politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
My sweet child...you think the NSA cannot break encryption?
I think it's possible they can't, depending on the algorithm used and whether they have low-level access to hardware and/or firmware. It's possible that some of the recommended algorithms were chosen for subtle NSA backdoors, and I'm sure they have a lot of resources to throw at high-value communications, but I'd be surprised if every algorithm in current use, with large enough keys, can be cracked by them. A low-level backdoor in the hardware device itself would be a different matter, and this seems like a more practical approach for the NSA than cracking the encryption directly, particularly where the participants are taking extra care. So I'd say it's possible but not certain that they can hear/read these conversations.
That does presuppose they don't have a direct tap on either or both lines somewhere.
To get around end-to-end encryption the tap would have to be in the phone handset itself or a vulnerability in the code. I wouldn't rule either out.
I can't say much, but I do know they have every computing capacity you can imagine, as well as at least one of every piece of HW, even the stuff that's built in a basement.
Still, as far as is commonly known, mathematically cracking encryption where the algorithm is good and keys are large and unique remains impractical for conventional computers. If they're secretly way ahead on quantum computing (which seems unlikely), or if they have discovered mathematical vulnerabilities in common algorithms that have not been published, then that's a different matter. But as far as we know, it must still be difficult for them to attack encryption directly. You suggest you know more than you can say, but if I were them I'd be looking at putting backdoors into phone/computer hardware to get hold of communications before they are E2E encrypted, and/or placing subtle vulnerabilities in open-source code.
Conventional computers...
What do you think they have? Alien computers? Not even super-computers make a dent in decryption.
If it's anything like their past, they have at least 2 working Quantum computers.
But this is not like the past. Quantum computers is not an step in evolution, it is a jump, as if from no computers to computers. Of course it's possible, but there is no basis or indication for it and so no reason to assume it. Why believe the less likely thing instead of the more likely?
Not a conventional computer. Would you agree?
Which one? A super computer? Its just faster than a conventional computer by a factor that doesn't matter. A quantum computer? The public field would be way closer to that if "the government" had one that would be useful.
Obviously you are not aware a Quantum does not operate like a conventional computer. That's fine. No reason to go further.
Oh, but I am. That's why I said what I said. Even if they have one, it will be severely lacking; indicated by where public research is at.
You can't even concede that Quantum computing is not convententual computing, why would your idea of research be valid?
But I am! Quantum computing is not conventional computing. See!
The OP added conventional computing to their verbiage because they knew what they said was not true of Quantim computing. Thus my response.
Same as you adding the word public to research. Neither of us has any idea on the extent of research by Google, IBM and especially the NSA. Having worked in R&D before, I can tell you that not 50% is known to the public. The NSÀ, who run their own development and research-nothing at all. So, I consider your research argument faulty on its face..
AES is freely available and if they knew of any weaknesses it probably wouldn't be approved for use on TS data.
Everybody is an expert
I see the pot is calling the kettle black.
But I never claimed to be an expert. Is this the same guy I just blocked?
Nah, just a guy that read the entire comment tree.
While I agree with you that there's a very very high likelihood of the conversation being recorded in some form or another and likely through a side channel, I feel that your "my sweet child... do you not think the NSA can break encryption" comment to be both condescending to the person you replied to, and hypocritical to the comment I replied to.
Neither you nor I are cryptographers. We can't attest to the security or lack thereof of published cryptographic algorithms.
Your last sentence is true. It is also true that members of the NSA are cryptographers, and plenty good at it too.
You can't just be a good cryptographer to break a sound encryption. It doesn't work that way. You're basically saying you know p=np which is... I'll just say bold
Another expert heard from. Thans for the Input
Why talk down to someone with a valid point calling them a sweet child and then complain you're not an expert, I don't get what your stance is here
My sweet child. Bold of you to assume the commenter knows what p=np means. :)
My stance for this conversation is amused
Mine would be embarrassed
I agree, you should be
Don't need to be an expert to know they've changed algorithms and recommended key lengths based on non-public information in the past.
If they allow an algorithm for their own data, it's unlikely they can easily break it.
They have other ways of listening to your phone calls. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/photos-of-an-nsa-upgrade-factory-show-cisco-router-getting-implant/
I worked decades in the phone business. So, I kinda know how it works. Back in the day, we'd call this an invitation to a dick measurement. Not interested
That's very exciting for you I suppose, my dad works at Nintendo. People can claim whatever they want on the Internet. You'll have to forgive me for not being impressed by your unverifiable bona fides.
I thought I told you I wasn't interested
Interested enough to respond apparently. It's cute that you think you have some authority here though.
Well, I do have the authority to block someone who needlessly continues to bother me.
If you don't understand what the government/military technology is capable of, I'm sorry. I had a coworker who worked in and around extremely high level military surveillance years ago. Back then, they had the capability of turning on any cell phone microphone or camera and real time listen in. He wouldnt go beyond that, but did say/ the surveillance satellites in movies have nothing on current (even back then) capabilities. Imagine now
We are just now learning of Locate X who can pinpoint almost any phone location, tie it to advertising id's and view its movement history, and build an entire picture of what virtually any person on this planet is doing. That's just a company, not the government.
At this point in my life, I view anti tracking, ad block, encryption, alternate OSs etc. as keeping honest people honest. Military/govt. tech has ways around it all.
I once enabled some of of those things for a particular customer years ago.
I always liked the idea of leaving a text at a specific location for a specific phone.