Lumberjack
Premium
join:2003-01-18
Newport News, VA
| Whatever
So when they drag me to court and say I said something bad on my phone the judge and all the way up to the Supreme Court will have no choice but to throw the case out unless the feds got a warrant.
I don't like these "back doors" but needing a court order to have the capability doesn't seem to me a requirement. The court ordered warrant only applies when the feds want to actually listen to a specific conversation. Requiring a court order for the back door is like requiring a warrant for the feds to just stare at a telephone pole without hooking anything up to it.
The laws and courts are here to protect us, but we can't expect that same system to completely deny the our government the means to also protect us. I don't think there's anything wrong with the various companies or individuals supplying access to their networks to the government. Of course any private data should not be allowed without a warrant and this is why some of them are in trouble.. they gave private information, not just the ability to access it, to the feds without requesting a warrant. In that case both parties should be to blame though, not just the companies.
At the same time, you can't trust open networks and data beyond your control to be private. Never assume anything you do with bits that leave your house (internet, phone, two-way tv set tops, etc..) to be private. SSL is a nice way to add that warm and fuzzy security and it will be quite some time before anybody cracks 128 and higher public encryption. This is why the feds used to want "chips" to work around it back in the day and also why jokers like the RIAA want hardware, OS, ISP, etc. involved in DRM matters. If you secure it before it leaves your system you're pretty safe, but again, never assume it's perfect.
--
»www.fairtax.org |
|
Mchart
Super Joe
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL | They didn't need a warrent. You were a terrorist and a threat to this country. Remember? |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to Lumberjack
said by Lumberjack  :At the same time, you can't trust open networks and data beyond your control to be private. Never assume anything you do with bits that leave your house (internet, phone, two-way tv set tops, etc..) to be private. SSL is a nice way to add that warm and fuzzy security and it will be quite some time before anybody cracks 128 and higher public encryption. What about a quantum processor? What about 1 atom wide cpu wires (less distence for electricity to travel/speed of light)? What about custom chips? What about pre calculated look up tables? What about mathematical tricks? Whatever the govt has will always be 10-30 years into the future of what the public knows. Why are the national laboratories secret then? and god knows what technology the CIA has. Im sure there are some pretty painful "break the encryption" scheme the govt has, but its used very rarely, since its slow/expensive/1 user at a time. |
|
linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2002-12-03
United State | reply to Lumberjack
I hate to tell ya, but 128 was cracked about 5 years ago.
--
Mac: No windows, No gates, Apple inside |
|
