We know of one call he's made in the US and one in Canada. Since we're talking about how police operate in the US, only one of those is relevant; so, the short answer is, here has been only one call that we can assume unless he admits to more, and someone has gotten hurt one time. His call-to-death incident rate is, as far as we can reasonably know, is 100%.
You mean where I pointed out that there's a lack of DV shelters? That the legal system holds lopsided views? Where HR dept's, act in a manner against one particular party? Those are all suggestions to where you can "help the cause."
No, those are all particular problems. You've proposed not a single solution here.
And you seem to be doing a really good job of handwaving, not only that but you've also managed to not read anything.
Oh? You mean like how I'm asking how I can chip in to fix the problems you keep pointing out and you just say (paraphrasing) "well if you'd read what I wrote, I already told you" when all you're really doing is bitching about problems and waving your hands like a moron. I've read what you wrote; that's what's happening here.
Victimhood as a currency is on the way out, you might want to try cashing in now.
If that what you're doing? Seems to be, with all the "woe is me, these people can't read what I've written or they're purposely ignoring it". No, you're just not saying what you actually mean. I've said it before, I apparently have to repeat it: try being direct.
Okay, so I went back through the entire thread. In your second reply to me, you ask:
Good to know, so obvious question what are you doing to fix the problem besides handwaving with "whataboutism"?
Well, I answered that in a separate (and relatively short) thread, which I also re-read. Nope. No suggestions as to what I might do to help the cause. They're not there, because you never made them. So, how about dropping few now?
Further, whataboutism is a term used to compat the handwaving of others. Do you not see how "they do it, too" is a handwaving maneuver? It is, it's designed to deflect responsibility by saying it should be okay for you to do something because someone else also does that thing; the intent of pointing out when that happens (e.g. calling out whataboutism) is to open up the conversation and basically say "okay, yes, let's discuss that and what you're doing, then"; that's basically the opposite of handwaving. You, however, seem to not want to discuss things openly, preferring to hide behind purposefully misleading questions and non-answers.
Wave away, my friend. Oh, and don't bother emailing me; you don't deserve to know what I've been through.
No, you believe you didn't harass anyone 30 years ago.
You know, I'm not sure why I didn't jump on this the first time around but... as I'm reading this thread in its entirety (for a third time now) to find those suggestions you claim to have made, I though I'd point out that I was six 30 years ago.
There's some more assumptions, maybe you need to stop projecting.
What do I have to be raging about? And if not blind rage, well, then what the hell has you so blind?
I mentioned those already, why don't you go re-read my other posts.
I did, I'm not seeing them. You sure it was in this thread?
How ignorant and arrogant does someone have to be to dismiss another persons views without actually answering them?
Sorry, that was actually supposed to be in response to this statement:
Absolutely nothing at all, you continue to fail to understand the basics that in a witch hunt your view means squat.
So yes, you're asking the good questions now!
Oh look, shall we apply your favorite word? "whataboutism"
What? Where? I simply said it's the way things have always been, I didn't try to imply that it was okay because someone else is also doing it, which is what that word actually means. You, however, have done that a handful of times here.
why oh why can't you stay on topic.
You raised the topic of witch hunts, I stayed right on that. If witch hunts are off-topic, you should be asking yourself that question.
For someone who doesn't have a vested interest in actually making sure that things are impartial, you sure are arguing pretty hard for the status-quo
Huh, well, assuming any of what you just said were true, it does seem logical that someone without a vested interest in things being impartial would argue for the status-quo when that status-quo is partiality, so I don't really see any problem with your statement, other than it being flat-out false. As a male I, of course, have a vested interest in impartiality when the system is being manipulated against me; and there's a huge void between pointing out that this is nothing new (e.g. the status quo) and arguing that it shouldn't change. It certainly should, now what can I do to help?
going by your own words in several posts that the current "listen and believe" isn't a problem
When did I say "listen and believe"? I'm fairly certain that's the first time I've ever typed that phrase in my life and I certainly would not have said it's not a problem.
