9
   

America... Spying on Americans

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 09:28 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Yes, read up, but be very careful not to fall in love with number theory on the way.

Nice to meet a fellow victim of Singh's book in this thread. Smile
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 09:30 am
Hah. Not that book, unfortunatley, though it's on my list now. (Thanks for that.) I took a cryptography class in college and could have spent a long time engrossed in the theory behind it had more worldly concerns not called.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 09:35 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Because it would be aiding the terrorists, of course.

Since public key cryptography is also used to keep bank transactions safe, it would also aid everybody who lawfully wires money in any way, and who wants to keep those transactions private. Did you consider this consequence in your overall assessment? Come to think of it, which arguments against government secrecy did you consider in your overall assessment?
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 09:46 am
Thomas wrote:
It's my professional opinion as someone who has spent the last 5 years of his carreer designing parts of the intercontinental data networks that the NSA would tap. As is common knowledge among cryptographers, cracking commonly used algorithms for public key encryption is as hard as factorizing the number you use as the key.


It's also well known that the sorts of people the NSA is looking for don't use those systems. Let's face facts here, the NSA's job is to break encryption systems used by other nations - China, Russia, North Korea, etc.. (Who knows who??) These are high-end systems designed by the best minds over the course of decades and they get broken.

Terrorist groups don't have the R&D to create a reliable, high-end public-key infrastructure. They use systems commonly available off of the Internet - all of which are well known to the NSA and easily broken.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 09:54 am
fishin' wrote:
Terrorist groups don't have the R&D to create a reliable, high-end public-key infrastructure. They use systems commonly available off of the Internet - all of which are well known to the NSA and easily broken.

If this is well-known, can you cite me a reputable source that demonstrates how, or even that, the RSA algorithm combined with key exchange through the Diffie Hellman algorithm is easily broken? When Phil Zimerman posted PGP on the internet, the NSA tried to get him in jail for it. Their argument was precisely that the NSA cannot break messages encoded with PGP's algorithm, if the algorithm uses a sufficiently long key. And long keys, unlike good algorithms, don't require a lot of R&D. The mathematics of prime numbers are quite well known.

I don't know which systems you are referring to that can easily be broken. Such systems exist, but they either use short keys or algorithms that are not state-of-the-art. Since strong encryption is available in source code from, among other places, the GNU project, and the key length can be changed to arbitrary values in the source code, perhaps even on the command line, both problems are trivial for terrorists to circumvent.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 10:31 am
Thomas wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Because it would be aiding the terrorists, of course.

Since public key cryptography is also used to keep bank transactions safe, it would also aid everybody who lawfully wires money in any way, and who wants to keep those transactions private. Did you consider this consequence in your overall assessment? Come to think of it, which arguments against government secrecy did you consider in your overall assessment?


It is my belief that national secrets shouldn't be displayed above the fold of the Times. You obviously think otherwise.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 10:37 am
Ticomaya wrote:
kuvasz wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
kuv wrote:
Btw: my brother is currently serving in Iraq, after spending a tour in Afghanistan in 2002, so try another ploy. McCarthyism doesn't suit you.


What does the fact that your brother is a military man have to do with you, or any point Asherman was making?


your santa hat is on way too tight, the lack of oxygen is affecting your vision.

Asherman wrote:
They are not uniformed, and incite childern to murder others by blowing themselves up. They prey on the weak. They may hate the USMC, but they almost certainly respect them more than Americans who are willing to support them at the expense of their own govenment.
[/b]

He certainly wasn't referring to any Americans known to have taken up arms in Iraq or Afghanistan against US Armed Forces. He was making the case that "If your not for Bush, you are against America."

What is it with you right wingers and your inablity to handle dissent without throwning down the traitor card on the table. With that attitude you would have sided with the Redcoats in 1776.



I'll ask again ... what does that have to do with your brother?


The absurdity of inferring that people who dissent from government policies are acting in a manner designed to hurt our armed forces, especially those of us who have worn a military uniform and with family in harm's way.

And I would ask of you what is it about political dissent of government policies that frightens the likes of you or Asherman or right wing fanatics in general and makes you think we don't also love our country and want our armed forces safe?

Swathing yourselves in the flag and accusing those who dissent from the government as giving aid and comfort to the enemy is about the most repugnant thing an American can do. It flies in the face of what this country was founded upon; freedom and liberty.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 10:45 am
Thomas wrote:
If this is well-known, can you cite me a reputable source that demonstrates how, or even that, the RSA algorithm combined with key exchange through the Diffie Hellman algorithm is easily broken? When Phil Zimerman posted PGP on the internet, the NSA tried to get him in jail for it. Their argument was precisely that the NSA cannot break messages encoded with PGP's algorithm, if the algorithm uses a sufficiently long key. And long keys, unlike good algorithm, don't require a lot of R&D. The mathematics of prime numbers are quite well known.


