Let's shut down the internet: Republicans vacate their mind bowels Ever since Senator Ted Stevens famously referred to the internet as a "series of tubes" in 2006, we have became sadly accustomed to the fact that legislators have little or no understanding of how the internet actually works. Despite the determined efforts of many internet policy wonks in the past decade, that dangerous level …
This could easily have been a 4 page article with 2 pages devoted to encryption. There was no shortage of dangerously cheesy misunderstandings over encryption.
I want to see them try to take away our encryption. Maybe with some legislative effort they can force Silicon Valley to cripple end-to-end and device encryption offerings for the majority of the population, but they won't be able to take encryption away from the techies and the paranoid. Tor, Freenet, PGP, I2P, Bitmessage, etc. will be spread far and wide. Let the criminals, drug merchants, child pornographers, and terrorists use it as much as they'd like. Encryption doesn't cause terrorism, geopolitics does.
Who cares about Tor, freenet, and all that? They're already attacking Tor, freenet has throughput issues, and they're working on subverting every chip they can get their hands on to the point that anyone of note will have some subverted chip at some point before encryption or after decryption (since it has to exist decrypted at some point to be human-readable--we're not at Ghost in the Shell levels of cyberization yet). About the only nation with the resources to build a complete computer and network system completely from scratch are the Chinese, and they are as interested in Big Brother as everyone else.
I'm surprised none of the candidates put it in black and white terms: "If you enable encryption, you enable terrorists to conspire to destroy the United States, so you're left with only two options: Big Brother or Big BOOM!"
>As for chips, prove they are subverted or make your own.
I am actually supposed to be making my own right now as that is what I am paid to do. Of course being I'm a rather unremarkable cog in the machine of thousands of other people it takes to do so I think you need to clarify. The original poster is actually not blowing smoke completely about hardware black box trust issues. Anyway back to work.
http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/12/we-cannot-trust-intel-and-vias-chip-based-crypto-freebsd-developers-say/
They're working on subverting every chip they can get their hands on
Which, of course, will change nothing. Have they forgotten that all the WW2 communications intercepted by places like Bletchely park were in clear text, easily intercepted by anyone with a radio, because the spies had first encrypted their stuff by hand using Enigma, one-time pads, etc.
Even if "they" could somehow force the internet and every device connected to it to use only non-encrypted messages, those who want secrecy will still be able to encipher their stuff before it gets anywhere near the internet, and one-time pads (or their opensource software equivalents) have no back doors.
As always this will penalize the honest users doing legitimate stuff like home banking, and make not the slightest difference for the bad guys. Just like all the DRM crap.
"Which, of course, will change nothing. Have they forgotten that all the WW2 communications intercepted by places like Bletchely park were in clear text, easily intercepted by anyone with a radio, because the spies had first encrypted their stuff by hand using Enigma, one-time pads, etc."
Then it was still transmitted in an encrypted form. The thing about encrypted communications is that they're typically not human-comprehensible, which makes them stand out. The only way around that is through steganography (hiding a message within another innocuous message), but even that has its limitations, especially for messages of arbitrary subject and length.
"Even if "they" could somehow force the internet and every device connected to it to use only non-encrypted messages, those who want secrecy will still be able to encipher their stuff before it gets anywhere near the internet, and one-time pads (or their opensource software equivalents) have no back doors."
But has a bandwidth limit and, again, will make it stand out and make it easier to spot and trace. Plus it's tricky to combine the one-time pad with stego and still make it able to get past detection and mangling techniques while still able to produce a message of usable length. Another consideration. If the enemy figures out even one of the messages is suspect and mangles it such that the other side can't decipher it, you've defeated the one-time pad for the duration because now the two ends are out of sync.
"I'm surprised none of the candidates put it in black and white terms: "If you enable encryption, you enable terrorists to conspire to destroy the United States, so you're left with only two options: Big Brother or Big BOOM!""
That line of argument has been in circulation in the UK for my entire life in one form or another, it would be great if died quietly and was buried alongside the careers of self-serving liars who use it.
don't make the mistake about there being ANY "misunderstandings". this is deliberate.
reducing encryption and begging for backdoors is a BIPARTISAN effort and desired at the highest levels of government.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/262658-feinstein-vows-to-offer-encryption-piercing-bill
OK, I sent a link to the above article to PBS Newshour, urged them to read it, urged them to disseminate it to staff, urged them to read more EL Reg articles on the topic, and then start asking the bloviators on both sides the necessary pointed questions. SOMEBODY in the news media has to start the ball rolling since this pig-ignorance is trending toward equally ignorant public policy making. Every so often an issue aired on PBS gets picked up by bigger media; let's hope.
