Kurzweil talks about how nano is going to revolutionize how our brains think. The new reality of human existance will be that our fantasies will be stdin, and stdout will be redirected into our nervous systems... the end result being that we fully experience whatever fantasy we engage in, not just in Dolby, but in all five senses.
In such a scenario, can we possibly tolerate the state inserting itself into the circuit between our imagination and our sense of touch?
At what point between now and then do we boot the state out?
It seems obvious that the line to be drawn here is between those activities that harm others and those that harm noone. Computer-generated images of children engaged in sex while objectionable on several levels are nonetheless harmless. No children need be hurt in the production of this material.
To rule otherwise will likely condemn us to a future where the state becomes a part of our consciousness. I think this would be very bad.
Stegonagraphy really has none of the properties that one-time pads do.
With respect to the actual encryption itself, no.
But then if you read my message again you'll see I wasn't comparing them on that basis, but rather on the ability of novices to understand how they work and how either technique does not require special encryption software or even a computer to implement.
The sooner everybody understands how indivisible from reality encryption is, the sooner the great encryption debate will be won for good. IMHO.
I'm not so sure. Certain locations when mentioned in the clear are red-flags all by themselves, e.g., Pentagon, White House, any nuke plant, etc.
Same with accomplices; suppose the FBI already has suspicions about someone and his name shows up in a message... that message will get scrutinized.
I think it really depends on the context; the nature of the operation, the location of the target, whether or not the people you're dealing with are known to law enforcement or were known when the code words were established.
And in any case, the ability to use code words -- or to encode a message through steganography -- all demonstrate the same point: encryption doesn't require special software, it doesn't even require computers. I just think that amongst these techniques the one-time pad is the simplest one to use when explaining the futility of trying to control encryption. The others may or may not be breeched through various approaches, whereas the one-time pad cannot.
Aren't code phrases good at multiple-choice kinds of communications, but not so good for anything involving proper names, like locations or accomplices?
Clearly, lay people do not understand this, otherwise it wouldn't be such an issue.
If a terrorist is willing to sacrifice his life then I think he'd be willing to put up with some inconvenience in sending/receiving encrypted messages.
The kinds of messages terrorists are likely to exchange will be very short, and as such will be possible to exchange through unusual channels like irc, muds, newsgroup messages, etc., that will not afford the FBI any physical address.
However I agree that stenography has most if not all of the same properties that one-time pads do, at least with respect to my original point that it is easy to understand and impossible to control.
Next time I call the thread "one-time pads and stenography."
What's wrong with exchanging the pad face-to-face? Sitting on some mountain somewhere two terrorists decide they're going to strike America, and before setting out to do that, they create a one-time pad and each keep a copy.
They use it for small messages, e.g., locations, times, accomplices, etc. I doubt terrorists would require anything larger than a 4K pad for most operations.
A good article that could be made better by emphasizing the one-time pad cipher.
The one-time pad is a very easy cipher to explain to lay people. They need no understanding of math, not even arithmetic.
Anybody, anywhere can create a one-time pad by simply flipping a coin or rolling the dice, and use the resulting information to encrypt a message that is impervious to all manners of cryptoanalysis, even techniques made possible by the much-feared though yet-to-be-stocked quantum computer.
In other words, you can create a encrypted message without encryption software or even a computer, and yet be assured that the message is unreadable by any computer devisable today or anytime in the future.
There should be no debate here. Military-grade cryptography is available to anyone with a penny in their pocket and a sheet of paper and pencil.
It is clear to me that the most effective argument against everything from mandating back-doors to outlawing cryptography is the existance of the one-time pad.
Here we have a form of encryption that is literally unbreakable -- even with the most powerful quantum computers that we can only now imagine -- and yet is so easy to implement that it requires only a flip of a coin or a roll of the dice.
The way a one-time pad works is very easy to explain, and it is very easy for even lay-people to then understand the futility of regulating cryptography.
You might be able to ban all existing encryption software if you go to extremes -- like banning computers perhaps -- but you will never, absolutely never, be able to ban the one-time pad.
Terrorists will always have the one-time pad in their arsenal.
The strongest cipher also happens to be the simplest: the one-time pad.
A child can implement a one-time pad using a deck of playing cards, a pair of dice, or by simply flipping a coin repeatedly.
And the most advanced governments even if equipped with what is now only theoretically possible -- like the quantum computer -- would not be able to successfully cryptoanalyze a message so encrypted.
Are we going to classify playing cards as munitions? Dice too? What about coins: can we devise a currency that is crypto-safe?
Slashdot Mirror
Kurzweil talks about how nano is going to revolutionize how our brains think. The new reality of human existance will be that our fantasies will be stdin, and stdout will be redirected into our nervous systems... the end result being that we fully experience whatever fantasy we engage in, not just in Dolby, but in all five senses.