PGP was originally posted in 1976 and has been "fixed" several times because of weaknesses that were found and exploited. Do you think the NSA has been sitting around ignoring PGP for the last 30 years?

RSA keys under 1024 bits in length have been broken by groups with a lot fewer resources than the NSA. According to RSA's own researchers and Matt Blase it would take a single $10 million computer about a full year to break a 1024-bit key. NSA is known to have several hundered of the very best computers made so you'd be looking at a day or two for a brute-force attack.

Depending on how long the NSA had been monitoring a specific group they could also have fed them a compromised version of PGP or found other ways of picking up information that would make a key-break easier (i.e. packet sniffing from a PGP host, Van Eck intercepts, etc..). These groups also use the same systems for all of their communications which makes them very vulnerable to a chosen cipher-text attack which would reduce the time required to break their encryption to a matter of seconds.

Explanations of the vulnerabilites can be found in any number of sources. Two of them can be found here:

http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2004
http://axion.physics.ubc.ca/pgp-attack.html
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 10:52 am
Ticomaya wrote:
It is my belief that national secrets shouldn't be displayed above the fold of the Times.

Because obviously, terrorists never read beyond the front page headlines...

Seriously - even accepting the argument that the media, too, has a responsibility to hide facts from terrorists, where's the relevance of the "above the fold" bit come in? Sounds more like a style sensitivity than part of an actual argument.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 11:01 am
Quote:
It is my belief that national secrets shouldn't be displayed above the fold of the Times. You obviously think otherwise.


What a stupid thing to say.

When it turns out one's state is keeping monstrous secrets from it's own citizens, then it should be on the headline of every paper. The damage done to our Liberty far outweighs any security benefits imposed by this illegal circumvention of the Constitution.

Do you believe in a free press, comrade?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 11:03 am
kuvasz wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
I'll ask again ... what does that have to do with your brother?


The absurdity of inferring that people who dissent from government policies are acting in a manner designed to hurt our armed forces, especially those of us who have worn a military uniform and with family in harm's way.


I don't think Asherman was suggesting you wilfully harmed your government or your brother. It's just a by-product of your actions.

kuv wrote:
And I would ask of you what is it about political dissent of government policies that frightens the likes of you or Asherman or right wing fanatics in general and makes you think we don't also love our country and want our armed forces safe?


I'm not frightened by dissent. I'm sure you love your country and want our armed forces safe. But then again when a tool to protect our country from terrorism is revealed on the front pages of the times, that doesn't seem to be doing a whole heck of a lot to fight terrorism, does it?

kuv wrote:
Swathing yourselves in the flag and accusing those who dissent from the government as giving aid and comfort to the enemy is about the most repugnant thing an American can do. It flies in the face of what this country was founded upon; freedom and liberty.


I think one of the most repugnant things an American can do is join with those who hurt his government's efforts to protect its citizens, and then have the temerity to claim they are only doing it because they love their country.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 11:11 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
It is my belief that national secrets shouldn't be displayed above the fold of the Times. You obviously think otherwise.


What a stupid thing to say.

When it turns out one's state is keeping monstrous secrets from it's own citizens, then it should be on the headline of every paper. The damage done to our Liberty far outweighs any security benefits imposed by this illegal circumvention of the Constitution.

Do you believe in a free press, comrade?

Cycloptichorn


"Monstrous secrets," Cyclops?

The damage being done to your Liberty is miniscule. Tell me again how your Liberty has been eroded to such a degree that it outweighs the benefit of listening in on terrorists calling their partners overseas?

Never mind answering that. I already know you believe you shouldn't have to be inconvenienced in order to protect our country from terrorism. You are of the mind that all we need to do is sit back and believe we have the best country in the world, and all will be fine ... the terrorists will eventually leave us alone. Your pathetic liberal philosophy makes my skin crawl.

It will take another terrorist attack in this country to get you libbies to wake up to the fact that terrorists want to kill you. Then, I imagine we'll hear caterwauling and clamoring from you that government didn't do enough to protect the country from the terrorists. The fact is, you aren't willing to sacrifice anything in order to achieve a goal worth achieving. That's the sad truth of the matter.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 11:23 am
Ticomaya wrote:

It will take another terrorist attack in this country to get you libbies to wake up to the fact that terrorists want to kill you. Then, I imagine we'll hear caterwauling and clamoring from you that government didn't do enough to protect the country from the terrorists. The fact is, you aren't willing to sacrifice anything in order to achieve a goal worth achieving. That's the sad truth of the matter.


