It's up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that I used the identical key to encrypt N/128 files. Cryptographically speaking, that is impossible due to the very nature of ECB mode of encryption.
There are currently 14.2 million BTC left, which are worth $203 million USD in today's market values. JPmorgan made $17.37 billion last year. You do the math.
I was just responding to protektor's claim that a court cannot force you to open a safe. That's untrue. If the safe is locked via a key, then it's constitutional for a court to compel the defendant to produce the key.
We do not disagree with the dissent that "[t]he expression of the contents of an individual's mind" is testimonial communication for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. Post at 487 U. S. 220, n. 1. We simply disagree with the dissent's conclusion that the execution of the consent directive at issue here forced petitioner to express the contents of his mind. In our view, such compulsion is more like "be[ing] forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents," than it is like "be[ing] compelled to reveal the combination to [petitioner's] wall safe." Post at 487 U. S. 219.
The courts cannot compel a defendant to reveal a combination to safe since the combination is inside the defendant's mind. On the other, SCOTUS found that it's constitutional to compel a defendant to produce the key to a strongbox since the overt act of producing the key is not self-incriminating.
Bingo. You hit the nail on the head. If Google attacks Microsoft's patent pool, they should expect counter-attacks from Microsoft. Why take the risk if there's no benefits? Google profits exactly $0 from each handset sold.
If F is all possible algorithm/key pairs and it is limited to 2^256 options then for any given data only 2^256 encryptions are possible
F(d) = e
By encrypting N bits of data with AES-256 in ECB mode, you get N/128 independent blocks. Each block has 2^256 possible ways of decryption. So in total, the N-bits long cipher text has N/128*2^256 = N*2^249 possible decryptions.
In reality you would probably not even get the full 2^256 as there are almost always a few entropy issues that make f(d) not evenly distribute the changes from d to e without any collisions.
True, that effect is small enough to be negligible. Instead of the complete works of William Shakespeare, you will get the complete works of William Shakespeare with a few typos. AES-256 is very close an ideal symmetric cipher in terms randomly mixing the plaintext and key data. Of course you're paranoid you can just encrypt it N times to increase the entropy to a level that you're comfortable with.
You would be right if the encrypted hard drive had a size of 256 bits only.
It's trivial to accomplish this so I didn't bother mentioning it.
First tar, gzip, and truecrypt your files as usual.
Then encrypt the the encrypted file in ECB mode.
Since each 256-bit block is encrypted independently in ECB mode (regardless of cipher choice), it's impossible to prove to that the same key is used for all the blocks. So if I'm caught with one million ECB encrypted blocks, there exists a set a of one million 256-bit keys that can turn encrypted blocks into the complete works of William Shakespeare.
Every safe is crackable, given enough effort, and I'd argue that every consumer-grade encryption scheme is also crackable given enough effort.
You need to brush up on cryptography a bit. Even with truecrypt you can make the key length arbitrarily long, and certainly long enough so that a supercomputer to crack it would require more transistors than the total number of electrons in the known universe.
A little known fact about encryption is that it's impossible to prove which password is "correct" unless checksums are used. For example, ASE-256 uses a key length of 256 bits, which means there are 2^256 or 1.15792089×10^77 possible keys. Given any encrypted file, there are 1.15792089×10^77 ways of decrypting it. Depending on the password, it might come out as the complete works William Shakespeare, child pornography, complete gibberish, or your original files. As long as checksums are not embedded in the encryption system, it's impossible to prove that you provided a "wrong" password.
If suspected evidence is locked in safe, the suspect can be forced to divulge the combination of the safe. This is not violation of the 5th amendment because it is the contents of the safe that is incriminatory; there is nothing discriminating about the combination of the safe itself. Whether you divulge the combination of not, the contents of the safe and whether it is incriminating evidence or not, does not change.
However the situation is completely different with encryption. Depending on which key you provide, the outcome of the decryption could be literally anything, as demonstrated above. The password itself, then, becomes the incriminating evidence, which is why passwords should fall under the protection of the 5th amendment.
Digital encryption is still a relatively new technology so I don't blame the judges and lawmakers for not understanding this. Hopefully these technically incorrect key disclosure laws will be repealed.
If the 14th amendment didn't apply to President Roosevelt and President Nixon, what makes you think it still applies today?
In the end the Constitution is just black ink on dead trees. It needs the cooperation of all three branches of the government to enforce it. Unenforced clauses will fall into de facto obsolescence.
Twice in history, first in 1933, and again in 1971, those checks and balances have failed.
Slashdot Mirror
It's up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that I used the identical key to encrypt N/128 files. Cryptographically speaking, that is impossible due to the very nature of ECB mode of encryption.
Actually it's 21 million BTC in total.
There are currently 14.2 million BTC left, which are worth $203 million USD in today's market values. JPmorgan made $17.37 billion last year. You do the math.
I don't think the FPGA's are as fast as the ATI GPU's for computing SHA hashes
Correct.
but they probably use a heck of a lot less electricity.
Correct.
But unfortunately their initial cost is much higher than ATI GPUs which is why no one started mass mining with FPGAs yet.
For the new Maxeler system, it flattened the C++ code down to a Java code.
I hope to God that's a typo. C++ -> Java -> Java Bytecode -> Native code almost sounds like a programming language Rube Goldberg machine.
How would the pointer operations even translate?
The world is just one big joke. Those of you who are still taking it seriously just didn't get the punchline
20 years ago.
I perfectly agree with all of your statements.
I was just responding to protektor's claim that a court cannot force you to open a safe. That's untrue. If the safe is locked via a key, then it's constitutional for a court to compel the defendant to produce the key.
Not as ironic as Standard & Poor's.
