The random number generator uses quantum effects as well, so it is totally secure. One process, for example, generates random polarization states for pairs of photons. The photons are entangled, so the pair's polarizations are 90 degrees from eachother, but the actual polarization of the individual photons is truly random.
Did it ever occur to you that cellphones and email *didn't exist* when those ammendments were written? And therefore they *aren't protected* anyway?
That's the biggest piece of logical fancy footwork I've ever seen. What lengths you will go to justify the passing of a set of laws you know are wrong.
If those ammendments cover letters (and the courts have ruled that they do), they cover email. If they cover landline conversations (and the courts have ruled that they do), they cover cellphone conversations.
Surely you can just perform 256 trial encryptions of known plaintext to retrieve the key?
That's presuming you have a known plaintext. That's usually not too hard to engineer, but with careful implementation, it should actually be very hard.
I expect there's a similar "quantum" attack on symmetric encryption schemes like IDEA and DES, which would just do very fast brute force searches on the key space.
AFAIK, the quantum attack on symmetric ciphers only reduces the complexity to the square root of it's original value. In other words, a 256 bit key still requires 2^128 operations to brute force with a quantum algorithm.
I suspect any problem that has a 'back door' (in the mathematical sense) that trivially solves it will have a quantum algorithm that runs in 'n', where 'n' is the number of bits in the number. Since the whole basis of public key cryptography is such back doors (the private key is the back door), quantum computing completely destroys public key cryptography.
First, symmetric key encryption is still pretty good in the face of quantum computing. It isn't as good as it was. I think the difficulty factor goes down to the square root of the original difficulty factor. For a 256 bit key, that's sitll 2^128 operations to brute force it. That's pretty secure.
Second, quantum cryptography doesn't work the way you describe.
Quantum cryptography works by generating a truly random keystream using entangled particles. Since the particles are entangled, both people can get their own particle and know the state of the other person's particle. They can't alter the state of the other person's particle in any way, but they do know it.
This allows one-time pads to be securely exchanged over a distance. If someone listens in to the entangled particle stream, this irrevocably alters it, and when both sides compare a few (not all) of their shared random bits over an insecure channel, they can detect this snooping.
Quantum cryptography does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT allow you to communicate with no latency. The speed of light applies to the particles in the entangled stream, and it applies to subsequent communications encrypted using the information in these particles. One particle of an entangled pair can only detect the collapse of the quantum wave function (i.e. when the particle is 'read') for the other particle. No other state changes can be detected by the other particle. No faster than light information exchange to see here people, move along.
There is cost to buy, and there is cost to install. IIS costs nothing to install because it comes with the stupid OS. Apache costs to install on an NT system because it doesn't.
I know it would no longer be unbreakable, but it's a way to use securely shared random one-time pad like data semi-practical without reducing the actual security by a huge amount.
You can combine one time pads with standard block ciphers to make an unbreakable encryption algorithm. You just put a one-time-pad encrypted version of the block cipher key at the beginning of your message. Or, you just use portions of the one time pad itself as your block cipher keys. Arranging for sharing enough one-time pad data with your co-conspirators to handle this isn't too big a problem.
It really isn't such a great place. I liked Australia. That's on my list. So is Canada. I just can't abide somewhere where the 4th and 5th ammendments have largely been destroyed.
I will leave the country and not look back. It will stop being the America I believe in.
I guess what I'm really saying is that I do not have the right to go to work without a building falling on me.
To me, rights are inviolate principles of interaction that are firmly based in ideas of what it is and is not possible to do. The constitution doesn't outline a right not to be murdered because that right is not a reasonable consequence of being alive.
I think the rights the constitution outlines are as much to protect the government from doing stupid things in an attempt to achieve the impossible as they are an attempt to protect people from government.
I need to read John Locke, and a few of the other philosophers from around the time the constitution was crafted. I don't think I have the intellectual tools to articulate my argument effectively without their words.
