4 ms·
They can "oppose" all they want. That's why we have PGP, in open source. And that's why in the US we have: "Amendment IV "The right of the people to be secu
by graycat 11y ago
They can "oppose" all they want.
That's why we have PGP, in
open source.
And that's why in the US
we have:
"Amendment IV
"The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no
Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to
be searched, and the persons or things to
be seized."
I know; I know: Various people
working for the people are all
wound up about wanting to know
and wanting to be sure,
wanting to be sure they know
just what is in all those
e-mail messages. Their thinking
might go:
"Those messages, they are sending
lots of messages,
are they planning something?
Are those people up to something?
Are we at threat? We want to know.
Why do they encrypt their e-mail
messages if they
have nothing to hide?
"If they have something to hide,
then definitely for the good of
everyone we should know about it
and they shouldn't use encryption.
Else they might be planning something.
If they have nothing to hide, then
they shouldn't mind our knowing
and shouldn't use encryption.
"Yes, definitely we should have
full access to all e-mail and other
communications, computer hard disks,
private conversations, private thoughts,
etc."
That's what some people working for the
people think.
Sorry, guys, I'm one of the people
you are working for, and you will
just have to do your job
without violating the Constitution.
It's an old story, as is encryption,
and e-mail, the Internet do not
fundamentally change the situation.
- cortesoft 11y agoYour first part is why I always find these talks silly. Encryption (at least the kind they are talking about) is just math - all the laws in the world aren't going to change the math. You can't legislate away the knowledge of that math; even if you force Apple or Google to insert your backdoor into THEIR implementation of the crypto, that doesn't mean that a 'terrorist' couldn't just use their own implementation of the readily available and widely known algorithms. That cat is out of the bag; you can't legislate it back in.
- graycat 11y agoFully correct. I have Bruce Schneier, Applied Cryptography, Second Edition: Protocols, Algorithms, and Source Code in C, ISBN 0-471-11709-9, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1996. That material's not going away. And, in addition, I have some nicely short, not difficult to read, source code. About all the math needed for PGP is in an elementary number theory book -- I have several sufficient references. > That cat is out of the bag; you can't legislate it back in. Did you mean "The toothpaste is out of the tube"? -- supposedly the phrase used in the Nixon Watergate scandal! When Zimmerman made PGP public, he also gave what I thought was a good description of the issues with the bottom line, whatever the pros and cons, net in plenty of cases it's important for individuals to have access to strong encryption. Yes, no doubt there's no shortage of people in government who don't like PGP. I'll send some people in government some toothpaste and an empty tube and let them try their hand!
- selimthegrim 11y agoSchneier has a newer and more useful update to that book with a co-author