And good luck with that. Even if PBS picked it up it would need be dumbed down or it would be too complicated for the Network NOOZE to sandwich into a minute and a half between boner pill ads and pharmaceutical ads for your latest made up condition. Maybe on Vice on HBO or let John Oliver have a whack at it (brilliant man and satirist) utilizing a half hour or so. You in Britain must realize that American News programs exist to make ratings and thusly money. They are interested only in the next shiny object .
Now watch this adorable cat video
.
Brain shits? We have an expression "brain farts" but these individuals are taking it to new lower levels.
Imbecilic diarrhea. Altho they are all some of the most malevolent imbeciles I have ever seen. Let alone supposedly running for some high office.
So predictable. Another anti-GOP screed is put out on the Reg and waves of spittle-flecked wannabe 'protestors' come screaming out of the woodwork, right on cue. Hey Reg, you guys might want to reconsider the partisan propaganda angle, it drives away intelligent people too much.
Go look at the CIPA vote today and what both House and Senate and both parties agreed to. Both sides want our butts in a sling... or maybe our data in a labeled box, sitting on a shelf, that they can peer into anytime they like for whatever reason they like.
Yeah.. this article is partisan since it's about the GOP debate. The Dems turn is coming up. So far, the only literate voice I've heard on either side has been Wyden (R-OR) but he's also beholden to big data via the lobbying. So.. no matter who wins, we're screwed. The bigger debate will be over do we get kissed while this happens. </rant>
@big john
I could say that the Register was just doing (the opposite of) what you often claim your beloved Rush Limbaugh does all the time: Baiting Liberals (Conservatives in this case). You applaud Rush for what he does, so I would assume its likewise OK to bait folks like yourself. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
But, really, The Register is a tech website that prides itself on its sarcastic tone and, as such, was merely reporting in its own house style on the tech subjects being debated by a group of potentially very influential people who it appears are extremely ignorant of tech subjects. If you feel that's not worthy of comment then what on earth are we all supposed to do? Take a GOP favoring stance and gloss over all the shortcomings of what the GOP hopefuls say, just because some like yourself approve of them? Perhaps ignore what they say altogether? And if we take a GOP friendly stance in this case then presumably we are also to take a Democratic friendly stance when they get up to yack about all the shit they know nothing about, and your good self will likewise keep silent also in deference to the liberals reading?
"You applaud Rush for what he does..."
Odd, I can't remember ever doing anything like that. Are you sure you're not just making stuff up? I don't happen to be a Rush fan, if that helps clarify things for you.
About your other points, keep in mind that the Dems have been saying similarly dumb things, but I don't see this kind of over the top "sarcasm" directed at Hillary et al. Maybe you could point me at such a Reg article?
"So predictable. Another anti-GOP screed is put out on the Reg and waves of spittle-flecked wannabe 'protestors' come screaming out of the woodwork, right on cue. Hey Reg, you guys might want to reconsider the partisan propaganda angle, it drives away intelligent people too much."
Have a little read of some of the staggeringly idiotic things these cretins were saying, and do bear in mind, you are on a tech site. For me it's got nothing to do with whether they are Republican candidates as much as the demonstrable fact that they are all chromosome-deficient test tube experiments who'd catastrophically fail at Hall Monitor duty, never mind the office of President. The current crop of drooling fuckwits running for the GOP nomination make George W Bush look almost educationally normal.
Which strongly suggests that Donald Trump thinks there is some kind of master-switch that can turn off parts of the internet, presumably based somewhere in Washington.
I think there is such a switch. In popular media it's a big red button and it requires two people with a key each to access. Used for retaliating to attacks of 99 rot luftballons.
Since when has the drooling buffoon Trump, or any of the control-freak, intellectually deficient fuckwits that compose the GOP running list, when have they *ever* done anything that could be considered either intelligent, or interesting to intelligent people ?
So predictable. Big John complains about a Reg article without actually bothering to read it.
The piece was quite complimentary toward Rubio - one of the few who has an actual shot at the nomination - and at worst neutral toward Paul, who doesn't have one because he's too sane for the crazies and too crazy for the sane, but at least demonstrates a capability for rational thought.
