Re: Transparency is impossible

From: John Clark (
Date: Mon Apr 03 2000 - 13:17:46 MDT

Zero Powers <> Wrote:

>the President does not make the laws, that is the job of Congress.

And do you really think there is a snowball's chance in hell of Congress
ever passing a law requiring universal surveillance unless they included
an exception for themselves and the President?

> No encryption is unbreakable, that is just a fact.

No, it is not a fact. Quantum Encryption, which has actually been used in
a commercial setting not just in the lab, is as secure as the laws of physics.

But that's probably overkill. I'm looking at page 158 of Applied Cryptography
by Bruce Schneier, a nanocomputer using the full power of the sun with a
Dyson sphere could crack a 192 bit symmetric key by brute force in 32
years, if you went to 193 bit it would take 64 years. Granted that's only a
brute force attack but if you basing your society on the assumption that it's
practical and economical to break any cipher then you're heading for trouble.

>Further, if such cypherpunk activities are criminalized, the very act of
>attempting to use encryption for the purpose of tampering with the
>public record would likely be construed to be a forfeiture of your rights.

I think you need to learn a little more about cryptography. There are ways of
using DC nets so that you not only don't know what I'm saying you don't even
know who I'm talking to. There are ways of using Steganography so you not
only don't know who I'm talking to, you don't even know that I'm talking. There are
ways of putting information in a form so that it's useful to me and nobody else,
or if I prefer, I can make it useful to you and me and nobody else. There are ways
I can prove that I have a certain piece of secret information without giving you the
slightest clue as to what that information is.

      John K Clark

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:01 MDT