Secondly, unless you're a judge, no one gives a shit about, "...has violated no reasonable law." You don't get to decide if its reasonable or not. Period. And neither do I.
Unless, of course, you are selected to serve on a jury, in which case you and your fellow jurors can refuse to convict someone accused of violating a law you collectively disagree with:
As for the surplus, it was projected, and had not yet been realized.
How may of those laws or activities were started by him?
All of them were carried out with his approval, and his administration was directly involved with the hijacking of TV scripts, the attacks on cryptography, and the use of ECHELON for industrial surveillance. Anyone who thinks that Clinton was some kind of left-wing hero needs to have their head checked; he was on the right wing of politics, and was only differentiated from Bush II in how aggressively he pushed right wing policies.
While simultaneously requiring the creation of a vast wiretapping infrastructure that is easily abused. All it would take is some kind of a law that allowed the government to bypass the warrant procedure, or to obtain and execute warrants in secret.
Yes, we cannot be too careful when it comes to watching what we say -- the Stasi are always listening! Someone might report you, and then you'll be in for a world of hurt, because you said something they did not like.
Hrm? Oh, right, there is no Stasi anymore. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to demand that everyone watch their mouths because the government might be watching.
We cannot be too careful, I hear that those Brits are planning something for the War of 1812 bicentennial. This time, not only will they burn down the white house, but they will also steal our celebrities' remains!
We have been going down this road for a long time now, long before the patriot act. Remember CALEA, the act that required phone companies to give the police easy wiretapping access? How about the War on Drugs? The United States has been taking baby steps toward tyranny for decades.
What was the point of sending humans? The nation's scientists all said that robots could collect the data and specimens that they were interested in, and that sending human beings needlessly increased the risks and costs. The only reason we sent people to the moon was to show the world that our space program could compete with the Russians'.
Even on cryptography mailing lists and newsgroups most people are not signing their messages. Getting people to put in the effort needed to set up PGP is just not going to happen; it needs to be the default, and it needs to be easier. I say this as someone who has been signing his emails for years, and who has tried for years to get other people to do the same.
Here is how the conversation usually goes, assuming that you get as far as convincing them that signing is something worth the time to do:
Cryptonerd: Hey, you should sign your mail, so that everyone will know it really came from you!
Other person: Oh, good point, someone might steal my password and send an email from my account. OK, what do I do?
Cryptonerd: It's easy, just install GnuPG, and now Thunderbird, and now Enigmail, and now set up your key -- make sure it is at least 2048 bits -- OK now enter a passphrase and now you can only read or send emails from this computer!
Other person: You mean I cannot just log in from some random other person's computer and read my mail? I'll pass thanks.
Thanks to the RSA patents and the efforts of the NSA and DOJ, cryptography just never became the default online. Users are not going to take the time to set up something as complicated as PGP, especially not when it means restricting themselves to particular computers that happen to have their keyring. Asking users to do something special is an uphill battle, and in the case of PGP it is like climbing Everest.
A certain amount of "user effort" is required to use PGP -- at the very least, the user must obtain the public key of the person they are corresponding with, and they must then verify that the key actually belongs to that person, etc. Experience has shown that users are not willing to put in that level of effort, especially when most users do not really understand what their effort is accomplishing.
Users' failure to understand what they are protecting themselves from when they use PGP is the biggest problem here. I routinely shock people, even people with technical backgrounds, by showing them how easily email headers can be spoofed. People generally think that if their email program says, "This is from your bank," it must mean that the email came from their bank. Why would someone who thinks that "From:..." indicates who the message came from go through the effort of setting up PGP?
No, what I replied to was a statement that calling social networking website users "fools" was calling people with social lives "fools," which is to say that being registered on a social networking website is a necessary part of having a social life (or if you prefer, that having a social life implies being registered on a social networking website).. I am a person with a social life who is not registered on any social networking website (unless you count Slashdot), and therefore that statement is false.
Oh, right, your response was snotty and I am supposed to say something rude to you, like, "Lucky for you, this is not the GRE."
why should patentable items only have a 20 year shelf life
You say it as if the moment a patent expires, any products covered by that patent become unprofitable to sell. There are a lot of counterexamples to this statement...
if there was a strong united Internet demand for fair copyright terms.