Perhaps it's just that I shall always be a freelance bacterium instead of a cell of a body. But, I think the organism of a state can exist without every little manufacture of a signalling chemical being noted by the brain.
I really dislike the style of DKs music, but practically anytime anybody bothers to quote the lead guy or any of their songs, I have to admire the succinct and pointed truth of the statements.
It means that all cities should immediately be put under marshal law because terrorists meet in them. And if your mamby pamby concern for civil rights causes you to balk at this, you must surely agree that Montreal and Halifax (being obvious dens of iniquity) should be put under marshal law. In fact, I think we ought to nuke them, just for good measure, in case any more terrorists are hiding in them.
This is how I interpret the article, in a nutshell: Now you know how it feels, now, will you finally start to care about the oppression and violence that America and Israel are perpetrating in your name and with your dollars? How about waking up and caring about people outside the borders of your own country - and putting that caring into practice?
In a nutshell, no. If you wanted me to care, you would've found some way to show me what was wrong that didn't involve an attack of this nature. This is a failure of Islam to teach followers that this is the wrong way to do things.
Would India ever have been free of British rule if the people of India kept indiscriminantly attacking British people?
Re:And here comes Carnivore...
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
One, the terrorists did not blow up a bomb factory or a cruise missile factory. They crashed passenger planes full of people into a building that held no manufacturing facilities for anything at all.
First you comdemn their actions, root out their organization, arrest them all and put them in jail or execute them. After that, you look at your policies and decide if you're doing something wrong and change it if you think you are.
Those are not irreconcilable statements. If you never responded punitively to things like this, you'd continuously be the victim of such attacks. I've been there in my relationships with other human beings. That's really how it works.
Re:Inconvenience vs. safety
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
I wish you had posted under an account name so you would have a better chance of being modded up. This is the only intelligent response to any of my posts that I've read so far.
The checks at the airport that make me the most nervous are the ones where they demand my id. I would like some assurance that the information will not be used to trace my movements except as a result of a very specific warrant.
I guess I'm not really for knives being allowed on airplanes, but I want people to think long and hard about every such measure they ask for before they ask for it. Nothing will guarantee security, so every such measure should be evaluated on a careful risk vs. reward basis.
As for the non-grudge bearing utopia I want... I know that having one is not realistic. But we can come a lot closer than we have been.
Re:And here comes Carnivore...
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
This post should've been modded up.:-)
Re:repeat after me, idiot
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
The only way to prevent these attacks is to give those who, for one reason or another, rightly or wrongly, think that the USA is the reason why their lives are so bad, an alternative realistic way to interact with the USA. At the moment, that's not possible; the US doesn't compromise on a number of foreign policy measures.
This is the only reasonable and sensible thing in your entire post.
Re:And here comes Carnivore...
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
Now, I'm not necessarily in favor of overreacting when it comes to airport restrictions. But on the other hand, let's not overreact when people want to take extra precautions. We are at war. Hopefully it will be a short war, but I think it's time to cut the government a little slack.
I'm willing to right now as well, but I have a strong feeling that the restrictions will be lifted. The reasons given for them are not the right ones for me to have faith that they will be lifted. People are invoking prevention and safety, not duty and patriotism.
Distributing such leaflets at this particular moment sounds extremely risky. Sort of like making jokes about bombs with the ticket agent.
It might turn out OK in the end but, I'll bet you spend a few hours in handcuffs trying to explain yourself to some very unamused officials in the basement of the airport.
I will have to report to the airport very early then.
Re:And here comes Carnivore...
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
Well, if we aren't nicer, we can expect more of the same from more quarters. I certainly don't expect it to deter a hijacking in progress.
In Japan, you can leave your shopping bag outside the door while you go into someplace else to buy more because nobody will steal it. There is no motivation to.
You have to create a culture in which there is no motivation to hijack planes. Where there is motivation, it will happen no matter what security precautions you take.
