Re: An alternate opinion
footnote: Thank you, though, for not backing up the ban of crypto. My above rant would have been much nastier ;)
Re: An alternate opinion
> I work on a project that needs
> encryption to assure publishers that
> their property will not be 'stolen' by
> software pirates. I also work for an
> ecommerce company selling software to
> various parts of the world that
> encourage breaking of US copyright laws.
> In both of these situations, the
> reality is, if someone really wants to
> decrypt your 'books' or break your copy
> protection, they'll do it. We must
> settle with the reality that the best we
> can do is make it difficult such that a
> reasonable level of security is
> obtained; or at least weigh the expense
> of time and money of further efforts
> with the additional percentage of
> protection we get.
What you fail to understand here is that cryptography isn't all the same. If you're using it to prevent people from making copies of something you sell them, no, it will not work because that is impossible. Cryptography is about keeping a secret between two or more parties that want it to be a secret. If the recipient of the message wants to share it, there's nothing you can do to stop him.
However, If you're using cryptography in a case where both people *want* to keep the secret (let's say a customer is giving his credit card to a reputable business over the internet), then strong cryptography can be very powerful and extremely difficult to crack.
> My next point will probably not go
> over very well... I personally don't
> care if the NSA monitors my email. I
> would encourage them to do such. I have
> nothing to hide. And in the wake of
> September 11th, the price (whatever that
> might be; I'm not thinking of anything
> that troubles me right now) is well
> worth it.
Saying "I have nothing to hide" shows only ignorance. Perhaps YOU don't use email for anything of any importance, but many people do. Would you be ok with letting government agents come in your house any time they want, then living with you to watch everything you do, just waiting for something they can use against you?
And I shouldn't say just the government, because surely when everything is backdoored you can't believe the government's master secret keys will stay secret forever. The first time something gets out, everyone's screwed.
> Unlike people in many other countries,
> I really elect my government. I choose
> to put people over me and my country and
> ask them to protect us. I think
> intelligence is a vital form of this,
> and I would love for us to be able to
> write 'nearly unbreakable' encryption,
> and for them to have the intelligence
> and other capacity to break it.
> SUMMARY: I don't think encryption
> export laws do anything more than gun
> control laws. Criminal will NOT obey
> the law, as others have already
> commented. I understand our SIGINT
> capacity is NOT where it needs to be,
> and this is where my complaint lies.
> Their call should be, "Fine,
> encrypt away. We have the best and
> brightest and we'll have no troubles
> doing our job."
> And as an American with nothing to
> hide from my government, I say, "Do
> it well!"
Again, you're confused about encryption. Strong crypto is extremely difficult to break when implemented correctly.
And I think most americans would disagree with you if asked "Do you have the right to keep a secret?"