Copyrights are dead and everyone knows it. Trying to enforce copyrights, as originally envisioned, is as crazy as trying to tell people that they are not allowed to drink their tap water. It is not going to work. In the worst case -- the one where we continue to have copyrights -- we need to turn copyright infringement into an offense that you receive a ticket for, like parking your car in the wrong place. The better alternative is to develop a new system for compensating artists and ensuring public access to arts and useful sciences.
We have systems that are harder to censor and that interoperate with more devices than Twitter. I believe that one of the more popular ones was invented about 60 years ago. Had it been invented more recently, perhaps there would be a patent on it, which would look something like this:
A system for exchanging text messages between computer systems, which can be directed to specific users, with a specific subject line, and which can be uniquely identified by a message ID.
If Twitter wants to capitulate and censor its users, then people can send messages via email, Usenet, IRC, etc., and they can encrypt those messages, or send them through anonymous remailers, Tor, etc. The fact that people says more about how much they care about censorship and free speech than about anything else.
This policy allows Twitter to expand its physical presence
...which is necessary because...? Again, the Internet should obviate any need for Twitter to have servers or operations in countries whose laws would require them to censor their users.
This is a false dichotomy. Some people actually speak to their friends face to face, or using the email system, IM system, telephone system, etc. You do not need a service or a system at all, just need a functional mouth and air (or to be fair to deaf or mute people, functional hands).
I have friends who share various interests with me
I talk to my friends, family, girlfriend, acquaintances, etc.
So what was that about people with social lives? Where I am from, one's social life is not defined by some website's list of followers, friends, freaks, or whatever else.
Why is Twitter operating in those countries? How did they wind up in those countries' jurisdiction? Is not the point of the Internet to enable global communication between computers? Should not Twitter's servers be in a country that does not require censorship (that we do not like)?
Twitter is not obligated to follow Chinese or Saudi Arabian laws unless they are operating in China or Saudi Arabia. We criticize the US for trying to apply their laws everywhere, so why not hold other countries to the same standard?
I'll be happy to see those services (that are centrally controlled and owned by ONE COMPANY (each) fail due to people not wanting to deal with censorship
Except that most people will continue to use these systems, and when it comes time to talk about taboo/censored topics they will just used commonly understood code words. People are not going to give up on Twitter because of censorship, just like they did not give up on Facebook because of censorship, or the App Store, or any number of other systems that engage in censorship. The number of people who really care and really want to end censorship is extremely small; most people just want to live their lives and if possible skirt around censorship.
Not only that, but there is an incentive for regressive governments to allow people to skirt censorship. If people only barely evade the censors, then the censors can easily stop the conversation should they need to -- say, if there are mass protests against the government. People will always find a way to skirt the censors, and if your censors are at the limits of what they are capable of, then you lose. Governments want people to be aware that they are being watched, to know that the government has the power to censor them, and to be able to censor people as necessary.
There are certainly exceptions, but for the most part governments know that if the tighter they close their fists, the more citizens will slip through their fingers.
I don't believe it's possible to recover the encryption key by listening to these pulses. There's so much else going on, and it's not like each little wave is labelled "this is part of the encryption key".
No, but you can set things up so that if a particular key bit is a "1," the system will work harder than if it is a "0" by selecting particular plaintext or ciphertext to be encrypted or decrypted. It may be a small difference buried in noise, but if you repeat the experiment enough times it will become detectable. Worse still, it may be the case that you do not have to choose the plaintext/ciphertext at all, but simply know what is being encrypted/decrypted: maybe you can intercept the ciphertext, or you know that a JPEG image is being encrypted (and thus the first few bits will be common to all JPEGs), etc.
The point is that what you measure from the RF emissions are not key bits, but the pattern of work being done by the target system, and that pattern of work will be correlated to the secret key.
Slashdot Mirror
Secondly, unless you're a judge, no one gives a shit about, "...has violated no reasonable law." You don't get to decide if its reasonable or not. Period. And neither do I.
Unless, of course, you are selected to serve on a jury, in which case you and your fellow jurors can refuse to convict someone accused of violating a law you collectively disagree with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States
Clinton didn't start two Wars
No, he only bombed countries without declaring war:
Using war crimes and crimes against humanity as a pretext for doing so, while simultaneously ignoring the far worse situation in central Africa:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide#UNAMIR_and_the_international_community
Lest we forget, Bill Clinton also supported various increases in "defense" spending:
http://articles.cnn.com/2000-01-24/politics/pentagon.budget_1_defense-spending-defense-budget-military-spending?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
As for the surplus, it was projected, and had not yet been realized.