What makes the goal worth achieving? I'm not willing to sacrifice the brilliant idea that was this country for a goal that may not even be attainable. Rid the world of terrorists? Justice through the rule of law is the only way to conquer terrorism. An overreaching executive who has no respect for separation of powers or the rule of law or the bill of rights does nothing but further divide the nation.

The presidential oath requires the president to defend and uphold the Constitution. Protecting the American people is not mentioned. Protecting the country from invasion and domestic uprising is a power and duty given to Congress. You are a lawyer who, apparently in common with our president, has little respect for law.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 11:26 am
Amen, FreeDuck.

Just because we're spying on fellow Americans, torturing foreign suspects, and running secret jails doesn't mean we're effectively combatting terrorism.

The blind acceptance of everything Bush does in the name of the War of Terrorism is pathetic...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 11:37 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
It is my belief that national secrets shouldn't be displayed above the fold of the Times. You obviously think otherwise.


What a stupid thing to say.

When it turns out one's state is keeping monstrous secrets from it's own citizens, then it should be on the headline of every paper. The damage done to our Liberty far outweighs any security benefits imposed by this illegal circumvention of the Constitution.

Do you believe in a free press, comrade?

Cycloptichorn


"Monstrous secrets," Cyclops?

The damage being done to your Liberty is miniscule. Tell me again how your Liberty has been eroded to such a degree that it outweighs the benefit of listening in on terrorists calling their partners overseas?


The answer is, you simply have no idea. There is no telling how many things were overheard during illegal wiretaps that were then passed on to different branches of the government. I may have an NSA file now because I've been to several anti-war rallies and I talk about it on the phone a lot. But there is no legal reason for this to be so, and therefore, it is a violation of my right to Privacy that the government would be collecting information on me.

And if not me, than substitute one of the known tens of thousands who were affected by this. The damage to liberty is not miniscule, as you keep pointing out; the right to privacy is an important and supporting facet of Liberty.

Quote:
Never mind answering that. I already know you believe you shouldn't have to be inconvenienced in order to protect our country from terrorism. You are of the mind that all we need to do is sit back and believe we have the best country in the world, and all will be fine ... the terrorists will eventually leave us alone. Your pathetic liberal philosophy makes my skin crawl.

It will take another terrorist attack in this country to get you libbies to wake up to the fact that terrorists want to kill you. Then, I imagine we'll hear caterwauling and clamoring from you that government didn't do enough to protect the country from the terrorists.


I don't believe the goal of the terrorists is to kill every man, woman, and child in America, or to convert them all to Islam through the use of terror and violence. Nothing that has been done so far has shown this to be the case. In fact, the only ones saying that the terrorists wish to do so are scare-monger Republicans such as yourself; the terrorists have become the ultimate 'bad guy,' the uber-evil villain that allows you to take any steps neccessary to defeat him.

I challenge you to show me evidence that the true goal of AQ is to kill every American, or to convert the world to Islaam through force. And not through some NRO writer; I want it straight from the horses' mouth.

Of course, you'll say that we can't trust the terrorists, so why should we believe them? We've had this argument before. They have much less of a reason to lie about their motives than the Righties in America who are using the terrorist threat to erode civil rights.

Quote:
The fact is, you aren't willing to sacrifice anything in order to achieve a goal worth achieving. That's the sad truth of the matter.


You don't know what the f*ck you are talking about, Tico. September 11th cost my family a f*cking lot and I goddamn know what sacrifice means. I also know that our rights and liberty didn't die that day.

The fact is that noone has really been asked to sacrifice anything; except our children, because we are paying for everything on loan. Noone is being asked to conserve anything, we're not on a war economy, businesses sure aren't being asked to sacrifice. The only thing being asked to sacrifice is my Freedom, and that's exactly what the terrorists want! I'm not going to surrrender to them like you are apparently willing to, comrade.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 11:48 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:

It will take another terrorist attack in this country to get you libbies to wake up to the fact that terrorists want to kill you. Then, I imagine we'll hear caterwauling and clamoring from you that government didn't do enough to protect the country from the terrorists. The fact is, you aren't willing to sacrifice anything in order to achieve a goal worth achieving. That's the sad truth of the matter.


What makes the goal worth achieving? I'm not willing to sacrifice the brilliant idea that was this country for a goal that may not even be attainable. Rid the world of terrorists? Justice through the rule of law is the only way to conquer terrorism. An overreaching executive who has no respect for separation of powers or the rule of law or the bill of rights does nothing but further divide the nation.

The presidential oath requires the president to defend and uphold the Constitution. Protecting the American people is not mentioned. Protecting the country from invasion and domestic uprising is a power and duty given to Congress. You are a lawyer who, apparently in common with our president, has little respect for law.