There are two prongs to removing motivation. One is swift and deadly response, and another is to avoid making people angry at you for no good reason.
Inconvenience vs. safety
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
To those who are willing to be 'inconvenienced' at the aiport in order to be safe... No amount of inconveniencing will give you the safety you crave.
Repeat after me...
No amount of 'inconveniencing' will give me the safety I crave.
Repeat it over and over as a mantra until you achieve enlightenment.
I could learn martial arts well, with a bunch of buddy's, get onto the plane, kill a few people with some well placed jabs, and take control. Would you be willing to be manacled to prevent this? You can make knives quickly out of many things. Take a stiff plastic or metal box for example. Are you going to make people strip before they get on the plane? I'm sure someone more imaginative than I can come up with scenarios in which even being stripped and manacled would not be enough.
There is no security in the direction you wish to go. As Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would trade liberty for security will get and deserve neither.".
The only way to prevent these attacks is to decrease the motivation to perform them. This is done by being a nice country, and by being implacably and harshly punitive in our response to such attacks.
I will be traveling by air soon, and I intend to make up some leaflets to distribute at the airport about this. It's either that, or get upset at being patted down and create a scene. I think the leaflet approach to venting my frustrations is much more constructive.
Re:And here comes Carnivore...
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
No amount of inconveniencing will give you the safety you crave.
Repeat after me...
No amount of 'inconveniencing' will give me the safety I crave.
Repeat it over and over as a mantra until you achieve enlightenment.
I could learn martial arts well, with a bunch of buddy's, get onto the plane, kill a few people with some well placed jabs, and take control. Would you be willing to be manacled to prevent this? You can make knives quickly out of many things. Take a stiff plastic or metal box for example. Are you going to make people strip before they get on the plane? I'm sure someone more imaginative than I can come up with scenarios in which even being stripped and manacled would not be enough.
There is no security in the direction you wish to go. As Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would trade liberty for security will get and deserve neither.".
The only way to prevent these attacks is to decrease the motivation to perform them. This is done by being a nicer country, and by being implacably and harshly punitive in our response to such attacks.
I will be traveling by air soon, and I intend to make up some leaflets to distribute at the airport about this. It's either that, or get upset at being patted down and create a scene. I think the leaflet approach to venting my frustrations is much more constructive.
You have to believe that people may act a bit better in this crisis. Also, if you look at the article, the source is Jerry Pournelle's site, which I consider much more reputable.
If you train well in martial arts, even your own body can be enough of a weapon to subdue a frightened group of passengers. The only way to prevent that is to manacle people into their seats.
Get over prevention. It can't be done. Anybody in security knows that any system can be cracked by someone sufficiently clever and imaginative. The only prevention is to decrease motivation.
Slashdot Mirror
The random number generator uses quantum effects as well, so it is totally secure. One process, for example, generates random polarization states for pairs of photons. The photons are entangled, so the pair's polarizations are 90 degrees from eachother, but the actual polarization of the individual photons is truly random.
That's the biggest piece of logical fancy footwork I've ever seen. What lengths you will go to justify the passing of a set of laws you know are wrong.
If those ammendments cover letters (and the courts have ruled that they do), they cover email. If they cover landline conversations (and the courts have ruled that they do), they cover cellphone conversations.
That's presuming you have a known plaintext. That's usually not too hard to engineer, but with careful implementation, it should actually be very hard.
AFAIK, the quantum attack on symmetric ciphers only reduces the complexity to the square root of it's original value. In other words, a 256 bit key still requires 2^128 operations to brute force with a quantum algorithm.
I suspect any problem that has a 'back door' (in the mathematical sense) that trivially solves it will have a quantum algorithm that runs in 'n', where 'n' is the number of bits in the number. Since the whole basis of public key cryptography is such back doors (the private key is the back door), quantum computing completely destroys public key cryptography.
