Snowdon is a dummy

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Fine. So you are a technical genius

Wrong except in comparison to you I am not a technical genius however unlike you I know enough to have faith in those who are indeed technical geniuses.

You have trouble posting properly...and coherently. You are not a genius in any way.

But you seem sure that you have prevented the NSA from reading your emails. Great. I am sure that impresses them. (All said sarcastically.)

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
I'll bet the US government is just quaking in its boots

Obama could be brought down by this... I bet you he IS shitting in his pants.

My guess is he is laughing at it.

The crazies are always gonna try to take over the asylum.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

But you seem sure that you have prevented the NSA from reading your emails. Great. I am sure that impresses them. (All said sarcastically.)

Given that I am using the same ciphers that the government is using to secure their own secrets up to top secret and that products using those ciphers had withstood known attacks of the FBI for over six months in one case before they gave up yes I am sure that the NSA are not able to causally read my email.

But then I know far far more about the subject then you do not that knowing more then you is hard to do.

Quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard

Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) is a specification for the encryption of electronic data established by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in 2001.[4]

AES is based on the Rijndael cipher[5] developed by two Belgian cryptographers, Joan Daemen and Vincent Rijmen, who submitted a proposal to NIST during the AES selection process.[6] Rijndael is a family of ciphers with different key and block sizes.

For AES, NIST selected three members of the Rijndael family, each with a block size of 128 bits, but three different key lengths: 128, 192 and 256 bits.

AES has been adopted by the U.S. government and is now used worldwide. It supersedes the Data Encryption Standard (DES),[7] which was published in 1977. The algorithm described by AES is a symmetric-key algorithm, meaning the same key is used for both encrypting and decrypting the data.

In the United States, AES was announced by the NIST as U.S. FIPS PUB 197 (FIPS 197) on November 26, 2001.[4] This announcement followed a five-year standardization process in which fifteen competing designs were presented and evaluated, before the Rijndael cipher was selected as the most suitable (see Advanced Encryption Standard process for more details).

AES became effective as a federal government standard on May 26, 2002 after approval by the Secretary of Commerce. AES is included in the ISO/IEC 18033-3 standard. AES is available in many different encryption packages, and is the first publicly accessible and open cipher approved by the National Security Agency (NSA) for top secret information when used in an NSA approved cryptographic module (see Security of AES, below).

The name Rijndael (Dutch pronunciation: [ˈrɛindaːl]) is a play on the names of the two inventors (Joan Daemen and Vincent Rijmen).

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
But you seem sure that you have prevented the NSA from reading your emails. Great. I am sure that impresses them. (All said sarcastically.)

Given that I am using the same ciphers that the government is using to secure their own secrets up to top secret and that products using those ciphers had withstood known attacks of the FBI for over six months in one case before they gave up yes I am sure that the NSA are not able to causally read my email.

But then I know far far more about the subject then you do not that knowing more then you is hard to do.

You seem out of sorts, Bill. Is the heat getting to you?

I acknowledged that you have prevented the NSA from reading your emails. What more do you want?

Quote:

Quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard

Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) is a specification for the encryption of electronic data established by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in 2001.[4]

AES is based on the Rijndael cipher[5] developed by two Belgian cryptographers, Joan Daemen and Vincent Rijmen, who submitted a proposal to NIST during the AES selection process.[6] Rijndael is a family of ciphers with different key and block sizes.

For AES, NIST selected three members of the Rijndael family, each with a block size of 128 bits, but three different key lengths: 128, 192 and 256 bits.

AES has been adopted by the U.S. government and is now used worldwide. It supersedes the Data Encryption Standard (DES),[7] which was published in 1977. The algorithm described by AES is a symmetric-key algorithm, meaning the same key is used for both encrypting and decrypting the data.

In the United States, AES was announced by the NIST as U.S. FIPS PUB 197 (FIPS 197) on November 26, 2001.[4] This announcement followed a five-year standardization process in which fifteen competing designs were presented and evaluated, before the Rijndael cipher was selected as the most suitable (see Advanced Encryption Standard process for more details).

AES became effective as a federal government standard on May 26, 2002 after approval by the Secretary of Commerce. AES is included in the ISO/IEC 18033-3 standard. AES is available in many different encryption packages, and is the first publicly accessible and open cipher approved by the National Security Agency (NSA) for top secret information when used in an NSA approved cryptographic module (see Security of AES, below).

The name Rijndael (Dutch pronunciation: [ˈrɛindaːl]) is a play on the names of the two inventors (Joan Daemen and Vincent Rijmen).

So...there really is no problem...and no need for further legislation. Anyone who is having his/her mail read...is simply being lazy.

Wow. And I thought you guys thought there was a problem.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

So...there really is no problem...and no need for further legislation. Anyone who is having his/her mail read...is simply being lazy.

For once you will be right as in the near future as the net will be going dark and therefore protecting everyone but for now it is only possible for the small percent of the population who is in the know to take measures to protect themselves from government spying.

That mean that unconstitutional spying on the other 99.99 percent of the population that is currently being done should not be of concerns by your strange strange logic?

Just because you Frank barely know how to turn on a computer does not mean that you should had less constitutional rights then I do.

