[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] [declan@well.com: FC: Congress considers encryptionrestrictions in response to attacks]
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] [declan@well.com: FC: Congress considers encryptionrestrictions in response to attacks]
- From: "D. C. Sessions" <dvd(at)lumbercartel.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 09:07:09 -0700
- In-Reply-To: <OFBF7B8581.E126781F-ON88256ACB.0050B6CB@aero.org>
- Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! *****
- References: <OFBF7B8581.E126781F-ON88256ACB.0050B6CB@aero.org>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
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> ----------+