In such a scenario, can we possibly tolerate the state inserting itself into the circuit between our imagination and our sense of touch?
At what point between now and then do we boot the state out?
It seems obvious that the line to be drawn here is between those activities that harm others and those that harm noone. Computer-generated images of children engaged in sex while objectionable on several levels are nonetheless harmless. No children need be hurt in the production of this material.
To rule otherwise will likely condemn us to a future where the state becomes a part of our consciousness. I think this would be very bad.
Excuse me, but what if the location isn't one you've arranged a code word for in advance?
Duh indeed.
Stegonagraphy really has none of the properties that one-time pads do.
With respect to the actual encryption itself, no.
But then if you read my message again you'll see I wasn't comparing them on that basis, but rather on the ability of novices to understand how they work and how either technique does not require special encryption software or even a computer to implement.
The sooner everybody understands how indivisible from reality encryption is, the sooner the great encryption debate will be won for good. IMHO.
I'm not so sure. Certain locations when mentioned in the clear are red-flags all by themselves, e.g., Pentagon, White House, any nuke plant, etc.
Same with accomplices; suppose the FBI already has suspicions about someone and his name shows up in a message... that message will get scrutinized.
I think it really depends on the context; the nature of the operation, the location of the target, whether or not the people you're dealing with are known to law enforcement or were known when the code words were established.
And in any case, the ability to use code words -- or to encode a message through steganography -- all demonstrate the same point: encryption doesn't require special software, it doesn't even require computers. I just think that amongst these techniques the one-time pad is the simplest one to use when explaining the futility of trying to control encryption. The others may or may not be breeched through various approaches, whereas the one-time pad cannot.
Aren't code phrases good at multiple-choice kinds of communications, but not so good for anything involving proper names, like locations or accomplices?
Clearly, lay people do not understand this, otherwise it wouldn't be such an issue.
If a terrorist is willing to sacrifice his life then I think he'd be willing to put up with some inconvenience in sending/receiving encrypted messages.
The kinds of messages terrorists are likely to exchange will be very short, and as such will be possible to exchange through unusual channels like irc, muds, newsgroup messages, etc., that will not afford the FBI any physical address.
However I agree that stenography has most if not all of the same properties that one-time pads do, at least with respect to my original point that it is easy to understand and impossible to control.
Next time I call the thread "one-time pads and stenography."
Yes but I think you're missing the point.
It may not be an ideal manner of encrypting your data, but it is one that will always be with us, regardless of what we do.
The point is to find a way of explaining to lay people that any controls they want to place on cryptography are pointless.
For terrorists, the one-time pad is more than suitable.
What's wrong with exchanging the pad face-to-face? Sitting on some mountain somewhere two terrorists decide they're going to strike America, and before setting out to do that, they create a one-time pad and each keep a copy.
They use it for small messages, e.g., locations, times, accomplices, etc. I doubt terrorists would require anything larger than a 4K pad for most operations.
A good article that could be made better by emphasizing the one-time pad cipher.
The one-time pad is a very easy cipher to explain to lay people. They need no understanding of math, not even arithmetic.
Anybody, anywhere can create a one-time pad by simply flipping a coin or rolling the dice, and use the resulting information to encrypt a message that is impervious to all manners of cryptoanalysis, even techniques made possible by the much-feared though yet-to-be-stocked quantum computer.
In other words, you can create a encrypted message without encryption software or even a computer, and yet be assured that the message is unreadable by any computer devisable today or anytime in the future.
There should be no debate here. Military-grade cryptography is available to anyone with a penny in their pocket and a sheet of paper and pencil.
We need to stop wasting time talking about this.
It is clear to me that the most effective argument against everything from mandating back-doors to outlawing cryptography is the existance of the one-time pad.
Here we have a form of encryption that is literally unbreakable -- even with the most powerful quantum computers that we can only now imagine -- and yet is so easy to implement that it requires only a flip of a coin or a roll of the dice.
The way a one-time pad works is very easy to explain, and it is very easy for even lay-people to then understand the futility of regulating cryptography.
You might be able to ban all existing encryption software if you go to extremes -- like banning computers perhaps -- but you will never, absolutely never, be able to ban the one-time pad.
Terrorists will always have the one-time pad in their arsenal.
Shouldn't this be our central argument?
The strongest cipher also happens to be the simplest: the one-time pad.
A child can implement a one-time pad using a deck of playing cards, a pair of dice, or by simply flipping a coin repeatedly.
And the most advanced governments even if equipped with what is now only theoretically possible -- like the quantum computer -- would not be able to successfully cryptoanalyze a message so encrypted.
Are we going to classify playing cards as munitions? Dice too? What about coins: can we devise a currency that is crypto-safe?
Sometimes I feel like I'm drowning in monkeys.