Two misconceptions here:
First, symmetric key encryption is still pretty good in the face of quantum computing. It isn't as good as it was. I think the difficulty factor goes down to the square root of the original difficulty factor. For a 256 bit key, that's sitll 2^128 operations to brute force it. That's pretty secure.
Second, quantum cryptography doesn't work the way you describe.
Quantum cryptography works by generating a truly random keystream using entangled particles. Since the particles are entangled, both people can get their own particle and know the state of the other person's particle. They can't alter the state of the other person's particle in any way, but they do know it.
This allows one-time pads to be securely exchanged over a distance. If someone listens in to the entangled particle stream, this irrevocably alters it, and when both sides compare a few (not all) of their shared random bits over an insecure channel, they can detect this snooping.
Quantum cryptography does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT allow you to communicate with no latency. The speed of light applies to the particles in the entangled stream, and it applies to subsequent communications encrypted using the information in these particles. One particle of an entangled pair can only detect the collapse of the quantum wave function (i.e. when the particle is 'read') for the other particle. No other state changes can be detected by the other particle. No faster than light information exchange to see here people, move along.
There is cost to buy, and there is cost to install. IIS costs nothing to install because it comes with the stupid OS. Apache costs to install on an NT system because it doesn't.
I know it would no longer be unbreakable, but it's a way to use securely shared random one-time pad like data semi-practical without reducing the actual security by a huge amount.
You can combine one time pads with standard block ciphers to make an unbreakable encryption algorithm. You just put a one-time-pad encrypted version of the block cipher key at the beginning of your message. Or, you just use portions of the one time pad itself as your block cipher keys. Arranging for sharing enough one-time pad data with your co-conspirators to handle this isn't too big a problem.
Your comments on this matter are so regularily well worth reading, I'm wondering... Who are you?
It really isn't such a great place. I liked Australia. That's on my list. So is Canada. I just can't abide somewhere where the 4th and 5th ammendments have largely been destroyed.
I will leave the country and not look back. It will stop being the America I believe in.
I guess what I'm really saying is that I do not have the right to go to work without a building falling on me.
To me, rights are inviolate principles of interaction that are firmly based in ideas of what it is and is not possible to do. The constitution doesn't outline a right not to be murdered because that right is not a reasonable consequence of being alive.
I think the rights the constitution outlines are as much to protect the government from doing stupid things in an attempt to achieve the impossible as they are an attempt to protect people from government.
I need to read John Locke, and a few of the other philosophers from around the time the constitution was crafted. I don't think I have the intellectual tools to articulate my argument effectively without their words.
Perhaps it's just that I shall always be a freelance bacterium instead of a cell of a body. But, I think the organism of a state can exist without every little manufacture of a signalling chemical being noted by the brain.
I really dislike the style of DKs music, but practically anytime anybody bothers to quote the lead guy or any of their songs, I have to admire the succinct and pointed truth of the statements.
It means that all cities should immediately be put under marshal law because terrorists meet in them. And if your mamby pamby concern for civil rights causes you to balk at this, you must surely agree that Montreal and Halifax (being obvious dens of iniquity) should be put under marshal law. In fact, I think we ought to nuke them, just for good measure, in case any more terrorists are hiding in them.
In a nutshell, no. If you wanted me to care, you would've found some way to show me what was wrong that didn't involve an attack of this nature. This is a failure of Islam to teach followers that this is the wrong way to do things.
Would India ever have been free of British rule if the people of India kept indiscriminantly attacking British people?
One, the terrorists did not blow up a bomb factory or a cruise missile factory. They crashed passenger planes full of people into a building that held no manufacturing facilities for anything at all.
First you comdemn their actions, root out their organization, arrest them all and put them in jail or execute them. After that, you look at your policies and decide if you're doing something wrong and change it if you think you are.
Those are not irreconcilable statements. If you never responded punitively to things like this, you'd continuously be the victim of such attacks. I've been there in my relationships with other human beings. That's really how it works.
