FISA with Telecom Immunity Passed

[saden1]

Congratulations folks, we did it, all in the interest of national security of course.

p.s. Obama voted for it...I was wrong, he's just another wanker trying to get his.

[saden1]

Oh and the really sad part of it all is that if you use Skype or any other VOIP technology that's encrypted they can't spy on you. Skype's communication channel is encrypted with a 256 bit key. What does that mean? It means you're pretty fucked unless the terrorist are absolute morons:

A device that could check a billion billion (10^18) keys per second would require about 3x10^51 years to exhaust the 256 bit key space.

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by saden1

Oh and the really sad part of it all is that if you use Skype or any other VOIP technology that's encrypted they can't spy on you. Skype's communication channel is encrypted with a 256 bit key. What does that mean? It means you're pretty fucked unless the terrorist are absolute morons:

Brute force isn't always needed.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by cpayne5

Brute force isn't always needed.

The alternatives (dictionary attack and distributed net attack) are just as bad if the terrorist aren't absolute morons (I know, that's an oxymoron) and they choose a strong 256-bit key.

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by saden1

The alternatives (dictionary attack and distributed net attack) are just as bad if the terrorist aren't absolute morons (I know, that's an oxymoron) and they choose a strong 256-bit key.

Nope, dictionary and distributed brute force is not what I was implying.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

Oh and the really sad part of it all is that if you use Skype or any other VOIP technology that's encrypted they can't spy on you. Skype's communication channel is encrypted with a 256 bit key. What does that mean? It means you're pretty fucked unless the terrorist are absolute morons:

NSA has the capability to decipher a 256 bit key in minutes. Otherwise this encryption technology wouldn't be available to the public.

While many of our politicians are not the "sharpest tacks in the box", the folks doing the work at NSA are pretty smart and they have almost limitless funding.

marxbitware.com - Cipher Strengths - Are They To Weak?

Computerworld > Researcher finds RSA 1024-bit encryption not enough

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

NSA has the capability to decipher a 256 bit key in minutes. Otherwise this encryption technology wouldn't be available to the public.

While many of our politicians are not the "sharpest tacks in the box", the folks doing the work at NSA are pretty smart and they have almost limitless funding.

marxbitware.com - Cipher Strengths - Are They To Weak?

Computerworld > Researcher finds RSA 1024-bit encryption not enough

I do not believe that the NSA can break RSA reliably. They may get lucky here and there, but I would have a hard time believing that they can crack a totally random key in a matter of minutes.

Even if they could crack RSA, they would have to catch the key negotiation when the AES keys are passed, in order to listen in on the good stuff. No way do I believe they can crack an AES stream on its own, though.

The openness of the these cryptographic standards is what makes them safe. The world is filled with brilliant mathematicians; they don't all work at the NSA. If there was a flaw besides brute force, I'm confident that the world would know about it.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

NSA has the capability to decipher a 256 bit key in minutes. Otherwise this encryption technology wouldn't be available to the public.

While many of our politicians are not the "sharpest tacks in the box", the folks doing the work at NSA are pretty smart and they have almost limitless funding.

marxbitware.com - Cipher Strengths - Are They To Weak?

Computerworld > Researcher finds RSA 1024-bit encryption not enough

It's about the algorithm used and the key size. Even at 1024-bit key size RSA encryption is trash when it comes to encrypting data. No one in their right mind would use it nowadays because it's susceptible to chosen-plaintext attacks and there are better encryption schemes out there. What you really want is AES (Rijndael) which the NSA approved for encrypting classified documents or Twofish which is even better.

[That Guy]

how retarded :/.

and the more both candidates talk, the more you realize it's all empty promises. neither one has put forth a legitimate method of paying for all the things that they say they want to do... just vague "we'll cut wasteful spending" type comments.

obama's changed his mind on iraq, mccain says he'll figure out how to balanced the budget, but that'll be hard unless he kills those tax cuts, which he has changed to a "small business tax cuts" position now, so maybe he's turning on that...

and they've both finally acknowledged that social security and medicare are broken (you can't balance the budget without doing something there), but i doubt it really turns into action in the near term, which is too bad.

[dmek25]

how come people are ok with this? if Bush wanted to revoke gun owners rights, in the interest of national security, would that be all right?

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by dmek25

how come people are ok with this? if Bush wanted to revoke gun owners rights, in the interest of national security, would that be all right?

Are you calling al Qaeda?

Why are you so worried?

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by Buster

Are you calling al Qaeda?

Why are you so worried?

slowly stripping Americans of their rights. and the closest i came to calling al qaeda was ordering a pizza last Friday. would gun owners give up their right to bear arms, in the name of national security? some how, i don't think so. these guys running this country have proved time and time again, that they think they don't have to play by the rules. so that's why im worried

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

slowly stripping Americans of their rights. and the closest i came to calling al qaeda was ordering a pizza last Friday. would gun owners give up their right to bear arms, in the name of national security? some how, i don't think so. these guys running this country have proved time and time again, that they think they don't have to play by the rules. so that's why im worried

So then what is your opinion on Obama voting for the bill and I'm still not sure what rights have been stripped from you. This is nothing new. If a cop is called to your home for some reason he can not enter without your permission or without a warrant. Now if he susspects illegal activity he can then enter your home. Whats the difference.

[firstdown]

I just don't see how this will involve many people and I know it won't affect anything in my life. All it does is give them the power to tap people of interest that have or they suspect to have terrorist ties. We have to remember that these people want to kill us and if it helps capture a few of theses guys then the bill has surved its purpose. Its not like they are going to tap each and every American to see what and who they are talking to.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I just don't see how this will involve many people and I know it won't affect anything in my life. All it does is give them the power to tap people of interest that have or they suspect to have terrorist ties. We have to remember that these people want to kill us and if it helps capture a few of theses guys then the bill has surved its purpose. Its not like they are going to tap each and every American to see what and who they are talking to.

Very reasonable response. I think people think this bill allows wire tapping whenever the governement has a hunch and it's just not so. This version, whether one likes it or not, does have some checks and balances, much more oversight from the courts and congress, which won't allow the White House to run free willie with the Constitution.