[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

NSA says Joe Sixpack won't buy crypto



[email protected]:

>- By the middle to late 1960's cryptanalysis became less cost effective
>  than obtaining the information by other means -- wiretaps and so on.

but for some reason, the NSA keeps humming along...? perhaps 
confirming the rule that bureacracies, like bores at parties,
persist long after they are relevant?

>In the future there will be more radio used for ordinary communications.
>Americans are unwilling to pay for secure telephones, but that's not the
>case in Europe.

I object to this highly. the NSA has very little credible understanding
of market forces, IMHO. they are a government agency. they do not
understand marketing or human psychology. Clipper, the closest the
agency has come to creeping out of the darkness of their coffin,
was a total fiasco. the self-destructing director of NSA whats-his-name
who as running for that FBI position or whatever is another example of how 
the inbred spook society has difficulty dealing with anything outside
their artificial reality.

as for the market viability of cryptographic phones, I think this
is duplicity ranging on utter lying that "the US public is not 
willing to pay for secure phones". this is precisely the baseless
rumor and conventional wisdom one would expect the NSA attempt to
spread and use to surreptitiously manipulate the natural market direction.
every phone company would avoid even introducing a phone model
because "after all the public is not willing to pay for encryption".
sure, maybe they won't pay for the very finest encryption money
can buy, but they can get some pretty awesome bang for minor bucks
when it comes to crypto.

the fact is, cryptography is becoming EXTREMELY CHEAP. virtually
all phones are going to have some high power microprocessor inside
that could be used to do semi-decent secure encryption, far better
than *nothing*, the current status quo-- *for free*, virtually, because
the phone is already going to have some serious horsepower. the whole
issue of "signal transformation" is very intrinsic to the existing
phone circuitry anyway.

extremely secure encryption (i.e. that the NSA is not likely to
break at all) is another issue, but again chips are becoming
awfully cheap.

so I say anyone spreading a rumor that "american public doesn't
want encryption or is not willing to pay for it" (esp. in 
cell phones or whatever) is either:

1. intentionally lying
2. rather clueless
3. making an unwarranted and undemonstrated assumption
4. possibly has an axe to grind-- i.e. axeing widespread public
encryption

furthermore, the idea that someone from NSA would say something
like "the U.S. public doesn't want so-and-so" encryption I find
highly repulsive. the NSA's business is based on SUPPRESSING ENCRYPTION.
it would be hard to find a more biased and less credible opinion
anywhere. the NSA has done the very best job of sabotaging the 
natural growth of cyberspace by having its slithering tentacles
lodged into key areas of influence within our government, while
at the same time pretending that  it is actually working in our
own best interest.

--

frankly, I think any anti-encryption sentiment is inherently
unpatriotic. you see, there is far more to be gained from widespread
encryption than is to be lost from it. the NSA in their anal
retentive, freedom-pissing mode will never understand this, or
never apprise the situation unbiasedly, but it appears to me
to be fairly unequivocal that there are tremendous benefits
from the availability of widespread, seamless, invisible 
encryption.

if the NSA released one public report that analyzed the actual
cost benefit ratio to *society* of free encryption, that is the
day I will scrape a smidgeon of respect for this vile, odious,
noxious excuse for a publicly funded institution. but the NSA
will never do this, because 

(1) the NSA can barely stand to address the congress honestly
and openly, and virtually never does even this, and so the
idea of justifying its existence to the actual public that
pays for its spook toys is beyond distasteful to the agency,
it would be sacrilegious!!

(2) they are incapable of an 
unbiased opinion on the issue, in fact they are probably not
even capable of any opinion that is not duplicitous and inherently
self-serving beneath a surface sugar-coating of actual legitimacy, 

(3) they don't want to admit that
their main motive, their raison d'etre, has absolutely nothing to 
do with maximizing overall public welfare-- it has to do with maximizing 
their own budget and maximizing intelligence available to their
omnipresent tentacles.

but thanks, JG, for a look into the dark, squirmy, teeming recesses of 
some perverted spook's mind. I would thoroughly enjoy any other choice
morsels you have to offer about the lies that spooks tell each other to
justify their existence. and the ones that they actually believe are by
far the most entertaining! <g>

--Vlad Nuri