Is it just me, or does this seem like an article you'd read in The Onion? It's obviously impractical at this juncture; one terabyte or two or three isn't nearly enough to fit a whole life's worth of information. It'd be interesting ot have all your personal data and stuff in one place, and being able to index-search your gradeschool papers might be fun for an afternoon... but what about when I'm trying to remember what that girl smelled like or how I felt when...
This seems akin to the article about President Bush wanting the Army to use Windows XP so we could have flying soldiers. Plus, as it's been mentioned before in this thread, isn't the Dept. of Homeland Security alread doing this for us? Should these DVDs be available as a tax-benefit? I'm in the military, does this mean that mine will be classified?
It's about time New Hampshire benefitted from its lack of sales tax. I guarantee NH isn't one of the states involved in this coalition. Perhaps more online retailers will change their base of operations to NH so they can benefit from the lack of tax.
Of course, your state may try to tax you on things bought from NH sites, but I don't think that's the way this plan is designed at least.
Most massholes;-) think Salem is one big strip mall, but there really is more to the town than "the strip". There are some very nice parts, especially in North Salem. Boy, I never thought I'd see the day when I'd be discussing this on slashdot.
Hahaha, obvosulkjaesyo you have neverwot tried to tlako toh opme afterb 2 amas when I'have a low blood to caffeoine ratio and my hands are b=made out of byutterfinger bars.
But seriously, I agree with you on the step back in the communications department. I have had a Handspring visor for a while, and any time I had to enter anything substantial in with handwriting recognition it just took forever. A keyboard is a must for any kind of useful data entry.
I could see it being useful for web-surfing and presenting things. Other than that, it seems like it'd be more trouble than it was worth.
Of course, the Star Trek Cool Factor is rather high.
Speaking of which, the Q-36 can track up to 14 taqrgets simulatneously. This is usually used for counter-bat work, but I wonderif instead of guns it could be jury-rigged to a new laser, or maybe a whole battery of them. Interesting possibilities. BTW, traditionally, units are referred to as OPFOR when they are in training exercises where friendly units are called "BLUFOR".
I'm an OPFOR soldier at JRTC, if you're interested, and the Q-36 fucks up our world on a regular basis; it's always one of our HPT's.
The real way to make it not "suicide" as you put it is to use mortars with quick setup and pack-up capabilies. You can use these to take out the counter-bat batteries. If you're good (which we are).
For the longest time, the Gallagher brothers were total wankers. It's very good to see them opening themselves to good things like open XML standards and frameworks.
Just in case you didn't know, that feature is *built in* to the OS (at least 10.2, I don't know about ealier versions). All you need do is right-click (or ctrl click or whatever) the icon on the desktop and choose "Duplicate". It makes a playable DVD image on the HD. And yes, it does cut down considerably on battery use.
I noticed that they streamlined the definition of "Cross Platform", too, leaving only two platforms being developed.
Alas, I don't have the time (or the skills) to attempt a one-man Mac port of Phoenix, so I guess I'm stuck with Mozilla, which really wasn't that bad to begin with. Too bad, I was really thinking it would be the perfect browser for me, too. Maybe I'll check out Chimera, but I have a feeling it won't be as cool.
I wish Rick Boucher were my representitive so I could vote for him.
``The laws that have passed in recent years have imbalanced the historical balance between owners of copyrighted works and users of copyrighted works,'' Boucher said in an interview Tuesday. ``The balance has been tilted dramatically in favor of owners at the expense of users.''
This guy actually gets it! There really need to be more representitives and senators like him. I just wish that there were even any running in my district so I could put in my vote.
One last thing; Elrond was played byt he same guy as the lead Agent on The Matrix. Every time he said anything I couldn't help but giggle because I was imagining him in the "Mr. Anderson" lines. It wasn't his fault, it was just his voice.
That's labelled SPOILERS not because I give away the plot here, but because I give away some of the stuff people who've read the book might like to be surprised about upon seeing the movie. You have been warned. Since I got laid off a couple months ago, I had the sleep to spare to go see the 12:01 showing:-).
