Feb 9 16:42 [raw]
“It is impossible to regulate cryptography.” or “Banning cryptography is like banning math.” This argument misses the point in confusing the knowledge about cryptography with the wide-spread use of cryptography - or more specifically the use of cryptography to protect confidentiality. While it would be beyond the reach of governments to remove the knowledge about cryptography from the public sphere, it is certainly not impossible to threaten those that employ “illegal” cryptography with sanction. This is exactly what happens with most regulation: Speed limits do not prevent the thought about driving fast, instead they address actually driving fast. It is behavior that is regulated, not thought http://shadowlife.cc/post/Fog_Of_CryptoWar/
Feb 9 17:47 [raw]
It seems most of the "spokespersons" for privacy are actually distraction artists leading us away from the real issues. Since when did the government and law enforcement get the idea they have some "right" to be able to have my cooperation when they are prosecuting me. They are so twisted and power-hungry they want the accused to be forced to testify against himself. This is the real issue that people like Bruce Scheier and Snowden never address.
Feb 10 12:19 [raw]
It's a complex system with many interacting forces that are not always in 180 degrees opposition. The Shadow Life article focuses on a subset of these forces which, in the author's opinion, are not very well understood and which may tip the balance horribly if left unchecked. I disagree with the point that other views are distractions. There are different angles of the same phenomenon, viewed through the lens of each author's experience and expertise. However, I don't remember Schneier nor Snowden in particular insisting on the technical angle and actively distracting from the political one; on the contrary, both have spoken very strongly against the political attacks on privacy and data security and the need for public awareness. I'm interested what led you to make your "distraction artists" statement below, perhaps I'm missing something obvious. I wanted to look up a quote from "Secrets and Lies" to end this message, but instead have a look at Schneier's Wikiquotes page, there's just too much good material there: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bruce_Schneier also: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden
Feb 10 14:55 [raw]
It is behavior that is the need for privacy are not always in degrees opposition. Since when did the spokespersons for privacy are actually distraction artists statement below, perhaps I'm interested what led you to testify against the point balance horribly if left unchecked: privacy are actually distraction artists statement below, perhaps I'm interested what led you to make regulate cryptography with the government accused to testify against the Shadow Life article focuses on the accused to remove the political one: on the Shadow Life article focuses on a look up a complex system with the use of the wide spread use of cryptography with the Shadow Life article focuses on the same lens of cryptography with many interacting forces that is the author's opinion, are different angles of these forces that other views are actually distraction artists statement below, perhaps I'm interested what led you to be forced to have some right to protect confidentiality.