How may of those laws or activities were started by him?
All of them were carried out with his approval, and his administration was directly involved with the hijacking of TV scripts, the attacks on cryptography, and the use of ECHELON for industrial surveillance. Anyone who thinks that Clinton was some kind of left-wing hero needs to have their head checked; he was on the right wing of politics, and was only differentiated from Bush II in how aggressively he pushed right wing policies.
While simultaneously requiring the creation of a vast wiretapping infrastructure that is easily abused. All it would take is some kind of a law that allowed the government to bypass the warrant procedure, or to obtain and execute warrants in secret.
Yes, we cannot be too careful when it comes to watching what we say -- the Stasi are always listening! Someone might report you, and then you'll be in for a world of hurt, because you said something they did not like.
Hrm? Oh, right, there is no Stasi anymore. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to demand that everyone watch their mouths because the government might be watching.
We cannot be too careful, I hear that those Brits are planning something for the War of 1812 bicentennial. This time, not only will they burn down the white house, but they will also steal our celebrities' remains!
We have been going down this road for a long time now, long before the patriot act. Remember CALEA, the act that required phone companies to give the police easy wiretapping access? How about the War on Drugs? The United States has been taking baby steps toward tyranny for decades.
Tor hidden services are pretty hard to locate. Of course, a hidden service that operates on the scale of Megaupload will be pretty easy to locate...
What was the point of sending humans? The nation's scientists all said that robots could collect the data and specimens that they were interested in, and that sending human beings needlessly increased the risks and costs. The only reason we sent people to the moon was to show the world that our space program could compete with the Russians'.
Even on cryptography mailing lists and newsgroups most people are not signing their messages. Getting people to put in the effort needed to set up PGP is just not going to happen; it needs to be the default, and it needs to be easier. I say this as someone who has been signing his emails for years, and who has tried for years to get other people to do the same.
Here is how the conversation usually goes, assuming that you get as far as convincing them that signing is something worth the time to do:
Cryptonerd: Hey, you should sign your mail, so that everyone will know it really came from you!
Other person: Oh, good point, someone might steal my password and send an email from my account. OK, what do I do?
Cryptonerd: It's easy, just install GnuPG, and now Thunderbird, and now Enigmail, and now set up your key -- make sure it is at least 2048 bits -- OK now enter a passphrase and now you can only read or send emails from this computer!
Other person: You mean I cannot just log in from some random other person's computer and read my mail? I'll pass thanks.
Thanks to the RSA patents and the efforts of the NSA and DOJ, cryptography just never became the default online. Users are not going to take the time to set up something as complicated as PGP, especially not when it means restricting themselves to particular computers that happen to have their keyring. Asking users to do something special is an uphill battle, and in the case of PGP it is like climbing Everest.
A certain amount of "user effort" is required to use PGP -- at the very least, the user must obtain the public key of the person they are corresponding with, and they must then verify that the key actually belongs to that person, etc. Experience has shown that users are not willing to put in that level of effort, especially when most users do not really understand what their effort is accomplishing.
..." indicates who the message came from go through the effort of setting up PGP?
Users' failure to understand what they are protecting themselves from when they use PGP is the biggest problem here. I routinely shock people, even people with technical backgrounds, by showing them how easily email headers can be spoofed. People generally think that if their email program says, "This is from your bank," it must mean that the email came from their bank. Why would someone who thinks that "From:
While you and your friends were not paying any attention to current events
What makes you think that I am not paying attention to current events?
The protest movement against what those criminals bankers is all being organized online.
No, what I replied to was a statement that calling social networking website users "fools" was calling people with social lives "fools," which is to say that being registered on a social networking website is a necessary part of having a social life (or if you prefer, that having a social life implies being registered on a social networking website).. I am a person with a social life who is not registered on any social networking website (unless you count Slashdot), and therefore that statement is false.