Things I love:
Oh my god the cinematography was incredible!! Many people usually say that to mean that the landscapes were great, and it sort of implies the whole _Braveheart_ thing of the characters walking on mountain ridges while the camera pans quickly about them. LotR has those, but some of the other cinematography is just as impressive. I'm talking lighting, focusing on characters' faces on key moments, and awesome camera angles. One cool thing that I think they got from the animated movie of all things was when the Nazgul attack the Prancing Pony at Bree. You'll have to see it, but my heart was in my throat.
The acting(??)!! I couldn't believe it, but almost all the characters were well acted. I mean, REALLY well acted. I very much expected to be disappointed by the acting, because it is par for the course in any kind of sci-fi or fantasy or epic or even "big" movie. Not so here. I was blown away.
The story. It was also amazing the Jackson didn't screw it up. There were some things I wish he had kept, but brevity *is* the soul of wit, at least when 3 hour feature films are concerned. Any deviations he made seemed perfectly justified to me, and some of them were really needed to make the film flow faster. The bit with Merry and Pippin and the fireworks was hilarious, and it allowed for good quick characterization of both of them. Pippin almost seems a whipping-boy for Gandalf throughout the movie, but it's all because of his foolishness.
Stuff I didn't like as much:
Aragorn. Aragorn was probably my second favorite character in the book (next to Faramir), and I didn't like the way he was portrayed as bearing a family "weakness". He isn't really supposed to be a "weak" character that needs to prove himself. In my mind he's supposed to be a breath from the amazement of the men of Westernesse. You kind of get a glimpse of what men used to be when you see him. Not so for this Aragorn. I very much understand why he's protrayed this way; in order to be an interesting movie character he needs to grow. He needs to come out of his insecure shell and become the king he was prophesized to be. I'm hoping that once he grows he'll recapture the wonder of Numenor(sic?).
Boromir was too "evil" feeling. I never had the impression that he was more than just prideful and slightly arrogant. In the movie he feels deceitful and a little slimy. I also understand why that needed to be done, there needed to be more "undertones" within the party.
Galadriel was too mystical. She was more of a "witch woman" than one of the last of the Noldor. This is really the only one I don't think was justified, but it was very minor in my eyes. It was almost just a different way of interpreting the character, so I don't hold it against the director. The contrast between her as the "terrible queen" and the elf queen was awesome though.
Idiot moderators modding down stuff they either don't like or that has been repeated by the rest of the horde. arg. Now my karma is below 50.
Back to the topic, I think the slashdot headline was misleading more than the website. The website made no attempt to hide its nature. I think such a thing would be fairly useless because of the whole "preaching to the choir" problem, e.g. the only people checking the site would be those that would already care about that sort of thing. Blargh
The site looks like it's more about a "dangerous influence" than anything else. These toys aren't dangerous because of small parts, ineffective hydraulic seals, reactor leaks, or rambunctious atom-smashers. They're "dangerous" because they promote violence in kids.
I have yet to see any well-controlled study linking violent toys/games with violent behavious later in life. This site is just another attempt to impose one person's lifestyle on another's children.
Does the Apple license in this case count as a restrictive software license in light of the new Adobe case? I think it might, as the pertinent restrictions here deal with modification and reselling. I would have to study the court documents further, though, and of course I am not a lawyer.
Using the packaged OS as a circumvention device is a funny way to illustrate the silliness of the DMCA, but other than that does it really apply to the cease-and-desist? I mean the Apple lawyers are focusing on the act (the actual modification and copying, etc. etc.) rather than the tool here (the OS;^)).
Also, does posting instructions on how to do this really qualify as reverse-engineering, copying, modifying or distributing (yell at me if I've left something out)? To me it seems more like saying "if you solder a little connection between jumpers A1E and B3C you can make French toast and waffles with your PS2". Or is it the Lanham Act that covers dissemination of information relating to copyright infringment? Funny, I thought the Lanham Act had more to do with doing business using "ill-gotten gains".
Our tests on a dual-CPU system indicate that both Windows XP and Windows 2000 run better on an SMP (symmetric multiprocessing) configuration with relatively slow CPUs than on a single-CPU system with a screamingly fast processor.
Oh, the silly things Intel marketing makes journalists say. Since when is the Pentium 4 faster than a Pentium III of lower clock speed in day-to-day apps? As far as I know the only apps where the P4 is significantly faster are either ones with SSE2 or Quake 3.