Sorry I wasn't being clear. I completely agree with your statement that "it's unconstitutional to torture US citizens".
I'm just saying that it doesn't stop US citizens from being tortured in real life, because they torture first, and ask questions later.
Sorry, my bad. I should have said "key" instead of "combination". SCOTUS recognized that combinations are protected under the 5th, while keys aren't.
Because some devices are certified by Google and some are not. The certification process costs exactly $0.
I think you may have been watching too many movies or TV shows.
No, I have been reading too many case laws.
From the majority opinion of Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201:
We do not disagree with the dissent that "[t]he expression of the contents of an individual's mind" is testimonial communication for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. Post at 487 U. S. 220, n. 1. We simply disagree with the dissent's conclusion that the execution of the consent directive at issue here forced petitioner to express the contents of his mind. In our view, such compulsion is more like "be[ing] forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents," than it is like "be[ing] compelled to reveal the combination to [petitioner's] wall safe." Post at 487 U. S. 219.
The courts cannot compel a defendant to reveal a combination to safe since the combination is inside the defendant's mind. On the other, SCOTUS found that it's constitutional to compel a defendant to produce the key to a strongbox since the overt act of producing the key is not self-incriminating.
it's unconstitutional to torture US citizens
Ostensibly, yes. In actuality, no.
Bingo. You hit the nail on the head. If Google attacks Microsoft's patent pool, they should expect counter-attacks from Microsoft. Why take the risk if there's no benefits? Google profits exactly $0 from each handset sold.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, unless, of course, you are bashing Microsoft on Slashdot.
Sorry, that should be "128-bit block" instead of "256-bit block".
If F is all possible algorithm/key pairs and it is limited to 2^256 options then for any given data only 2^256 encryptions are possible F(d) = e
By encrypting N bits of data with AES-256 in ECB mode, you get N/128 independent blocks. Each block has 2^256 possible ways of decryption. So in total, the N-bits long cipher text has N/128*2^256 = N*2^249 possible decryptions.
In reality you would probably not even get the full 2^256 as there are almost always a few entropy issues that make f(d) not evenly distribute the changes from d to e without any collisions.
True, that effect is small enough to be negligible. Instead of the complete works of William Shakespeare, you will get the complete works of William Shakespeare with a few typos. AES-256 is very close an ideal symmetric cipher in terms randomly mixing the plaintext and key data. Of course you're paranoid you can just encrypt it N times to increase the entropy to a level that you're comfortable with.
You would be right if the encrypted hard drive had a size of 256 bits only.
It's trivial to accomplish this so I didn't bother mentioning it.
First tar, gzip, and truecrypt your files as usual.
Then encrypt the the encrypted file in ECB mode.
Since each 256-bit block is encrypted independently in ECB mode (regardless of cipher choice), it's impossible to prove to that the same key is used for all the blocks. So if I'm caught with one million ECB encrypted blocks, there exists a set a of one million 256-bit keys that can turn encrypted blocks into the complete works of William Shakespeare.
Every safe is crackable, given enough effort, and I'd argue that every consumer-grade encryption scheme is also crackable given enough effort.
You need to brush up on cryptography a bit. Even with truecrypt you can make the key length arbitrarily long, and certainly long enough so that a supercomputer to crack it would require more transistors than the total number of electrons in the known universe.
It's a rare privilege only available to a small percentage of all human beings, unfortunately.
Let's not forget about politicians' all-convenient "I'm not obliged to recall that fact." exception either.
A little known fact about encryption is that it's impossible to prove which password is "correct" unless checksums are used. For example, ASE-256 uses a key length of 256 bits, which means there are 2^256 or 1.15792089×10^77 possible keys. Given any encrypted file, there are 1.15792089×10^77 ways of decrypting it. Depending on the password, it might come out as the complete works William Shakespeare, child pornography, complete gibberish, or your original files. As long as checksums are not embedded in the encryption system, it's impossible to prove that you provided a "wrong" password.
If suspected evidence is locked in safe, the suspect can be forced to divulge the combination of the safe. This is not violation of the 5th amendment because it is the contents of the safe that is incriminatory; there is nothing discriminating about the combination of the safe itself. Whether you divulge the combination of not, the contents of the safe and whether it is incriminating evidence or not, does not change.
However the situation is completely different with encryption. Depending on which key you provide, the outcome of the decryption could be literally anything, as demonstrated above. The password itself, then, becomes the incriminating evidence, which is why passwords should fall under the protection of the 5th amendment.
Digital encryption is still a relatively new technology so I don't blame the judges and lawmakers for not understanding this. Hopefully these technically incorrect key disclosure laws will be repealed.
If the 14th amendment didn't apply to President Roosevelt and President Nixon, what makes you think it still applies today?
In the end the Constitution is just black ink on dead trees. It needs the cooperation of all three branches of the government to enforce it. Unenforced clauses will fall into de facto obsolescence.
Twice in history, first in 1933, and again in 1971, those checks and balances have failed.
Furthermore, Jellyfish are also nearly nutrition-less so people do not try to catch them.
Most Asian cuisines have Jellyfish dishes. Some US fisheries even export Jellyfish to Asian countries.
Here's the interpol stop page.
I can't seem to find the blacklisted domains on Telstra and Interpol's sites. Is my google-fu too weak or is the list kept secret?
If it's latter, how am I supposed check whether my site hasn't accidentally ended on the blacklist? Use an Australian proxy?
I found it deeply ironic that the list of censored sites is itself censored.
If that's the case then Google+ is going to be a major failure because everyone is going to get shitspam from Brazilians...
Slashdot seems to be doing quite well still, despite all the shitspam from racist bigots.