Re: [dvd-discuss] [declan@well.com: FC: Congress considersencryptionrestrictions in response to attacks]

[Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org]

I wasn't disagreeing. Throw in compression, throw in the thousands of 
possible formats of things we already have, and THEN throw in the fact 
that not only the data being sent but the programs themselves begin to 
look random and our leaders are worse than clueless....they begin to look 
like Caligula making war on Neptune by having the soldiers throw spears in 
the the crashing surf and collecting seashells as the spoils....




"D. C. Sessions" <dvd@lumbercartel.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
09/18/01 09:07 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] [declan@well.com: FC: Congress considers 
encryptionrestrictions in response to attacks]


On Tuesday 18 September 2001 07:42, you wrote:
> Read some of Greg Chaitin's work on algorithmic information 
theory....the 
> randomness IS the mathematics rather than an aberation.

I do a fair bit of information theory as it is.  My point is that since
one can (for instance) double-encrypt messages, with the
"bad" encrypted message wrapped in "good" encryption, even
if there were some magic signature that distinguished "good"
encrypted bits, they couldn't know if we were being naughty
without opening the envelope.

> "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@lumbercartel.com>
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 09/14/01 08:52 PM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
> 
> 
>         To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>         cc: 
>         Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] [declan@well.com: FC: Congress 
considers encryption 
> restrictions in response to attacks]
> 
> 
> On Thursday 13 September 2001 18:33, you wrote:
> > --- lists@politechbot.com wrote:
> > 
> > > http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46816,00.html
> > 
> > This just shows how utterly clueless our leaders are about security.
> > 
> > Many different types of very strong crypto are "out there" with source 

> code.
> > Trying to ban cryptology now would be like trying to ban ice in soft 
> drinks.
> 
> Like they could tell the difference?  In order to tell that a given 
> message was
> encrypted with "bad" software instead of "good" software, they'd have to
> decrypt and analyze every message.  All of them.  Also any graphic 
images,
> etc. (steganography is great stuff.)
> 
> Somehow I suspect that our Lords and Masters are either not hearing this
> or ignoring it anyway.
> 
> -- 
> | I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.|
> +----------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
| I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.|
+----------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+