Comparing a 1.5GHz P4 to 2 1 GHz PIII's is absolutely insane without at least first comparing it to 1 PIII. Especially when you are talking business apps. The P4 will continue to be a dog until Intel pushes it past the 3GHz mark. And if AMD can hold their own it might even be a dog then.
Calling the 1GHz PIII "relatively slow" in the same breath as calling a 1.5GHz P4 "blazingly fast" makes me giggle. Back to NetHack.
I have something to hide from white supremicists: my girlfriend is black. I have something to hide from spammers: my email address is g_pelcakATyahooDOTcom. I have something to hide from foreign governments, the mafia, and Rush Limbaugh. People who smoke marijuana have something to hide from the US Government; do you really think that smoking dope is morally wrong? It might be stupid, and it might be irresponsible or bad for your health or whatever, but are you really hurting someone? The problem is *often* with the people you are hiding it from, not necessarily with you, the hider.
The theory that privacy will completely disappear as technology progresses is an interesting one. Personally, I doubt it will happen. There is always some way to stop from being seen or recorded or whatever. If you think your office is bugged you can bring jammers to work with you. If you think you are being videotaped it is more difficult, but not impossible to stop. Where technology provides a way to surveil it often provides a way to stop that surveillance.
Unless I'm completely wrong (which is entirely possible; I have a cold and it's early) you cannot *copyright* a design or a layout. And even if you did, only a direct copy would be infringing.
You can *trademark* certain symbols, phrases, or whatever that help differentiate your product, but I sincerely doubt that you can trademark an entire look and feel. For instance, if the theme developers used the Apple logo in their themes that would obviously be trademark infringement.
But if they just make green red and amber buttons, and themes that look like Apple themes I think they have some ground to stand on. Pontiac can make their cars look like Ford cars if they want, but they can't put Ford's logo on them. And these themes aren't even being sold.
I'm not saying that Apple is behaving like an evil dictator or anything, only that it's not a black and white case.
Didn't you know? Only law-abiding U.S. companies can make security software!! This is why implementing encryption backdoors is such a good idea for national security as well as the national economy, because the world needs to use our products to ensure high quality security.
Thanks to all those posting links to tolkien-movies.com and Ain't it Cool News, but the trailers they have from Sept 6th are not the same as the one from last night, Sept. 24th.
To my knowledge none of the mirror sites have it yet (although that could change). TheOneRing.Net just posts a link to the broken Apple/Sorenson server. They may be available on the Morpheous/Kazaa network; I'm at work and haven't been able to check. I'd post a mirror, too, except I haven't been able to get the latest trailer myself:-).
The point I was making above was that if Tim encrypts his data using his own algorithm (say, RC5), and then encrypts it with Legitimate Encryption Standard v.2.3, there is no way to tell that he has encrypted his data until you decrypt the "legitimate" message.
This would presumeably require a court order (for a government to do it at least), which takes time and energy to get. The only way to systematically tell if people are using their own encryption under this scheme is to decrypt all messages that are passed. This is impractical, and would not likely stand in any society that purports to be "free".
That is why I label it futile. It is futile against those who don't go along with the system, unless they are in your power and fear jail time. For any sort of intelligence gathering such a scheme is essentially useless.
I think that when evaluating security proposals it is first necessary to find out if the proposal is practicable. This can save a lot of energy for step 2, which is finding out if it is Right.
We can extradite anyone who has broken our laws in our country from any country with which we have extradition treaties. This includes most countries in the world
Your country can do likewise.
I'm not saying that this is a good thing, just that it is so.
I've been formulating a "conspiracy" theory with speed limits that is similar to this argument. The idea is that you make the speed limit so ridiculously low that everyone goes much much faster than posted, and thereby generate revenue for the city or town in speeding tickets.
Not quite as insidious, but more practical for that.
RC4 is not considered a "good" cypher by anyone. Its weakness is a lot of the reason WEP was cracked so quickly and thoroughly.
Also, crypto with a back-door would be useful against criminals, just not against governments. For example, you mostly use SSH so hackers can't sniff your packets to get logins and passwords. It's nice to know that governments would be equally hard-put, but that isn't the primary purpose.