I think you've got me confused with someone else. That might be why we're at ends, here.
Perhaps we're dealing with a mobile device and the more complex algorithm would reduce battery life? Perhaps we're dealing with an embedded device and lack sufficient RAM, CPU, or storage to properly implement the more complex algorithm without making other compromises. Really, the list goes on, but there are two examples; they may or may not matter to you depending on your priorities, but you can rest assured they matter to someone.
What the fuck does my use of a term that describes someone deflecting by saying "what about them?" have to do with my hiring practices? Absolutely nothing. Perhaps try making sense once in a while?
How about you go down to your local family court and watch what happens for a few weeks/months and get back to me? I'll wait, the comments will even stay open that long.
No need, we've been on the same page there this whole time. You're just too blinded by ignorant rage to see it.
The fact that you think there isn't "fuck-all" you can do about it, really means squat since there *are* things you could be doing.
I didn't say there was fuck all I could do about it, I said there was fuck all I could do about it other than what I'm already doing. That said... There are things I could be doing, such as? This is a chance to further your cause rather than just slinging thinly-veiled insults.
The fact that you think there isn't "fuck-all" you can do about it, really means squat since there *are* things you could be doing
Yet you believe your views matter. How quaint.
On the other side, "shitty person" means a person that some women scorned has a grudge against, and that's been going on for years.
You're right. None of this is anything particularly new, it's been going on for at least as long as I've been alive, yet we've gotten on just fine for decades. In fact, if we expand the scope beyond the current witch hunt, we've had one or another going on for the entirety of human history. You can lose sleep over it all you want, but it's really just business as usual.
So bottom line you have no salt deficit but a deficit of other minerals? So why do you try to get more slat then?
Seems I don't grasp it:)
Indeed it seems you don't, as I'm no longer doing that. There's a timeline, here, that you might want to try and follow. Let's review:
I went to see my doctor. Doctor tells me I need more sodium (specifically), so I follow that advice.
Some time later, a biochemist comes along and points out something that, were I still involved in that field, would have been blatantly obvious to me.
I use that information to further determine that, perhaps, a deficiency in some other nutrient is causing my body to eliminate what it deems to be excess sodium.
I review the tests my doctor ran and note that none of them report calcium or potassium.
Well, damn, looks like my problem may well lie elsewhere, then, because -- as you so astutely pointed out -- I'm obviously getting enough sodium.
So, with that in mind, I'm no longer seeking more sodium in my diet but, rather, correcting the likely imbalance that caused the low sodium to begin with.
And yet you made the same assumption about me, based on nothing.
Whataboutism, again; and incorrect whataboutism, at that. I simply sensed projection and called it out.
Instead, you could have thought just a tiny bit harder and wondered if I was engaged in say working with various groups of people and helping them through things like that.
Perhaps I figured, if that were the case, it would have come up by now. At this point you've still only insinuated it, so I'll continue on believing that to not be the case.
Until you realize just how imbalanced the system is, and how little it takes to ruin a persons life today? You're flouting your ignorance.
Until we exchange those war stories, you have no clue what I realize and are, thus, flouting yours.
And yes, I do realize the system is worse now than in decades past, when I went through all my own shit. There's fuck-all I can do about it aside from what I'm already doing, which is not be a shitty person and surround myself with other non-shitty people who've proven time and again they'd take a bullet for me (in some cases literally). Is that enough? Honestly, I hope I never have to find out, but it doesn't keep me up at night.
As for your example, I have more than a handful myself (of other people I know), and I don't work in that field; thus your insinuation and single example are not sufficient to convince me that you do. Sorry if that ruffles your jimmies, but perhaps you should try being more forward?
No, I get that. I was making a slightly different point: not everything needs to be protected for as long as a 4096 bit key might protect it. If it did, we'd all be using 4096 bit keys (and I certainly do for certain things) for everything. He'll, we damn near had to force website operators to go to 2048 bits by ceasing the issue of 1024 bit certificates because, in all honesty, for most of what those certificates are protecting, even a 1024 bit key is considerable overkill.
