this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
512 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19136 readers
3937 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

AES is freely available and if they knew of any weaknesses it probably wouldn't be approved for use on TS data.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 6 days ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I see the pot is calling the kettle black.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

But I never claimed to be an expert. Is this the same guy I just blocked?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Nah, just a guy that read the entire comment tree.

While I agree with you that there's a very very high likelihood of the conversation being recorded in some form or another and likely through a side channel, I feel that your "my sweet child... do you not think the NSA can break encryption" comment to be both condescending to the person you replied to, and hypocritical to the comment I replied to.

Neither you nor I are cryptographers. We can't attest to the security or lack thereof of published cryptographic algorithms.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Your last sentence is true. It is also true that members of the NSA are cryptographers, and plenty good at it too.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You can't just be a good cryptographer to break a sound encryption. It doesn't work that way. You're basically saying you know p=np which is... I'll just say bold

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Another expert heard from. Thans for the Input

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Why talk down to someone with a valid point calling them a sweet child and then complain you're not an expert, I don't get what your stance is here

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago

My sweet child. Bold of you to assume the commenter knows what p=np means. :)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

My stance for this conversation is amused

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 days ago

I agree, you should be

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Don't need to be an expert to know they've changed algorithms and recommended key lengths based on non-public information in the past.

If they allow an algorithm for their own data, it's unlikely they can easily break it.

They have other ways of listening to your phone calls. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/photos-of-an-nsa-upgrade-factory-show-cisco-router-getting-implant/

[–] [email protected] -3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I worked decades in the phone business. So, I kinda know how it works. Back in the day, we'd call this an invitation to a dick measurement. Not interested

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

That's very exciting for you I suppose, my dad works at Nintendo. People can claim whatever they want on the Internet. You'll have to forgive me for not being impressed by your unverifiable bona fides.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I thought I told you I wasn't interested

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Interested enough to respond apparently. It's cute that you think you have some authority here though.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 days ago

Well, I do have the authority to block someone who needlessly continues to bother me.