Plus, governments have many more resources than 1337 d00dz. They can log your keystrokes, or use other channels (Tempest sheilding, keystroke timing, video cameras). Or they can just bribe your girlfriend. What, you don't have a girlfriend? Beware the next time some blonde bomb comes up to you and just can't get over your coding skills.
I hope more money goes into HUMINT of the latter variety than fruitless reactionary measures like key-escrow. Because I really am patriotic, but I want to be able to have some control over who reads my data.
Whups, you guys just destroyed the key when you seized Tim's box. He has forgotten his password. He is a member of a terrorist organization who is willing to die (or go to prison) for his beliefs.
The purpose of gathering intelligence is not always to convict a criminal, often it's to get his compatriots or to leave open an intelligence channel that can be exploited at a later time.
Making it illegal to encrypt your data with unbreakable methods is something not very likely to happen. Holding someone in contempt of court for not supplying the key for evidence is much more likely. This doesn't help when you are intelligence gathering, though, as I have previously stated.
The simple reason is that as long as there is an algorithm that cannot be penetrated, either by force or by escrow, that algorithm can hide data. On this, at least, the cat is out of the bag.
One of the more likely scenarios which could possibly keep criminals away from data while allowing governments to have access would be an agreement worldwide on a data-encryption standard that included key-escrow. Likely this would be implemented with a large database of registered keys rather than a "skeleton key" approach simply because the "skeleton key" would be a ridiculously easy target. Of course, this whole scenario cannot work for catching dissidents and criminals, and therefore cannot serve the purpose of fighting terrorists.
The reason is that under any reasonable key-escrow scheme a government would be required to show evidence before using the person's key to find the data. This works fine for average citizens who only use the mandated encryption standard, but, Surprise! When the government uses the key of terrorist Tim to decode his messages, they find that not only did he use the mandated scheme, but he also encrypted his data with his own scheme, which, of course, is unbreakable with current technology. Terrorist Tim wins in two ways here, not only did his data remain secure, but he also managed to waste a large amount of the government's time and resources.
The fact that this is even being proposed shows the ignorance of technology rampant in Congress. I live in NH, maybe I'll write a letter to Senator Gregg.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it just me, or does this seem like an article you'd read in The Onion? It's obviously impractical at this juncture; one terabyte or two or three isn't nearly enough to fit a whole life's worth of information. It'd be interesting ot have all your personal data and stuff in one place, and being able to index-search your gradeschool papers might be fun for an afternoon... but what about when I'm trying to remember what that girl smelled like or how I felt when...
This seems akin to the article about President Bush wanting the Army to use Windows XP so we could have flying soldiers. Plus, as it's been mentioned before in this thread, isn't the Dept. of Homeland Security alread doing this for us? Should these DVDs be available as a tax-benefit? I'm in the military, does this mean that mine will be classified?
It's about time New Hampshire benefitted from its lack of sales tax. I guarantee NH isn't one of the states involved in this coalition. Perhaps more online retailers will change their base of operations to NH so they can benefit from the lack of tax.
Of course, your state may try to tax you on things bought from NH sites, but I don't think that's the way this plan is designed at least.
Did I mention we have no income tax, either?
Most massholes ;-) think Salem is one big strip mall, but there really is more to the town than "the strip". There are some very nice parts, especially in North Salem. Boy, I never thought I'd see the day when I'd be discussing this on slashdot.
2. Other people can understand what you type.
Hahaha, obvosulkjaesyo you have neverwot tried to tlako toh opme afterb 2 amas when I'have a low blood to caffeoine ratio and my hands are b=made out of byutterfinger bars.
But seriously, I agree with you on the step back in the communications department. I have had a Handspring visor for a while, and any time I had to enter anything substantial in with handwriting recognition it just took forever. A keyboard is a must for any kind of useful data entry.
I could see it being useful for web-surfing and presenting things. Other than that, it seems like it'd be more trouble than it was worth.
Of course, the Star Trek Cool Factor is rather high.
