how much will those brainiacs get paid?
I've never trusted "scientific" opinions from researchers paid by commercial companies. (What's more, I don't even trust most scientific opinions:)
Didn't Stephen King already make this point in 'Pet Semetary'?
Thou shalt not resurrect dead pets (especially cats, because they are in league with the devil)
It just can't be done.
With the DMCA in mind, this bill would probably be so general it would be legal to hack away (with an axe, that is) at your neighbour because he copied the interior design of your house:-)
I am excited already (did I mention my neighbour was a psycho?) Guess I'll have to redecorate a bit.
Well, my congratulations to the contributors to the ECCp-109-project.
BTW, did anyone realise these 'excercises' provided by Certicom are meant to generate cheap advertising ($10,000 USD is not much to pay for a zillion hours of computertime)?
Now their (potential) customers can drool over those incredible figures.
Anywho, I'll show those guys. My graduate thesis will feature a O(log n)-algorithm to compute discrete logarithms. Damn, just realised I encrypted it using ECCp-131 and lost the key! OK, no biggie, everybody just donate computertime to solve it and help a poor guy out;-)
My thesis will be posted here in about 2.3x10^6 days, until then, to quote Andrew Wiles who devoted about 10 years of his life to prove the essential connection between elliptic curves and modular forms and thereby Fermat's last theorem: I'm tired now, I think I'll go to bed:-).
I've always believed the US laws on encryption (export) were a bit harsh (read dumb) but this Freeh really baffles me. Here's a person who has a paranoid distrust in people and a blatant disregard of their privacy in general.
You may have already heard of this, but in my country (The Netherlands), a guy named Volkert van der G. assasinated a leading political figure (Pim Fortuyn). The man was arrested, but he refuses to make any statement or to speak at all, so he cannot be put on trial and this is his right, according to our laws. Am I angry about this, do I think this is unfair? Of course I do, but I expect to have the same rights if I was ever brought in for questioning. You can't change the rights of people, just because the laws are against you, they apply equally well to all people. Why does this Freeh-man think it is not my right to make sure absolutely no-one but the intended adressee can read my message?
Why does he want to force me to place a trust in the government that they can keep the information confidential and the backdoor-keys in their sole posession, which is very unlikely? I'm sure his intentions are to catch bad guys, but bad guys should have the same rights as anyone else, like it or not. I don't want the government to treat me like a criminal just because I use encryption.
There are people who think encryption should not be used in case of personal non-secret communication, but I think that's a load of BS, because encryption is in my view not meant to hide (harmful/secret/sensitive) information, but to enable privacy (just a paradigmshift). So if I want to talk to my mother, and I think what I have to say is nobody else's beeswax, not even the government's, I have the right to use encryption and to be free of any suspicion, don't you think?
Freeh wants you to believe that anything you send over the internet or store on a computer is information the government should have access to, but encryption is the only tool that allows you to safely put your thoughts down. Don't let people like him rob you of this tool and your private thoughts, plead the fifth on encryption!
Slashdot Mirror
how much will those brainiacs get paid? I've never trusted "scientific" opinions from researchers paid by commercial companies. (What's more, I don't even trust most scientific opinions:)
Didn't Stephen King already make this point in 'Pet Semetary'? Thou shalt not resurrect dead pets (especially cats, because they are in league with the devil) It just can't be done.
I am excited already (did I mention my neighbour was a psycho?) Guess I'll have to redecorate a bit.
BTW, did anyone realise these 'excercises' provided by Certicom are meant to generate cheap advertising ($10,000 USD is not much to pay for a zillion hours of computertime)?
Now their (potential) customers can drool over those incredible figures.
Anywho, I'll show those guys. My graduate thesis will feature a O(log n)-algorithm to compute discrete logarithms. Damn, just realised I encrypted it using ECCp-131 and lost the key! OK, no biggie, everybody just donate computertime to solve it and help a poor guy out ;-)
:-).
My thesis will be posted here in about 2.3x10^6 days, until then, to quote Andrew Wiles who devoted about 10 years of his life to prove the essential connection between elliptic curves and modular forms and thereby Fermat's last theorem: I'm tired now, I think I'll go to bed
I've always believed the US laws on encryption (export) were a bit harsh (read dumb) but this Freeh really baffles me. Here's a person who has a paranoid distrust in people and a blatant disregard of their privacy in general.
You may have already heard of this, but in my country (The Netherlands), a guy named Volkert van der G. assasinated a leading political figure (Pim Fortuyn). The man was arrested, but he refuses to make any statement or to speak at all, so he cannot be put on trial and this is his right, according to our laws. Am I angry about this, do I think this is unfair? Of course I do, but I expect to have the same rights if I was ever brought in for questioning. You can't change the rights of people, just because the laws are against you, they apply equally well to all people.
Why does this Freeh-man think it is not my right to make sure absolutely no-one but the intended adressee can read my message? Why does he want to force me to place a trust in the government that they can keep the information confidential and the backdoor-keys in their sole posession, which is very unlikely? I'm sure his intentions are to catch bad guys, but bad guys should have the same rights as anyone else, like it or not. I don't want the government to treat me like a criminal just because I use encryption.
There are people who think encryption should not be used in case of personal non-secret communication, but I think that's a load of BS, because encryption is in my view not meant to hide (harmful/secret/sensitive) information, but to enable privacy (just a paradigmshift). So if I want to talk to my mother, and I think what I have to say is nobody else's beeswax, not even the government's, I have the right to use encryption and to be free of any suspicion, don't you think?
Freeh wants you to believe that anything you send over the internet or store on a computer is information the government should have access to, but encryption is the only tool that allows you to safely put your thoughts down. Don't let people like him rob you of this tool and your private thoughts, plead the fifth on encryption!