You don't think the President has a duty to protect the American people? You do realize that is not a view shared by all your leftist friends who were so eager to blame Bush for not doing enough to protect the American people prior to the 9/11 attacks?

The Joint Resolution passed by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, authorizing the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against those responsible for Sept. 11 in order to prevent further attacks.

I'll ignore your contribution to the endless supply of lawyer digs you lefties try to send my way. I have respect for the law, and I certainly do think the law ought to be changed if necessary to provide our government with every tool it needs to effectively combat terror. My personal feelings are that is the avenue that should have been pursued, and for all I know, it was pursued. But frankly, I think the President's duty to protect this country against terrorism is an important one, and one he takes seriously, thank God. Yes, let's put safeguards in place. I've already said several times I only feel this program is appropriate in emergency situations. But I do disagree with those who think the NYT did the right thing in publishing the story.
0 Replies
 
ralpheb
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 11:51 am
Has the governments so called intervention or our rights effected anyone here? I mean, have any of you been inconvinienced by anything the government has done to try and prevent reoccuring terrorist attacks. Aren't the protocols at airports also a violation of or rights?
Why don't we all carry guns. This would allow us to utilize our second ammendment right AND we can elimintate terrorists or suspected terrorists as we see them. Also, it would protect us from "the man." All of you are screaming in one way or another about your constitutional rights. All of you want to heve freedoms, but yet you want protectionby the government and from the government. At what point is there an equalibrium that we and the government can agree?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 11:54 am
Quote:
The Joint Resolution passed by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, authorizing the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against those responsible for Sept. 11 in order to prevent further attacks.


those responsible for Sept. 11, not 'any potential threat' ad infinitum.

In no way can peace protesters be said to have anything to do with 9/11. In no way can Congress be said to have approved of spying such as this by granting the prez. the right to prosecute AQ.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 11:54 am
fishin' wrote:
Thomas wrote:
If this is well-known, can you cite me a reputable source that demonstrates how, or even that, the RSA algorithm combined with key exchange through the Diffie Hellman algorithm is easily broken? When Phil Zimerman posted PGP on the internet, the NSA tried to get him in jail for it. Their argument was precisely that the NSA cannot break messages encoded with PGP's algorithm, if the algorithm uses a sufficiently long key. And long keys, unlike good algorithm, don't require a lot of R&D. The mathematics of prime numbers are quite well known.


PGP was originally posted in 1976 and has been "fixed" several times because of weaknesses that were found and exploited. Do you think the NSA has been sitting around ignoring PGP for the last 30 years?

RSA keys under 1024 bits in length have been broken by groups with a lot fewer resources than the NSA. According to RSA's own researchers and Matt Blase it would take a single $10 million computer about a full year to break a 1024-bit key. NSA is known to have several hundered of the very best computers made so you'd be looking at a day or two for a brute-force attack.
Even if they could crack a single 1024 encryption in a day or two (unlikely unless they commit ALL their resources. $365 million in computing power according to your article.) they need to know who or what encryption to crack. With millions of intercepts daily from thousands of sources it is like finding a needle in a haystack. You need to know which sources need to be broken and you need to crack them to know which sources are the danger. It quickly becomes a catch-22. The argument is that they need to intercept QUICKLY so they have to avoid a court order. The fact that it takes so long to crack encryption and they have to KNOW the source before they know who to crack argues directly against the need to monitor without a court order.

Quote:
Depending on how long the NSA had been monitoring a specific group
A very strong argument for the ability to get a court order if they have been monitoring.
Quote:
they could also have fed them a compromised version of PGP or found other ways of picking up information that would make a key-break easier (i.e. packet sniffing from a PGP host, Van Eck intercepts, etc..). These groups also use the same systems for all of their communications which makes them very vulnerable to a chosen cipher-text attack which would reduce the time required to break their encryption to a matter of seconds.

Explanations of the vulnerabilites can be found in any number of sources. Two of them can be found here:

http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2004
http://axion.physics.ubc.ca/pgp-attack.html
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 11:59 am
Ticomaya wrote:
kuvasz wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
I'll ask again ... what does that have to do with your brother?


The absurdity of inferring that people who dissent from government policies are acting in a manner designed to hurt our armed forces, especially those of us who have worn a military uniform and with family in harm's way.


I don't think Asherman was suggesting you wilfully harmed your government or your brother. It's just a by-product of your actions.



A by-product of his actions? Cite the time and place that kuvasz's actions have created this by-prodcut. Cite the SPECIFIC harm. Hypotheticals don't count. it must be specific and provable.

Sorry Tico but your silly claim is just that, silly. There is no evidence that disagreeing with the President has caused harm to anyone let alone harmed them "willfully."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 09:04:00