Speaking of which, the Q-36 can track up to 14 taqrgets simulatneously. This is usually used for counter-bat work, but I wonderif instead of guns it could be jury-rigged to a new laser, or maybe a whole battery of them. Interesting possibilities. BTW, traditionally, units are referred to as OPFOR when they are in training exercises where friendly units are called "BLUFOR".
I'm an OPFOR soldier at JRTC, if you're interested, and the Q-36 fucks up our world on a regular basis; it's always one of our HPT's.
The real way to make it not "suicide" as you put it is to use mortars with quick setup and pack-up capabilies. You can use these to take out the counter-bat batteries. If you're good (which we are).
For the longest time, the Gallagher brothers were total wankers. It's very good to see them opening themselves to good things like open XML standards and frameworks.
Just in case you didn't know, that feature is *built in* to the OS (at least 10.2, I don't know about ealier versions). All you need do is right-click (or ctrl click or whatever) the icon on the desktop and choose "Duplicate". It makes a playable DVD image on the HD. And yes, it does cut down considerably on battery use.
I noticed that they streamlined the definition of "Cross Platform", too, leaving only two platforms being developed.
Alas, I don't have the time (or the skills) to attempt a one-man Mac port of Phoenix, so I guess I'm stuck with Mozilla, which really wasn't that bad to begin with. Too bad, I was really thinking it would be the perfect browser for me, too. Maybe I'll check out Chimera, but I have a feeling it won't be as cool.
I wish Rick Boucher were my representitive so I could vote for him.
``The laws that have passed in recent years have imbalanced the historical balance between owners of copyrighted works and users of copyrighted works,'' Boucher said in an interview Tuesday. ``The balance has been tilted dramatically in favor of owners at the expense of users.''
This guy actually gets it! There really need to be more representitives and senators like him. I just wish that there were even any running in my district so I could put in my vote.
One last thing; Elrond was played byt he same guy as the lead Agent on The Matrix. Every time he said anything I couldn't help but giggle because I was imagining him in the "Mr. Anderson" lines. It wasn't his fault, it was just his voice.
Things I love:
Oh my god the cinematography was incredible!! Many people usually say that to mean that the landscapes were great, and it sort of implies the whole _Braveheart_ thing of the characters walking on mountain ridges while the camera pans quickly about them. LotR has those, but some of the other cinematography is just as impressive. I'm talking lighting, focusing on characters' faces on key moments, and awesome camera angles. One cool thing that I think they got from the animated movie of all things was when the Nazgul attack the Prancing Pony at Bree. You'll have to see it, but my heart was in my throat.
The acting(??)!! I couldn't believe it, but almost all the characters were well acted. I mean, REALLY well acted. I very much expected to be disappointed by the acting, because it is par for the course in any kind of sci-fi or fantasy or epic or even "big" movie. Not so here. I was blown away.
The story. It was also amazing the Jackson didn't screw it up. There were some things I wish he had kept, but brevity *is* the soul of wit, at least when 3 hour feature films are concerned. Any deviations he made seemed perfectly justified to me, and some of them were really needed to make the film flow faster. The bit with Merry and Pippin and the fireworks was hilarious, and it allowed for good quick characterization of both of them. Pippin almost seems a whipping-boy for Gandalf throughout the movie, but it's all because of his foolishness.
Stuff I didn't like as much:
Aragorn. Aragorn was probably my second favorite character in the book (next to Faramir), and I didn't like the way he was portrayed as bearing a family "weakness". He isn't really supposed to be a "weak" character that needs to prove himself. In my mind he's supposed to be a breath from the amazement of the men of Westernesse. You kind of get a glimpse of what men used to be when you see him. Not so for this Aragorn. I very much understand why he's protrayed this way; in order to be an interesting movie character he needs to grow. He needs to come out of his insecure shell and become the king he was prophesized to be. I'm hoping that once he grows he'll recapture the wonder of Numenor(sic?).
Boromir was too "evil" feeling. I never had the impression that he was more than just prideful and slightly arrogant. In the movie he feels deceitful and a little slimy. I also understand why that needed to be done, there needed to be more "undertones" within the party.
Galadriel was too mystical. She was more of a "witch woman" than one of the last of the Noldor. This is really the only one I don't think was justified, but it was very minor in my eyes. It was almost just a different way of interpreting the character, so I don't hold it against the director. The contrast between her as the "terrible queen" and the elf queen was awesome though.
