4 ms·
I think concern about other points of compromise that would render encryption less useful is very, very valid. Not sure about the CPU itself per se, and perhaps
by unclebucknasty 13y ago
I think concern about other points of compromise that would render encryption less useful is very, very valid. Not sure about the CPU itself per se, and perhaps it could be a combination of components, not to mention the firmware, software, etc.
With all of the emphasis on endpoint encryption as a solution in particular, I have been raising this concern. The NSA has already carved out an exception that allows them to keep encrypted data forever as they attempt to crack it. So, that reveals their determination to defeat protective measures. Why wouldn't they attempt to build in other back doors at the hardware/firmware/software level?
It just seems to me that too much emphasis on technical solutions to government intrusions is not the right way to go. As a back-stop, technical solutions like encryption are fine. But, why should we have to play cat-and-mouse with our government to protect our privacy? This posture lets them off the hook and esentially says, "if they can get your information, it's fair game". We shouldn't have to look over our shoulders this way.
Instead, their activity should be outlawed and there should be legal protection, such that whistleblowers like Snowden are considered heros instead of criminals.
- antocv 13y agoFinally someone said it. Its also a game that we would loose against our own government/s, since we are paying for all that - in effect working against ourselves from the start. This is a sociological problem that cant be solved by technological means. If people are fine with with their government fucking them over, no amount of tinfoilhattery will suffice to change anything.
- lukifer 13y agoStockholm Syndrome is the norm, not the exception. I'm open to suggestions on methods to fundamentally alter human nature.
- wavefunction 13y agoYou have to build a culture where this is unacceptable through laws that are enforced with sufficient vigor. And as we've seen, you (the public) have to keep constant vigilance for oversteps and "correct" those oversteps through a process of holding government and private individuals accountable.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- hughw 13y ago> "if they can get your information, it's fair game" It's more an acknowledgement that, if they can get your information, they will. It's human nature. They will push the boundaries of any laws, and overstep them, if it is technologically possible.
- asdjkfasd 13y agoI agree that the law should be the first defense. But the NSA aren't the only criminals we have to worry about - there's run of the mill crooks too. Like the disgruntled network engineer at your job, the guy baiting his neighbours with open wifi, the dodgy stalker dude who happens to work for an ISP. Laws wont protect you from people who are willing to break them.