You don't seem to get that if it happened today, it wouldn't matter because your friends and family in the current "sphere" would consider you suspect regardless.
You don't know me, my friends, or my family. They've stuck with me through much worse than some psycho bitch making shit up. If that's where you are in life, I'm sorry to hear that.
As near as I can tell you're saying, "If your encryption is too strong, they'll just hack AES."
Finding a flaw in an implementation of an algorithm is fairly different from finding a flaw in the algorithm itself an in no way means the algorithm itself is broken -- thus why I suggested reviewing the implementation and not the algorithm, so you missed that one -- twice.
Hacking AES != Breaking a window
Let's see... If, as implied by your lock-and-deadbolt analogy, a longer key is akin to more locks on the door, finding a hole in the algorithm (or the implementation of said algorithm you happen to be using) -- a way around needing the key, regardless of length -- is akin to breaking the window -- a way around the door, regardless of how many locks you have. So yes, actually, cracking AES (or a specific potentially flawed implementation of it) is breaking a window.
What you're failing to see here, though, is that I'm not attacking your point so much as the analogies you chose to use to express that point. In other words, you're being trolled; I don't normally just come out and say it like this, but I feel sorry for you as you've made it somewhat clear that you'll never figure it out otherwise.
Trolling aside, you said "There are cases where the additional overhead may be a burden, but those cases are rare and the increase in computational need for encryption pays off in spades compared to the increased difficulty decrypting" and, well, if information loses any and all value (or will become public knowledge anyway) at some point, there is literally zero value to expending additional resources to keep it secure for longer than that. How don't you get that?
For something you need to keep secure indefinitely, sure, throw everything you've got at it. But, for something you're gonna tell the world next week anyway? Why bother?
If you opt for stronger encryption it's more likely to be stolen?
So leaving it on my desk in the typical open office plan is strong encryption and leaving it locked in the trunk of my car, out of sight, is weak encryption? Again, this was your analogy, not mine. If you're finding this many flaws in it, perhaps you should rewind and try again. Would you like a do-over?
My question is WTF is this "window" the thief is going through because my door's too good?
I repeat...
Why don't you audit the source of whatever AES library you're using and find out for yourself? Maybe that library's implementation is flawless, maybe it's not.
I think you missed the point. It was an analogy, not a suggestion. Sorry.
Everything before what you chose to quote was answering to that analogy, so yeah, I got it. I just so happened to have a real-world answer, so I also gave that.
By that logic we should all leave our doors unlocked. Save the windows!
Nah, we can't make it too easy, and that's kind of the point.
I fail to see how this relates to cryptography.
It was your analogy in the first place...
You seem to like this analogy, but you've got me stumped.
Again, it was your analogy to being with.
What's the "window" the attacker's going to break through on my AES encrypted file?
Why don't you audit the source of whatever AES library you're using and find out for yourself? Maybe that library's implementation is flawless, maybe it's not.
You could keep it in your car. After all, she hardly ever drives your car. Or you could keep it at work. She's never visited work. If there's no advantage to keeping it in your car, keep it at work. Why opt for risk without reward?
Is it worth the risk of someone at work stealing it? I'd love to believe I can trust my coworkers, but maybe they're nosy fucks, like most people's coworkers? Plus that's additional work, why would I do that if I don't need to? Beyond that, the real world answer to both questions is that my wife and I share a car and I work from home.
I'm really curious about these "errors" that will cause your file to decrypt itself if the encryption's too strong.
You're thinking from the wrong angle. Too complex of an algorithm may have errors which allow it to be attacked in various ways. Think MD5, or any of the myriad crypto algorithms which have been broken over the years.
When I leave the house, I have the option of setting the latch lock and/or the deadbolt. The latch lock may be plenty for the threat I'm anticipating, but setting the deadbolt too isn't going to cause my door to spring open.