I wish you had posted under an account name so you would have a better chance of being modded up. This is the only intelligent response to any of my posts that I've read so far.
The checks at the airport that make me the most nervous are the ones where they demand my id. I would like some assurance that the information will not be used to trace my movements except as a result of a very specific warrant.
I guess I'm not really for knives being allowed on airplanes, but I want people to think long and hard about every such measure they ask for before they ask for it. Nothing will guarantee security, so every such measure should be evaluated on a careful risk vs. reward basis.
As for the non-grudge bearing utopia I want... I know that having one is not realistic. But we can come a lot closer than we have been.
This post should've been modded up. :-)
This is the only reasonable and sensible thing in your entire post.
I'm willing to right now as well, but I have a strong feeling that the restrictions will be lifted. The reasons given for them are not the right ones for me to have faith that they will be lifted. People are invoking prevention and safety, not duty and patriotism.
I will have to report to the airport very early then.
Well, if we aren't nicer, we can expect more of the same from more quarters. I certainly don't expect it to deter a hijacking in progress.
In Japan, you can leave your shopping bag outside the door while you go into someplace else to buy more because nobody will steal it. There is no motivation to.
You have to create a culture in which there is no motivation to hijack planes. Where there is motivation, it will happen no matter what security precautions you take.
There are two prongs to removing motivation. One is swift and deadly response, and another is to avoid making people angry at you for no good reason.
To those who are willing to be 'inconvenienced' at the aiport in order to be safe... No amount of inconveniencing will give you the safety you crave.
Repeat after me...
No amount of 'inconveniencing' will give me the safety I crave.
Repeat it over and over as a mantra until you achieve enlightenment.
I could learn martial arts well, with a bunch of buddy's, get onto the plane, kill a few people with some well placed jabs, and take control. Would you be willing to be manacled to prevent this? You can make knives quickly out of many things. Take a stiff plastic or metal box for example. Are you going to make people strip before they get on the plane? I'm sure someone more imaginative than I can come up with scenarios in which even being stripped and manacled would not be enough.
There is no security in the direction you wish to go. As Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would trade liberty for security will get and deserve neither.".
The only way to prevent these attacks is to decrease the motivation to perform them. This is done by being a nice country, and by being implacably and harshly punitive in our response to such attacks.
I will be traveling by air soon, and I intend to make up some leaflets to distribute at the airport about this. It's either that, or get upset at being patted down and create a scene. I think the leaflet approach to venting my frustrations is much more constructive.
No amount of inconveniencing will give you the safety you crave.
Repeat after me...
No amount of 'inconveniencing' will give me the safety I crave.
Repeat it over and over as a mantra until you achieve enlightenment.
I could learn martial arts well, with a bunch of buddy's, get onto the plane, kill a few people with some well placed jabs, and take control. Would you be willing to be manacled to prevent this? You can make knives quickly out of many things. Take a stiff plastic or metal box for example. Are you going to make people strip before they get on the plane? I'm sure someone more imaginative than I can come up with scenarios in which even being stripped and manacled would not be enough.
There is no security in the direction you wish to go. As Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would trade liberty for security will get and deserve neither.".
The only way to prevent these attacks is to decrease the motivation to perform them. This is done by being a nicer country, and by being implacably and harshly punitive in our response to such attacks.
I will be traveling by air soon, and I intend to make up some leaflets to distribute at the airport about this. It's either that, or get upset at being patted down and create a scene. I think the leaflet approach to venting my frustrations is much more constructive.
You have to believe that people may act a bit better in this crisis. Also, if you look at the article, the source is Jerry Pournelle's site, which I consider much more reputable.
If you train well in martial arts, even your own body can be enough of a weapon to subdue a frightened group of passengers. The only way to prevent that is to manacle people into their seats.
Get over prevention. It can't be done. Anybody in security knows that any system can be cracked by someone sufficiently clever and imaginative. The only prevention is to decrease motivation.