On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:14:40 -0700
Razer <ray...@riseup.net> wrote:
> 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.
Why do you keep posting pentagon's propaganda razer?
> 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.
> 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...
> > *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://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