But it could cause someone to break your window (an alternate attack) rather than slipping the door latch with a credit card. Now they've gotten into your house, stolen your stuff, and you have to replace a window.
Are you suggesting we all use DES? After all, you'll probably be fine and AES is SO much more complicated.
Well, considering that DES is broken, it clearly was not complex enough. However, AES, being more complex, provides a larger attack surface; do you know that the implementation you're using isn't vulnerable to alternate attacks? Do the 20 locks on your front door really stop someone from coming in through the window?
If I need to keep the present I bought my wife a secret until her birthday in April, "large" needn't be longer than 4 months. Using too big of a value for "large" adds complexity which, in turn, increases the potential for errors which may divulge your secret.
A system should be just as complex as necessary, and no more so. There's a reason engineers tout that saying, and it's a damned good one.
I never said it doesn't still happen today, I was pointing out that it is perpetuated (that is, made to still happen) by people like you who insist on bringing up race at every opportunity.
But you sure are all in favor of the witch hunt, and the fact that your life can be ruined based on nothing.
No, what's going on recently does very much concern me, but perhaps in an entirely different way than it concerns you. You see, I'm not a prominent public figure, I am in control of my own income (I work for myself, I'm certainly not going to fire my star employee and I'll know immediately if accusations against him -- myself -- are true or not), and really I don't care if someone comes at me; they've done it before and I'm sure they'll do it again. I will rise above it just as I have in the past.
Then bend over, and hope that some women doesn't decide to ruin your life by lying and there being next to no consequences for it.
Been there, done that, moved on from retail as a result and my life has never been better. Of course, I'm not well-known enough to make national headlines; if I were, I might be more afraid of the current situation.
Like I said, if you want to exchange war stories, email me.
Slashdot Mirror
Because we pay them money that they need?
We know of one call he's made in the US and one in Canada. Since we're talking about how police operate in the US, only one of those is relevant; so, the short answer is, here has been only one call that we can assume unless he admits to more, and someone has gotten hurt one time. His call-to-death incident rate is, as far as we can reasonably know, is 100%.
You mean where I pointed out that there's a lack of DV shelters? That the legal system holds lopsided views? Where HR dept's, act in a manner against one particular party? Those are all suggestions to where you can "help the cause."
No, those are all particular problems. You've proposed not a single solution here.
And you seem to be doing a really good job of handwaving, not only that but you've also managed to not read anything.
Oh? You mean like how I'm asking how I can chip in to fix the problems you keep pointing out and you just say (paraphrasing) "well if you'd read what I wrote, I already told you" when all you're really doing is bitching about problems and waving your hands like a moron. I've read what you wrote; that's what's happening here.
Victimhood as a currency is on the way out, you might want to try cashing in now.
If that what you're doing? Seems to be, with all the "woe is me, these people can't read what I've written or they're purposely ignoring it". No, you're just not saying what you actually mean. I've said it before, I apparently have to repeat it: try being direct.
Good to know, so obvious question what are you doing to fix the problem besides handwaving with "whataboutism"?
Well, I answered that in a separate (and relatively short) thread, which I also re-read. Nope. No suggestions as to what I might do to help the cause. They're not there, because you never made them. So, how about dropping few now?
Further, whataboutism is a term used to compat the handwaving of others. Do you not see how "they do it, too" is a handwaving maneuver? It is, it's designed to deflect responsibility by saying it should be okay for you to do something because someone else also does that thing; the intent of pointing out when that happens (e.g. calling out whataboutism) is to open up the conversation and basically say "okay, yes, let's discuss that and what you're doing, then"; that's basically the opposite of handwaving. You, however, seem to not want to discuss things openly, preferring to hide behind purposefully misleading questions and non-answers.
Wave away, my friend. Oh, and don't bother emailing me; you don't deserve to know what I've been through.
No, you believe you didn't harass anyone 30 years ago.