Oh, right, your response was snotty and I am supposed to say something rude to you, like, "Lucky for you, this is not the GRE."
why should patentable items only have a 20 year shelf life
You say it as if the moment a patent expires, any products covered by that patent become unprofitable to sell. There are a lot of counterexamples to this statement...
if there was a strong united Internet demand for fair copyright terms.
Copyrights are dead and everyone knows it. Trying to enforce copyrights, as originally envisioned, is as crazy as trying to tell people that they are not allowed to drink their tap water. It is not going to work. In the worst case -- the one where we continue to have copyrights -- we need to turn copyright infringement into an offense that you receive a ticket for, like parking your car in the wrong place. The better alternative is to develop a new system for compensating artists and ensuring public access to arts and useful sciences.
Actually I am 24, so I suppose that I am a counterexample to your postulate. Why would older adults' social interactions differ from younger adults'?
We have systems that are harder to censor and that interoperate with more devices than Twitter. I believe that one of the more popular ones was invented about 60 years ago. Had it been invented more recently, perhaps there would be a patent on it, which would look something like this:
A system for exchanging text messages between computer systems, which can be directed to specific users, with a specific subject line, and which can be uniquely identified by a message ID.
If Twitter wants to capitulate and censor its users, then people can send messages via email, Usenet, IRC, etc., and they can encrypt those messages, or send them through anonymous remailers, Tor, etc. The fact that people says more about how much they care about censorship and free speech than about anything else.
This policy allows Twitter to expand its physical presence
This is a false dichotomy. Some people actually speak to their friends face to face, or using the email system, IM system, telephone system, etc. You do not need a service or a system at all, just need a functional mouth and air (or to be fair to deaf or mute people, functional hands).
So what was that about people with social lives? Where I am from, one's social life is not defined by some website's list of followers, friends, freaks, or whatever else.
Why is Twitter operating in those countries? How did they wind up in those countries' jurisdiction? Is not the point of the Internet to enable global communication between computers? Should not Twitter's servers be in a country that does not require censorship (that we do not like)?
Twitter is not obligated to follow Chinese or Saudi Arabian laws unless they are operating in China or Saudi Arabia. We criticize the US for trying to apply their laws everywhere, so why not hold other countries to the same standard?
I'll be happy to see those services (that are centrally controlled and owned by ONE COMPANY (each) fail due to people not wanting to deal with censorship
Except that most people will continue to use these systems, and when it comes time to talk about taboo/censored topics they will just used commonly understood code words. People are not going to give up on Twitter because of censorship, just like they did not give up on Facebook because of censorship, or the App Store, or any number of other systems that engage in censorship. The number of people who really care and really want to end censorship is extremely small; most people just want to live their lives and if possible skirt around censorship.
Not only that, but there is an incentive for regressive governments to allow people to skirt censorship. If people only barely evade the censors, then the censors can easily stop the conversation should they need to -- say, if there are mass protests against the government. People will always find a way to skirt the censors, and if your censors are at the limits of what they are capable of, then you lose. Governments want people to be aware that they are being watched, to know that the government has the power to censor them, and to be able to censor people as necessary.
There are certainly exceptions, but for the most part governments know that if the tighter they close their fists, the more citizens will slip through their fingers.
...because I will continue to not use Twitter at all.
I suppose that counts as innovation...if you ignore the fact that people have been doing it for decades:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-to-source_compiler
BUT BUT BUT IT IS SO ORIGINAL, THEY DID IT WITH PHP AND C++ UNLIKE ALL THE OTHER ONES OUT THERE!
Which is irrelevant in the case of DRM, because nobody will be standing there to enter the password.
I don't believe it's possible to recover the encryption key by listening to these pulses. There's so much else going on, and it's not like each little wave is labelled "this is part of the encryption key".
No, but you can set things up so that if a particular key bit is a "1," the system will work harder than if it is a "0" by selecting particular plaintext or ciphertext to be encrypted or decrypted. It may be a small difference buried in noise, but if you repeat the experiment enough times it will become detectable. Worse still, it may be the case that you do not have to choose the plaintext/ciphertext at all, but simply know what is being encrypted/decrypted: maybe you can intercept the ciphertext, or you know that a JPEG image is being encrypted (and thus the first few bits will be common to all JPEGs), etc.
The point is that what you measure from the RF emissions are not key bits, but the pattern of work being done by the target system, and that pattern of work will be correlated to the secret key.