On 10/13/2016 12:54 PM, jim bell wrote:


>  But if just about everybody had phones installed with 'good' (rather than 
> 'perfect') encryption, encryption that it would take a large amount of the 
> NSA's resources to crack, we'd be living in a far better world than what we 
> have now.

This is my take on tor as well. There's safety in numbers. On the ground
OR in cyberworld. If EVERYONE used it, well yeah, they'll get ALL the
dataz, but they could use up all the silicon on the planet storing it,
and all the carbon burned up to run the machinery to process that
data... etc.


It's possible to make their technology so expensive to use the US
treasury couldn't support the drain.

Rr

Ps. The silicon IS going away... The next best substitute, whatever that
might be, and re-engineering everything to use some less-efficient
substrate, ought to cool the computer industry's jets a little...

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/lethal-force-running-out-of-sand-helping-hoarders-hosanna-then-and-now-inside-butter-tarts-1.3770809/the-world-is-starting-to-run-out-of-sand-1.3770813


> 
> 
> *From:* Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:03:36PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>> On 7/24/14, Ulex Europae <euro...@gmail.com
> <mailto:euro...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > At 05:25 AM 1/17/2014, Jim Bell forwarded:
>>
>>><<http:///>http://www.yahoo.com/tech/startup-launching-a-super-secure-nsa-proof-73511096050.html
> <http://www.yahoo.com/tech/startup-launching-a-super-secure-nsa-proof-73511096050.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma>>
> 
>> NSA-proof?
> 
> To me, the problem is obviously the people who write such articles, and
> perhaps others that write the headlines, people who know far less about
> security even than those who merely frequent the Cypherpunks list.  (In
> better times, when most of the posts were on-topic.)
> Prior to the revelation of NSA's massive data farms (for instance, the
> one recently revealed in Utah), even the ordinary POTS (plain old
> telephone system) was 'fair' in security, in the sense that the large
> majority of the 'wheat' (the stuff the NSA wants to record, store, and
> search for) was immersed in a ton of 'chaff', the billions of phone
> calls made on a daily basis.  The government couldn't look at
> information that they didn't know existed, and didn't have a copy of.
> Relatively good would be encrypted security that cannot be (easily)
> broken by even the NSA.
> 
>    Even better would be a system which eliminates metadata, sort of a
> Tor-ized cell phone system.  Why doesn't that currently exist?  A start
> would be if the major cell-phone companies publicly announced that  they
> refuse to even collect such metadata, or at least it would be
> automatically erased at the end of each individual phone call.  (Since
> most phone billing is no longer sensitive to distance, or even time, why
> record such information in a central location?)
> 
>  Such an announcement would not be automatically believable, especially
> to cynics like us, but the long-term non-existence of news of criminal
> trials which actually admitted such evidence would tend to convince the
> public that the evidence is either not being collected at all, or at
> least is only being used secret, and not openly in criminal trials.    
> 
>> Is that even possible unless you:
>> 1) personally pick up your phone off the factory
>> floor production line at random?
> 
> To _us_, the cypherpunks, the answer is obviously "no".  But if just
> about everybody had phones installed with 'good' (rather than 'perfect')
> encryption, encryption that it would take a large amount of the NSA's
> resources to crack, we'd be living in a far better world than what we
> have now.  An even better addition would be a system which actually made
> the NSA  _FEAR_ to use such surveillance results.   Would the average
> telephone user be willing to spend 10 cents per month to supply a fund
> to kill any government worker who assisted in the recording, storage,
> decrypting, or using such recorded information, including prosecutors,
> judges, and government investigators in criminal trials?  $25 million
> per month, in America, would buy 250 deaths at $100,000 each, per month.
>   Somehow, I think that this would solve the problem.   
> 
>               Jim Bell
> 

Reply via email to