OH OH OH. Gollum ROCKS!!
Idiot moderators modding down stuff they either don't like or that has been repeated by the rest of the horde. arg. Now my karma is below 50.
Back to the topic, I think the slashdot headline was misleading more than the website. The website made no attempt to hide its nature. I think such a thing would be fairly useless because of the whole "preaching to the choir" problem, e.g. the only people checking the site would be those that would already care about that sort of thing. Blargh
The site looks like it's more about a "dangerous influence" than anything else. These toys aren't dangerous because of small parts, ineffective hydraulic seals, reactor leaks, or rambunctious atom-smashers. They're "dangerous" because they promote violence in kids.
I have yet to see any well-controlled study linking violent toys/games with violent behavious later in life. This site is just another attempt to impose one person's lifestyle on another's children.
Does the Apple license in this case count as a restrictive software license in light of the new Adobe case? I think it might, as the pertinent restrictions here deal with modification and reselling. I would have to study the court documents further, though, and of course I am not a lawyer.
;^)).
Using the packaged OS as a circumvention device is a funny way to illustrate the silliness of the DMCA, but other than that does it really apply to the cease-and-desist? I mean the Apple lawyers are focusing on the act (the actual modification and copying, etc. etc.) rather than the tool here (the OS
Also, does posting instructions on how to do this really qualify as reverse-engineering, copying, modifying or distributing (yell at me if I've left something out)? To me it seems more like saying "if you solder a little connection between jumpers A1E and B3C you can make French toast and waffles with your PS2". Or is it the Lanham Act that covers dissemination of information relating to copyright infringment? Funny, I thought the Lanham Act had more to do with doing business using "ill-gotten gains".
Oh, the silly things Intel marketing makes journalists say. Since when is the Pentium 4 faster than a Pentium III of lower clock speed in day-to-day apps? As far as I know the only apps where the P4 is significantly faster are either ones with SSE2 or Quake 3.
Comparing a 1.5GHz P4 to 2 1 GHz PIII's is absolutely insane without at least first comparing it to 1 PIII. Especially when you are talking business apps. The P4 will continue to be a dog until Intel pushes it past the 3GHz mark. And if AMD can hold their own it might even be a dog then.
Calling the 1GHz PIII "relatively slow" in the same breath as calling a 1.5GHz P4 "blazingly fast" makes me giggle. Back to NetHack.
I have something to hide from white supremicists: my girlfriend is black. I have something to hide from spammers: my email address is g_pelcakATyahooDOTcom. I have something to hide from foreign governments, the mafia, and Rush Limbaugh. People who smoke marijuana have something to hide from the US Government; do you really think that smoking dope is morally wrong? It might be stupid, and it might be irresponsible or bad for your health or whatever, but are you really hurting someone? The problem is *often* with the people you are hiding it from, not necessarily with you, the hider.
The theory that privacy will completely disappear as technology progresses is an interesting one. Personally, I doubt it will happen. There is always some way to stop from being seen or recorded or whatever. If you think your office is bugged you can bring jammers to work with you. If you think you are being videotaped it is more difficult, but not impossible to stop. Where technology provides a way to surveil it often provides a way to stop that surveillance.
Unless I'm completely wrong (which is entirely possible; I have a cold and it's early) you cannot *copyright* a design or a layout. And even if you did, only a direct copy would be infringing.
You can *trademark* certain symbols, phrases, or whatever that help differentiate your product, but I sincerely doubt that you can trademark an entire look and feel. For instance, if the theme developers used the Apple logo in their themes that would obviously be trademark infringement.
But if they just make green red and amber buttons, and themes that look like Apple themes I think they have some ground to stand on. Pontiac can make their cars look like Ford cars if they want, but they can't put Ford's logo on them. And these themes aren't even being sold.
I'm not saying that Apple is behaving like an evil dictator or anything, only that it's not a black and white case.
Didn't you know? Only law-abiding U.S. companies can make security software!! This is why implementing encryption backdoors is such a good idea for national security as well as the national economy, because the world needs to use our products to ensure high quality security.
