|
|
|
| Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, June 26 2013 @ 04:23 PM EDT |
Even if you don't think the following is at least the
harbinger of quantum
computing advancements to come ...
Researchers demonstrate algorithm for
practical quantum computing
I would not bet against adequate
advancements from
taking place before you might find yourself at risk
because you trusted 'strong encryption'. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, June 26 2013 @ 04:36 PM EDT |
Don't take my word for it ....
Amherst
Prof Devises First Head-to-Head Speed Test with
Conventional Computing, and
the Quantum Computer Wins
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 26 2013 @ 04:38 PM EDT |
will be the reaction from the unwashed masses. Strong encryption
comes with the cornflakes for geeks like us. Sure Snowden knew
he had to use it to get his story out, but if you've been following
along you'll have read how his -trusted- accomplice at the Guardian
did not set up his system at first, left it as a job for Ron (LateRon).
It only takes one doofus to bust open a terrorist cell.
It's not the strength of encryption that counts, it's the strength
of the minds that are using it.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 26 2013 @ 05:19 PM EDT |
Strong encryption can be brute forced, but takes enough computing resources that
an organization like the NSA can't afford to crack content at random just to
figure if it is of interest.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whitehat on Wednesday, June 26 2013 @ 06:36 PM EDT |
jbb is absolutely correct. The technology exists to keep
your communication
private, even from the government.
However, there is an apparent moral
dilemma:
I don't really have anything to hide from the government,
and
it is inconvenient and laborious to implement a secure
system. Perhaps only the
"bad guys" are sufficiently
motivated to implement such a system. Therefore,
encryption
serves as a flag for the government to "tap the line".
If
everybody used encrypted communication, law enforcement
would no longer be able
to easily identify "the bad guys",
who presumably are the only ones needing the
protection
afforded by encryption. We now know, the NSA keeps copies of
encrypted messages - perhaps forever. If everybody used
encryption, the NSA
supercomputers and database systems
would overflow within hours. So, who is
going to catch "the
bad guys". In other words, if I use encryption, I may
unwittingly help to obscure communications of "the bad
guys".
Some
years ago, Phil Zimmerman (of PGP fame) started a
project to secure VoIP
communication called ZFONE (not fully
GPL licensed, if I remember correctly).
Someone else
provided proof of "hackability" for VoIP (a program called
siptap). Without Zimmermann's
ZFONE, all VoIP conversations are easily recorded
by a
simple program, which would render all VoIP calls from a
large company
location insecure. In fact, VoIP calls are
more easily
tapped than other kinds
of phone calls. A single computer,
infected by a virus, could intercept all
VoIP calls from a
large corporate facility. A criminal could steal corporate
secrets, or intercept law enforcement messages. A foreign
government could
easily spy on corporate or government
organizations in the US. (See article on
"hacking proof")
Some day, maybe, the
government will promote encryption as a
way to minimize our exposure to
criminals and foreign spies.
Of course, it will also complicate the task for
the NSA - so
maybe not!
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