You know, I'm not sure why I didn't jump on this the first time around but... as I'm reading this thread in its entirety (for a third time now) to find those suggestions you claim to have made, I though I'd point out that I was six 30 years ago.
If you've got AES, why use anything else?
I can think of a handful of reasons. An exercise: Why don't we use AES for most encrypted communications?
There's some more assumptions, maybe you need to stop projecting.
What do I have to be raging about? And if not blind rage, well, then what the hell has you so blind?
I mentioned those already, why don't you go re-read my other posts.
I did, I'm not seeing them. You sure it was in this thread?
How ignorant and arrogant does someone have to be to dismiss another persons views without actually answering them?
Sorry, that was actually supposed to be in response to this statement:
Absolutely nothing at all, you continue to fail to understand the basics that in a witch hunt your view means squat.
So yes, you're asking the good questions now!
Oh look, shall we apply your favorite word? "whataboutism"
What? Where? I simply said it's the way things have always been, I didn't try to imply that it was okay because someone else is also doing it, which is what that word actually means. You, however, have done that a handful of times here.
why oh why can't you stay on topic.
You raised the topic of witch hunts, I stayed right on that. If witch hunts are off-topic, you should be asking yourself that question.
For someone who doesn't have a vested interest in actually making sure that things are impartial, you sure are arguing pretty hard for the status-quo
Huh, well, assuming any of what you just said were true, it does seem logical that someone without a vested interest in things being impartial would argue for the status-quo when that status-quo is partiality, so I don't really see any problem with your statement, other than it being flat-out false. As a male I, of course, have a vested interest in impartiality when the system is being manipulated against me; and there's a huge void between pointing out that this is nothing new (e.g. the status quo) and arguing that it shouldn't change. It certainly should, now what can I do to help?
going by your own words in several posts that the current "listen and believe" isn't a problem
When did I say "listen and believe"? I'm fairly certain that's the first time I've ever typed that phrase in my life and I certainly would not have said it's not a problem.
I think you've got me confused with someone else. That might be why we're at ends, here.
Perhaps we're dealing with a mobile device and the more complex algorithm would reduce battery life? Perhaps we're dealing with an embedded device and lack sufficient RAM, CPU, or storage to properly implement the more complex algorithm without making other compromises. Really, the list goes on, but there are two examples; they may or may not matter to you depending on your priorities, but you can rest assured they matter to someone.
What the fuck does my use of a term that describes someone deflecting by saying "what about them?" have to do with my hiring practices? Absolutely nothing. Perhaps try making sense once in a while?
How about you go down to your local family court and watch what happens for a few weeks/months and get back to me? I'll wait, the comments will even stay open that long.
No need, we've been on the same page there this whole time. You're just too blinded by ignorant rage to see it.
The fact that you think there isn't "fuck-all" you can do about it, really means squat since there *are* things you could be doing.
I didn't say there was fuck all I could do about it, I said there was fuck all I could do about it other than what I'm already doing . That said... There are things I could be doing, such as? This is a chance to further your cause rather than just slinging thinly-veiled insults.
The fact that you think there isn't "fuck-all" you can do about it, really means squat since there *are* things you could be doing
Yet you believe your views matter. How quaint.
On the other side, "shitty person" means a person that some women scorned has a grudge against, and that's been going on for years.
You're right. None of this is anything particularly new, it's been going on for at least as long as I've been alive, yet we've gotten on just fine for decades. In fact, if we expand the scope beyond the current witch hunt, we've had one or another going on for the entirety of human history. You can lose sleep over it all you want, but it's really just business as usual.
So bottom line you have no salt deficit but a deficit of other minerals? So why do you try to get more slat then? :)
Seems I don't grasp it
Indeed it seems you don't, as I'm no longer doing that. There's a timeline, here, that you might want to try and follow. Let's review:
I went to see my doctor. Doctor tells me I need more sodium (specifically), so I follow that advice.
Some time later, a biochemist comes along and points out something that, were I still involved in that field, would have been blatantly obvious to me.
