Breaking the NSA

[Tony.Gurnick@nzdairy.co.nz (DNA)]

Frenchie wrote

>Tony.Gurnick@nzdairy.co.nz wrote:
>
>>Frenchie Wrote
>>
>>    Not that easy. They would just crack the code and *another*
>>    acronym based agency would come up with a different reason to
>>    seize you and your computer. It would seem unrelated to anyone
>>    but *you* since you would know what you did but would have no
>>    way to prove that your original infraction is why you are doin'
>>    time.  Hope that makes some sense.
>>
>>Maybe.  What if the only way to do this was illegal?
>
>    Then you would have to hope you never do anything illegal. Then
>    no (pick your acronym) agency would be able to easily trump up
>    a charge that could be used as an infiltration technique to get
>    to your system *legally*. If they want to bad enuff I'm sure
>    breaking the law to catch you doing something would be arranged.
>    Violating National Interests maybe?
>

Um, you would still know pgp/rsa/idea has been broken???

>>    If it isn't something *really good* they probably wouldn't come after
>>    you anyway.
>
>>Whats the definition of GOOD?
>
>    PGP?...3xDES?....RC5?....plans for an A-Bomb with instructions for
>    construction and location of available nuclear material?...pick one.

Yeah Thats pretty good

>>    #3 I can agree with. I don't think that NSA would tip their hand
>>    and let on to us that they can read our stuff. At least, not directly.
>
>>We may as well find out.
>
>    Agreed, the problem is finding a way to be sure! A little
>    misinformation has a habit of going a long way.

 Huh?

>>    One more thing. Don't you think that they subscribe to the Cypherpunk
>>    list just to see this kind of logic?
>
>>Maybe, But isnt freedom of speech what this list is about and what your
>>constitution does!
>
>
>       Be careful...not everyone here is a U.S. resident or citizen.
>        At least I don't think so.
>        But since I am I know how precariously balanced the definition
>        of free specch is. The Supreme Court in cahoots with law
>        enforcement and lawmakers could change things pretty quick!
>        Throw in a handy list of names......u know the rest.

 Well Im not one (a us cit i mean), but another way of putting what I said is

 Its like some private company invents a cipher

 and you break it


 And they get pissed at you for doing it.

 But you did them a favour really cause someone more unscrupulous than you wouldnt
 have told them.

 So the NSA should be glad, and encourage us to speak like this and I think we should
 continue along this track!

 Unless of course they wish to comment....?

>   BTW....I ain't one of 'em, and I wouldn't tell if I was.   :)
>>Prove it
>[I see my smiley was disregarded]

Sorry, I forgot my smile, I was quite busy yesterday and thought I could get a quick
reply in.  I bolloxed that up!  Heres two  ))

>Proof you say!
>A classical dilemma:
>        If I say I am (one of them) it implies gathering
>        intelligence or a reason to sow suspicion even if I am not.
>        Denial implies I am what I say I am not.
>        So, even though I am not, it would be impossible to *convince*
>        you of that. If I was I still couldn't produce *believable*
>        evidence to support the statement.
>        Take my advice: Don't Trust Nobody.

Thats a good one

>Is there a reason *you* don't sign your messages? Hehehe.... :)

Cause I forgot...busy...chicken!

		T