No one with or without a warrant is going to be examining my hard drives or my families hard drives for example without my or my family members permissions that however does not mean it is not a concern if the government would declare they do not have a need for a warrant or even a reason to examine those drives, such as when you are coming back into the country.

The only thing I am at risk of losing is a few hundreds dollars netbook when I am returning to the US however almost everyone else is at risk of having every bit of their most private information contain on their computers seized by the government at the whim of some custom agent.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

So...there really is no problem

I think there is a problem when large numbers of well educated and well paid people get together to spend other people's money in order to spy on their own fellow Americans without due cause.

It raises a serious suspicion that we all would engage in such a despicable and tasteless activity if we got the chance.

Which some would say is a cultural problem of significance and one which the Founding Fathers had foreseen and attempted to address.

As they all reflexively push their skirt down between their knocked-knees, as Ms Monroe famously did, ironically in her case, when they are themselves hacked, it is obviously just a power game. They might gloat about it last thing at night. Smuglike.

A hacker might discover a Taliban sleeper in the centre of operations who is planning seizing up the system.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank

Quote:

My guess is he is laughing at it.

The crazies are always gonna try to take over the asylum.

They have already taken one section of it. Trying for two in the next election.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

A leader who is laughing at the undermining of a 70 years old alliance is not a leader, but a fool.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

A leader who is laughing at the undermining of a 70 years old alliance is not a leader, but a fool.

Some of his frequent critics are FOOLS, Olivier. He most assuredly is not. But my guess he IS laughing at some of the fools.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Obarmy looks a fool to me. Right from the first time I saw his mug.

He can't resist jogging up steps even when there are only three and deliberately refuses to avail himself of the hand-rails which have been provided by sensible designers of portable staircases to the doors of large jet-planes.

He stopped smoking because Her Indoors, in cahoots with his daughters, threatened to withdraw co-operation.

He has deliberately chosen to provide us with a view of his bare legs in between his socks and his short's bottom.

He hurriedly departed from a Stag Party in a pub when a stripper took one of her gloves off suggestively.

He wanted desperately to become ******* President.

He thinks the public is stupid.

He allows his wife to make a fool of herself in public.

The rest is a scripted performance of the sort many movie actors have done better and from which it largely derives. Life imitating art. And the complete opposite of Abe Lincoln's weary, shagged-out image.

The burdens of office being lightly worn.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I have read of a lot of spiteful negative things over years towards the US President, but I think you have just done won the prize, congratulations, now you can proudly sit right down there next to the likes of coldjoint. Absolutely none of it had relevance to the subjects at hand.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Some of his frequent critics are FOOLS, Olivier. He most assuredly is not. But my guess he IS laughing at some of the fools.

I would bet that he is indeed laughing at the fools such as myself who voted for him two times under the hope that he would defend and respect the constitution more then his opponents.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Some of his frequent critics are FOOLS, Olivier. He most assuredly is not. But my guess he IS laughing at some of the fools.

I would bet that he is indeed laughing at the fools such as myself who voted for him two times under the hope that he would defend and respect the constitution more then his opponents.

Probably.

You should be laughing at yourself also.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

Quote:

I have read of a lot of spiteful negative things over years towards the US President, but I think you have just done won the prize

There was nothing spiteful in what I reported. They are just a few things I have noticed. Which ones do you dispute?

2 Replies

@spendius,

Like CJ almost everything you post is political BS.

0 Replies

@spendius,

I don't want to go back and read it, however, Michael Obama has never made a fool of herself and who cares if we can see his ankles and he is energetic. People have different styles. For the most part, your observations were just spiteful meanness without any merit.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

If Obama is not a fool, then he is not laughing at this, for only a fool would.

I won't make a bet at this stage on whether or not he is a fool, and is laughing or not, primarily because that's child talk. But I don't think he realizes the seriousness of the situation -- the amount of poison that this story is injecting in NATO; the risks for the US democracy; the potential damage to US tech firms; the loss of moral ground and ridicule that the US is heaping on itself.

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

I think of Obama as cornered with all his best well meanings of his views going bad. I am supposing he is trying to keep his head up.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

If Obama is not a fool, then he is not laughing at this, for only a fool would.

I won't make a bet at this stage on whether or not he is a fool, and is laughing or not, primarily because that's child talk. But I don't think he realizes the seriousness of the situation -- the amount of poison that this story is injecting in NATO; the risks for the US democracy; the potential damage to US tech firms; the loss of moral ground and ridicule that the US is heaping on itself.

Yes, yes, yes, Olivier. I understand your lack of self-esteem requires that you come into as many threads as possible where I have posted to assert that I am wrong. "Frank, you are wrong!"...apparently is something that rules you.

Are you now going to assert that you have "spanked" me...another favorite of yours?

Not sure why you do it...or what you get out of it...but I can tell you this:

I get a huge kick out of seeing you do it. It shows the power you I have over you.

My thanks!

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

I think of Obama as cornered with all his best well meanings of his views going bad. I am supposing he is trying to keep his head up.

His detractors are helping him do more than that. His detractors are showing themselves to be so unsettled...they look foolish and petty.

My guess he is laughing at them. They are self-destructing.

0 Replies

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know