An article quoting actual idiotic things said by the participants is not propaganda, unless you think it's taking those actual idiotic things out of context. And if that's the case, please show what context redeems them.
A brilliant phrase and as with all things virtual over physical, The Mind Bowel has an almost infinite capacity to produce gas and crap from a tiny diet of ignorance and prejudice.
Whereas the physical bowels production rate is limited by the intake of food; Unless it's curry or sprouts.
You are assuming that what politicians say has anything to do with facts or even basic reality. It does not. What they say is intended not to convey facts, opinions or to argue for any particular position. What they say is intended for one thing only, which is to persuade their audience that they are the man/woman for the job. Sadly, for most people, this sort of thing bypasses intellectual functions and goes to feelings and associations which may be more powerful in determining actions.
Scott Adams (Dilbert) has pointed this out for months now. Whether or not Adams is right about humans being "moist robots," you have to give his hypothesis some attention because of the fact that he has correctly predicted the future. Back when everyone (including my good self) was laughing at the idea of a Trump presidency -- thinking a cartoon character was more likely to win -- Adams predicted that Trump would not only get the nomination, but likely win the election in a landslide. At the time I read that, I laughed and wondered what Scott was smoking. I'm not laughing anymore. A Trump presidency appears to be coming closer each day.
This is not because he makes any sense in front of a microphone or has any great ideas for policies, or LOGICALLY convinces people that he is right. His rise is because he is a master persuader. He practically hypnotizes people -- or something. Adams feels that a lot of what Trump says isn't even remotely true (e.g., Trump doesn't really have any intention of deporting every illegal alien in the US).
Adams bases his theory on his study of hypnosis. I don't know enough about hypnosis to express much of an opinion on Scott's theory from that angle, but, as I pointed out, we have watched Trump go from a "are you really serious?" sort of candidate to likely the front runner for his party. If Adams is right, for better or worse, we'll see Trump in the White House in 2017. If that happens, we can only HOPE that he's been babbling hypnotic/persuasive nonsense and not revealing what he really plans to do once he gains office.
We're not "moist robots" as Adams puts it but animals who don't realize it. We still have this bank of lower thought processes--mainly emotions--that can override our higher reasoning when pushed enough, such as during a crisis. Historically, humans tend to lash out during a crisis because our emotions demand a response. Otherwise, we go nuts even before our reason is able to kick in. You punch someone out of the blue, their usual response is to retaliate, the cerebrum usually doesn't even come into play. We like to think of ourselves as higher-thinking creatures, but let's face it; we're no Vulcans. That's why elections are such a farce; candidates worth their salt know that winning elections requires appealing to the gut, not to the brain.
Yes, but the real beauty is that Trump is a candidate that will fail and fail big. There's going to be a few people in the democrab party that are scared that this giant bag of farts with a squirrel on his head could win an election. The reality is that he is the PERFECT candidate for a democrab win in 2016. He is helping the continual self-destruction of the repubic party, and nothing will stop him from completely disrupting and eventually losing the office to his rivals. This is a funny sitcom that has come to life! All he needs to do now is make that idiot Ted Nugent his running mate and the deal is done! I can't stand most of what goes on in the two big parties, but the one waving the flag and claiming they are for less government while spying on all citizens and restricting already won freedoms sound like shitheads to me. Trump is their king. Of what I do not know. Aren't repubic-ians supposed to be money-makin' job-creators? Trump's holdings are mostly air, he tried every get-rich-quick trick to get some attention on his failing properties(reality show host, wrote a shitty book, some crappy board game), and any jobs he creates are in the hotel services industry making at or near minimum wage. What a "great" fucking leader he'll be! HA! If poor people who like to vote for rich people stop smoking crack for two minutes, this could all end in a bad way, but for sure this assmunch is going to cost the election for his party of Terrorists™ With Flags.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle are attacking encryption, and they can ban it or encourage Silicon Valley to stop enabling end-to-end and device encryption. The business class will be able to keep their encrypted communications services, but they will pay for the privilege. The vast majority of the public will ignore free alternatives.
"you have to give his hypothesis some attention because of the fact that he has correctly predicted the future"
I'm sorry, are you writing in 2017? Only literally none of the things you list have actually happened yet from where I'm sitting in December 2015. The nominations aren't settled and the first primaries are still over a month away (Trump is incredibly unlikely to get the nomination and unlikely to win the early primaries either), and the election itself is 11 months away (Trump doesn't have much chance of winning that either).