Thanks to all those posting links to tolkien-movies.com and Ain't it Cool News, but the trailers they have from Sept 6th are not the same as the one from last night, Sept. 24th.
:-).
To my knowledge none of the mirror sites have it yet (although that could change). TheOneRing.Net just posts a link to the broken Apple/Sorenson server. They may be available on the Morpheous/Kazaa network; I'm at work and haven't been able to check. I'd post a mirror, too, except I haven't been able to get the latest trailer myself
The point I was making above was that if Tim encrypts his data using his own algorithm (say, RC5), and then encrypts it with Legitimate Encryption Standard v.2.3, there is no way to tell that he has encrypted his data until you decrypt the "legitimate" message.
This would presumeably require a court order (for a government to do it at least), which takes time and energy to get. The only way to systematically tell if people are using their own encryption under this scheme is to decrypt all messages that are passed. This is impractical, and would not likely stand in any society that purports to be "free".
That is why I label it futile. It is futile against those who don't go along with the system, unless they are in your power and fear jail time. For any sort of intelligence gathering such a scheme is essentially useless.
I think that when evaluating security proposals it is first necessary to find out if the proposal is practicable. This can save a lot of energy for step 2, which is finding out if it is Right.
We can extradite anyone who has broken our laws in our country from any country with which we have extradition treaties. This includes most countries in the world
Your country can do likewise.
I'm not saying that this is a good thing, just that it is so.
Great point,
I've been formulating a "conspiracy" theory with speed limits that is similar to this argument. The idea is that you make the speed limit so ridiculously low that everyone goes much much faster than posted, and thereby generate revenue for the city or town in speeding tickets.
Not quite as insidious, but more practical for that.
RC4 is not considered a "good" cypher by anyone. Its weakness is a lot of the reason WEP was cracked so quickly and thoroughly.
Also, crypto with a back-door would be useful against criminals, just not against governments. For example, you mostly use SSH so hackers can't sniff your packets to get logins and passwords. It's nice to know that governments would be equally hard-put, but that isn't the primary purpose.
Plus, governments have many more resources than 1337 d00dz. They can log your keystrokes, or use other channels (Tempest sheilding, keystroke timing, video cameras). Or they can just bribe your girlfriend. What, you don't have a girlfriend? Beware the next time some blonde bomb comes up to you and just can't get over your coding skills.
I hope more money goes into HUMINT of the latter variety than fruitless reactionary measures like key-escrow. Because I really am patriotic, but I want to be able to have some control over who reads my data.
Whups, you guys just destroyed the key when you seized Tim's box. He has forgotten his password. He is a member of a terrorist organization who is willing to die (or go to prison) for his beliefs.
The purpose of gathering intelligence is not always to convict a criminal, often it's to get his compatriots or to leave open an intelligence channel that can be exploited at a later time.
Making it illegal to encrypt your data with unbreakable methods is something not very likely to happen. Holding someone in contempt of court for not supplying the key for evidence is much more likely. This doesn't help when you are intelligence gathering, though, as I have previously stated.
They could never work.
The simple reason is that as long as there is an algorithm that cannot be penetrated, either by force or by escrow, that algorithm can hide data. On this, at least, the cat is out of the bag.
One of the more likely scenarios which could possibly keep criminals away from data while allowing governments to have access would be an agreement worldwide on a data-encryption standard that included key-escrow. Likely this would be implemented with a large database of registered keys rather than a "skeleton key" approach simply because the "skeleton key" would be a ridiculously easy target. Of course, this whole scenario cannot work for catching dissidents and criminals, and therefore cannot serve the purpose of fighting terrorists.
The reason is that under any reasonable key-escrow scheme a government would be required to show evidence before using the person's key to find the data. This works fine for average citizens who only use the mandated encryption standard, but, Surprise! When the government uses the key of terrorist Tim to decode his messages, they find that not only did he use the mandated scheme, but he also encrypted his data with his own scheme, which, of course, is unbreakable with current technology. Terrorist Tim wins in two ways here, not only did his data remain secure, but he also managed to waste a large amount of the government's time and resources.
The fact that this is even being proposed shows the ignorance of technology rampant in Congress. I live in NH, maybe I'll write a letter to Senator Gregg.