I use that information to further determine that, perhaps, a deficiency in some other nutrient is causing my body to eliminate what it deems to be excess sodium.
I review the tests my doctor ran and note that none of them report calcium or potassium.
Well, damn, looks like my problem may well lie elsewhere, then, because -- as you so astutely pointed out -- I'm obviously getting enough sodium.
So, with that in mind, I'm no longer seeking more sodium in my diet but, rather, correcting the likely imbalance that caused the low sodium to begin with.
Follow?
And yet you made the same assumption about me, based on nothing.
Whataboutism, again; and incorrect whataboutism, at that. I simply sensed projection and called it out.
Instead, you could have thought just a tiny bit harder and wondered if I was engaged in say working with various groups of people and helping them through things like that.
Perhaps I figured, if that were the case, it would have come up by now. At this point you've still only insinuated it, so I'll continue on believing that to not be the case.
Until you realize just how imbalanced the system is, and how little it takes to ruin a persons life today? You're flouting your ignorance.
Until we exchange those war stories, you have no clue what I realize and are, thus, flouting yours.
And yes, I do realize the system is worse now than in decades past, when I went through all my own shit. There's fuck-all I can do about it aside from what I'm already doing, which is not be a shitty person and surround myself with other non-shitty people who've proven time and again they'd take a bullet for me (in some cases literally). Is that enough? Honestly, I hope I never have to find out, but it doesn't keep me up at night.
As for your example, I have more than a handful myself (of other people I know), and I don't work in that field; thus your insinuation and single example are not sufficient to convince me that you do. Sorry if that ruffles your jimmies, but perhaps you should try being more forward?
No, I get that. I was making a slightly different point: not everything needs to be protected for as long as a 4096 bit key might protect it. If it did, we'd all be using 4096 bit keys (and I certainly do for certain things) for everything. He'll, we damn near had to force website operators to go to 2048 bits by ceasing the issue of 1024 bit certificates because, in all honesty, for most of what those certificates are protecting, even a 1024 bit key is considerable overkill.
You know what? Go get fucked. I honestly have no clue what race you are but you're a piece of shit either way.
You don't seem to get that if it happened today, it wouldn't matter because your friends and family in the current "sphere" would consider you suspect regardless.
You don't know me, my friends, or my family. They've stuck with me through much worse than some psycho bitch making shit up. If that's where you are in life, I'm sorry to hear that.
I'm sure that was not meant as a compliment, but thank you anyway. It actually takes a lot more effort than you would think.
As near as I can tell you're saying, "If your encryption is too strong, they'll just hack AES."
Finding a flaw in an implementation of an algorithm is fairly different from finding a flaw in the algorithm itself an in no way means the algorithm itself is broken -- thus why I suggested reviewing the implementation and not the algorithm, so you missed that one -- twice.
Hacking AES != Breaking a window
Let's see... If, as implied by your lock-and-deadbolt analogy, a longer key is akin to more locks on the door, finding a hole in the algorithm (or the implementation of said algorithm you happen to be using) -- a way around needing the key, regardless of length -- is akin to breaking the window -- a way around the door, regardless of how many locks you have. So yes, actually, cracking AES (or a specific potentially flawed implementation of it) is breaking a window.
What you're failing to see here, though, is that I'm not attacking your point so much as the analogies you chose to use to express that point. In other words, you're being trolled; I don't normally just come out and say it like this, but I feel sorry for you as you've made it somewhat clear that you'll never figure it out otherwise.
Trolling aside, you said "There are cases where the additional overhead may be a burden, but those cases are rare and the increase in computational need for encryption pays off in spades compared to the increased difficulty decrypting" and, well, if information loses any and all value (or will become public knowledge anyway) at some point, there is literally zero value to expending additional resources to keep it secure for longer than that. How don't you get that?
For something you need to keep secure indefinitely, sure, throw everything you've got at it. But, for something you're gonna tell the world next week anyway? Why bother?
If you opt for stronger encryption it's more likely to be stolen?