Trump's position in the polls is basically static. He's not losing support, but he's also not really been gaining any either - because anyone who would vote for him is already committed to doing so. He can't appeal to cross-party support without fatally wounding his base; in fact, he can't even appeal to cross-Republican support without doing so (since his entire appeal is to the most deranged Tea Party fanatics who have become so distrustful of Washington that they now think anyone who's ever been in government is too tainted to vote for).
Adams' blog posts on this are for entertainment. They are not a serious analysis. Trump has less support in actual numbers than Bernie Sanders does, and no-one is seriously freaking out about the danger of a Sanders presidency.
No Big John the US population (among others) is slanted against the GOP. Its why they have lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections (things look even more bleak electoral college wise for the GOP) and their losing streak with this lovely reality challenged field looks to continue. Not to mention with the GOP having to defend 3x more Senate seats than the Dems they will probably lose control of it as well this cycle. Its a good thing for the Dems too that the GOP is trying so hard to out batshit crazy each other as the Dem candidates aren't exactly the strongest this cycle either.
Gerrymandering.
Indeed, among other factors. Anyone who thinks the composition of Congress represents the democratic will of the populace at large is deluded.
GOP should be ashamed that they have had to bend the rules in order to keep their majorities. But they lack the facility for shame.
To be fair, both parties do it, and always have. Elbridge Gerry (for whom the practice is named) was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence; a "Founding Father", for what that's worth (very little).
The Republicans have had the fortune to be in a good position to gerrymander a number of districts in recent history. They also had especially large contrarian mid-term bumps. Eventually the pendulum will swing the other way, and then people will be cursing the districts drawn by the Democratic party, unless the system gets reformed, which isn't terribly likely. (Some states have instituted reforms but those wheels grind very slowly indeed.)
>Please review the current majority in both houses of Congress
Senate is about to change back. Its only the in off years when a small minority of mostly old white people vote that the GOP makes gains. Yes they can win state wide in the poorest least educated states but when the majority pays attention they kick them out of office of the more reasonable states. As for the House basically who ever wins the election after the latest census is the party that gets to gerrymander its way to victory until the next census. Still Republican will always have a solid presence in the house due also to its nature of catering to small geographical areas full of extremists.
@Big John
How is it slanted against the GOP? It's slanted against the GOP candidates that are stupid (which is most of them, in the eyes of anyone who cares about privacy or secure communications). It spoke well of Rubio. I'm sure their coverage of the Dem debates will be equally scathing -- they're all politicians after all, and they want their power.
> "I'm sure their coverage of the Dem debates will be equally scathing..."
How could it be? the Dem debates this cycle are totally bogus. That's why they're holding them on Saturday night; They hope no one will watch. Even if they do, they will see nothing of any substance. The GOP may not be a shining light of perfection, but they at least are willing to fight over policy in public. Mrs. Clinton is too chickenshit to let that happen anywhere near her.
Actually Trump et al has put me onto US politics. Previously I couldn't have cared less, however the more I heard trump speak the more I wondered if this was commonplace in the US.
By Christ it frightened me.
Trump is not a stupid man per se, he is a very intelligent businessman and a showman. But he must have some sort of belief in what he says, and that is very very worrying. I can just imagine a briefing (if he was president) where "scientists" and academics are told to simply "sort the internet" or "break the encryption now" etc and simply fires them for academic team mk2 when they try to explain why it cannot be done.
It also worries me the amount of people who agree and believe in what he says; never mind his utterly medieval views on religion or womens rights.
"Trump is not a stupid man per se, he is a very intelligent businessman and a showman."
You know, I keep reading this and wondering why the hell people thinking having a successful business makes you intelligent. It doesn't. It most just means you work hard and take dumb risks (also, Trumps business success recodr is questionable, given the number of bankruptcies he has on his record). It's not exactly hard to make a profit, particularly not in real estate (where the market is hard-wired to give inflation-busting ROI) and when you inherit millions of dollars to begin with. I don't think Trumps a moron, but I don't really think there's any evidence that he's of above-average intelligence either.
As to "his utterly medieval views on religion or womens rights."... actually, Trumps history in this regard is considerably more progressive than most of his rivals. He's even been pro-abortion at times, while Ted Cruz actually supports classifying fertilized eggs as people, which would reclassify the morning-after pill as murder.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
