. Uhm – classical computer science originated sometime in the early 19th century (possibly earlier) in the form of analytical engines and the first actually usable machines[0] were created just a bit before World War II. General relativity originated before WWI and was first used well after WW II. Quantum mechanics was invented at the beginning of the last century and the first usable LASERs were built in the 1960s. Really, 30 years is not that long in the context of ‘hard’ science. Even in the ‘fast-moving’[1] field of software engineering, people still use SMTP (1982), TCP/IP (1975) and FTP (1971). [0] ‘Usable’ in the same sense that QC are not usable yet because people can perfectly factor 15 without Shor’s algorithm. [1] Because it’s young and hence easy to discover new stuff.
  - bad_user 13y ago
    Given the accelerated R&D that happened since the 70-ties in computer science, the huge resources that this industry can throw at problems and the fact that quantum computing can theoretically solve many important problems for us, 30 years is a long time. I'm not saying that it won't happen eventually. I'm only saying that Moore's law is a more imminent threat to current encryption methods and that quantum computing still doesn't solve NP and as long as NP is not P, unbreakable encryption is a reality that quantum computing won't change.
    - claudius 13y ago
      The problem here is that QC is not lagging behind in the field of computer science (all the theories are there) nor the field of hardware engineering (the engineers can build every we tell them to), but in (condensed matter) physics. And physics is something you can only speed up so much, especially given that there are many other equally exciting, high-profile projects (think LHC).

adamman 13y ago

You have nothing against someone storing it indefinitely, but I bet you have a problem with them now thinking you might be a bad guy. Will they listen to your phone calls to find out if you are in fact a bad guy?

uxp 13y ago
True. In a perfect scenario I would rather the NSA not store my communications at all, and have them no reason to even look at me to assume I am either good or bad. But, unfortunately, looking at the absolute pushback from congress and the white house over this whole thing, it's pretty clear the citizens have absolutely 0 say in the matter. After all, we're just ignorant sheep. They're the ones will all the knowledge and we should just trust them. We're not going to be able to change the NSA's policies or magically make everyone follow the constitution and the law to the T overnight. This is a compromise on our end. The NSA may have a large amount of resources for storing and running attacks on my emails, but they don't have limitless resources. For every hour they spend bruteforcing my keys to recover a sappy "Just thinking of you <3" to my wife, the less time they're spending bruteforcing someone else's emails.

nathan_long 13y ago

True, but the storage part should make you more paranoid about key length. "For how many years do I want this to remain uncrackable?" is the question.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]