2 ms·
That's all very interesting, and the only thing I dispute is (1), where I'd just say I don't think we have any direct evidence that the NSA is literally logging
by diminoten 12y ago
That's all very interesting, and the only thing I dispute is (1), where I'd just say I don't think we have any direct evidence that the NSA is literally logging every packet sent anywhere within the US. Maybe some indirect evidence, but nothing that points to all the packets.
I think your source of confusion is related to the association you may have in your mind between me and Cryptocat, though in actuality there is literally none. In my previous comment I was referring to TrueCrypt, not Cryptocat.
As for your citation, what's that for?
- tptacek 12y agoWhat's the point of an encryption tool that only works if your adversary can't see your raw packets? That's like a health insurance policy that only pays out if you never get sick. Later: sorry, I missed the other question you had; here's an answer: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:diminoten%20cryptocat&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:diminoten%20cryptocat&s...
- diminoten 12y agoI think you've mentioned CryptoCat more than I have in this conversation, and someone I know (and you surely adore) once said, "Fun message board trick: someone says something dumb about crypto? Search for their name and “cryptocat”." If I gave you/anyone a TrueCrypt volume, could you/anyone crack it? No? Then stop trashing it. It's that simple. Edit: I'd just like to say I'm glad you're developing a sense of humor regarding our conversations. I was worried you were a robot.