So leaving it on my desk in the typical open office plan is strong encryption and leaving it locked in the trunk of my car, out of sight, is weak encryption? Again, this was your analogy, not mine. If you're finding this many flaws in it, perhaps you should rewind and try again. Would you like a do-over?
My question is WTF is this "window" the thief is going through because my door's too good?
I repeat...
Why don't you audit the source of whatever AES library you're using and find out for yourself? Maybe that library's implementation is flawless, maybe it's not.
I think you missed the point. It was an analogy, not a suggestion. Sorry.
Everything before what you chose to quote was answering to that analogy, so yeah, I got it. I just so happened to have a real-world answer, so I also gave that.
By that logic we should all leave our doors unlocked. Save the windows!
Nah, we can't make it too easy, and that's kind of the point.
I fail to see how this relates to cryptography.
It was your analogy in the first place...
You seem to like this analogy, but you've got me stumped.
Again, it was your analogy to being with.
What's the "window" the attacker's going to break through on my AES encrypted file?
Why don't you audit the source of whatever AES library you're using and find out for yourself? Maybe that library's implementation is flawless, maybe it's not.
You could keep it in your car. After all, she hardly ever drives your car. Or you could keep it at work. She's never visited work. If there's no advantage to keeping it in your car, keep it at work. Why opt for risk without reward?
Is it worth the risk of someone at work stealing it? I'd love to believe I can trust my coworkers, but maybe they're nosy fucks, like most people's coworkers? Plus that's additional work, why would I do that if I don't need to? Beyond that, the real world answer to both questions is that my wife and I share a car and I work from home.
I'm really curious about these "errors" that will cause your file to decrypt itself if the encryption's too strong.
You're thinking from the wrong angle. Too complex of an algorithm may have errors which allow it to be attacked in various ways. Think MD5, or any of the myriad crypto algorithms which have been broken over the years.
When I leave the house, I have the option of setting the latch lock and/or the deadbolt. The latch lock may be plenty for the threat I'm anticipating, but setting the deadbolt too isn't going to cause my door to spring open.
But it could cause someone to break your window (an alternate attack) rather than slipping the door latch with a credit card. Now they've gotten into your house, stolen your stuff, and you have to replace a window.
Are you suggesting we all use DES? After all, you'll probably be fine and AES is SO much more complicated.
Well, considering that DES is broken, it clearly was not complex enough. However, AES, being more complex, provides a larger attack surface; do you know that the implementation you're using isn't vulnerable to alternate attacks? Do the 20 locks on your front door really stop someone from coming in through the window?
Yet a simpler cipher might take my wife 4 months to figure out. If that's all I need, well, that's all I should use.
If I need to keep the present I bought my wife a secret until her birthday in April, "large" needn't be longer than 4 months. Using too big of a value for "large" adds complexity which, in turn, increases the potential for errors which may divulge your secret.
A system should be just as complex as necessary, and no more so. There's a reason engineers tout that saying, and it's a damned good one.
I never said it doesn't still happen today, I was pointing out that it is perpetuated (that is, made to still happen) by people like you who insist on bringing up race at every opportunity.
It's almost like you think we've made absolutely zero progress in the past 50 years...
But you sure are all in favor of the witch hunt, and the fact that your life can be ruined based on nothing.
No, what's going on recently does very much concern me, but perhaps in an entirely different way than it concerns you. You see, I'm not a prominent public figure, I am in control of my own income (I work for myself, I'm certainly not going to fire my star employee and I'll know immediately if accusations against him -- myself -- are true or not), and really I don't care if someone comes at me; they've done it before and I'm sure they'll do it again. I will rise above it just as I have in the past.
Then bend over, and hope that some women doesn't decide to ruin your life by lying and there being next to no consequences for it.
Been there, done that, moved on from retail as a result and my life has never been better. Of course, I'm not well-known enough to make national headlines; if I were, I might be more afraid of the current situation.
Like I said, if you want to exchange war stories, email me.