Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Battle Monkey of Zardoz on March 11, 2016, 08:23:17 PM

Title: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: Battle Monkey of Zardoz on March 11, 2016, 08:23:17 PM
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/obama-says-cannot-legal-case-apple-inc-223034884--finance.html

WTF. At least the real reason is getting some sunlight. Can't have encryption, we have to be able to catch terrorists........and enforce tax law.
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: dogmush on March 11, 2016, 08:56:49 PM
Quote from: Mr. Obama
"What mechanisms do we have available to even do simple things like tax enforcement because if in fact you can't crack that at all, government can't get in, then everybody is walking around with a Swiss bank account in their pocket."

So he understands the point, he just doesn't get it.
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 11, 2016, 09:16:51 PM
Quote
"The question we now have to ask is: If technologically it is possible to make an impenetrable device or system where the encryption is so strong that there is no key, there's no door at all, then how do we apprehend the child pornographer, how do we solve or disrupt a terrorist plot?" he said.
So how do they know they are a child pornographer or a terrorist if the only evidence is on their phone?  Makes me think they just want to be able to plant whatever evidence they need.
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 11, 2016, 09:19:02 PM
Quote
"My conclusion so far is you cannot take an absolutist view."
They claim they don't want an absolutist view while they take an absolutist view that there is no privacy. 
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: Hawkmoon on March 11, 2016, 09:40:21 PM
George Orwell only missed by a couple of decades.
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: brimic on March 11, 2016, 09:51:55 PM
Encryption makes it more difficult to subjugate the serf class. If communist usurper, obama, cared at all about this mythical 'rule of law,' several of his current and former cabinet members would be swinging for treason, an entire branch of federal 'law enforcement' (lol) would be disbanded with many of its former members facing firing squads or rotting in prison, and he himself, his entire party, and most of the opposition party would be investigated and imprisoned for political graft involving hundreds of billions of taxpayer wealth transfer. *expletive deleted*ck him, *expletive deleted*ck every last one of them *expletive deleted*s.
This kind of *expletive deleted*it makes me want to encrypt everything I do if only to give them all the  finger in my own little way.
Instead of fearing these aholes we need to challenge them- is arresting me or someone else for encryption (or any other of the picyunish bullshit laws for that matter) worth 1, 2, or 10 lives of their jackboot enforcers?  
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: RoadKingLarry on March 11, 2016, 10:02:51 PM
Need to start sending large enormous amounts petabytes of encrypted data every-*expletive deleted*ing-where.
Said encrypted data should include such dangerous documents like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and tens of thousands of nursery rhymes and naughty limericks.
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: Battle Monkey of Zardoz on March 11, 2016, 10:05:40 PM
Encryption makes it more difficult to subjugate the serf class. If communist usurper, obama, cared at all about this mythical 'rule of law,' several of his current and former cabinet members would be swinging for treason, an entire branch of federal 'law enforcement' (lol) would be disbanded with many of its former members facing firing squads or rotting in prison, and he himself, his entire party, and most of the opposition party would be investigated and imprisoned for political graft involving hundreds of billions of taxpayer wealth transfer. *expletive deleted*ck him, *expletive deleted*ck every last one of them *expletive deleted*s.
This kind of *expletive deleted*it makes me want to encrypt everything I do if only to give them all the  finger in my own little way.
Instead of fearing these aholes we need to challenge them- is arresting me or someone else for encryption (or any other of the picyunish bullshit laws for that matter) worth 1, 2, or 10 lives of their jackboot enforcers?  


^^this :old: :old:
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: freakazoid on March 11, 2016, 11:27:07 PM
I'm curious about what tax enforcement has to do with encryption?
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: French G. on March 11, 2016, 11:38:33 PM
I'm curious about what tax enforcement has to do with encryption?

I mow you lawn, you pay me lots of Bitcoin, I mow lots of other lawns for lots of bitcoins, i buy whatever I want with BC that never touches a bank. Meanwhile my day job goes in EFT to the bank, gets tax withheld. Ibrick of a phone offers no clue as to how I am living well, I play Sgt. Schultz.

I don't care for anarchists much, never had crypto-currency either, but then again I wasn't an AR-15 owning rabid gun nut either before 1994. And that bill alone made me impulse buy my first gun, other than the childhood .22 single shot, an AR-15.  Good job statists.
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: brimic on March 11, 2016, 11:54:36 PM
I mow you lawn, you pay me lots of Bitcoin, I mow lots of other lawns for lots of bitcoins, i buy whatever I want with BC that never touches a bank. Meanwhile my day job goes in EFT to the bank, gets tax withheld. Ibrick of a phone offers no clue as to how I am living well, I play Sgt. Schultz.



Or worse... some oxygen thieving agent of mordor with a stick up his ass comes for one if your kids because if unreported wages for the unauthorized child labor performed by them taking the initiative to be the neighborhood lawnmower.

The whole idea of making communications and transactions completely open to government interception and scrutiny not only completely fails the 'Jews in the attic test*', but should be setting off serious alarm bells to anyone who doesn't want to live in a totalitarian state.

*http://www.joehuffman.org/Freedom/JewsInTheAttic.htm
Quote
Will this law make it difficult or impossible to protect innocent life from a government intent on their imprisonment or death
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: RoadKingLarry on March 12, 2016, 12:08:24 AM
John has a long mustache.
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: Battle Monkey of Zardoz on March 12, 2016, 12:50:37 AM
John has a long mustache.


Is that code??
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 12, 2016, 01:20:19 AM
Is that code??


No, not at all. I don't know what you're talking about. We're just discussing personal grooming here.
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: freakazoid on March 12, 2016, 01:50:32 AM
Is that code??

(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fm.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2Fbc%2Fbcf5451c727a4eafef5c9ea8a94664551cc290183c7ed7fa766c5334f885bfc2.jpg&hash=695ab4ae415ca3418d045406c9456cd475569aa4)
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: Battle Monkey of Zardoz on March 12, 2016, 01:56:44 AM

No, not at all. I don't know what you're talking about. We're just discussing personal grooming here.

My bad. Carry on.  There is a fire at the insurance agency. [popcorn]
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: HeroHog on March 12, 2016, 09:03:22 AM
My hovercraft is full of eels.
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: RoadKingLarry on March 12, 2016, 09:25:38 AM
When in the course of human events...

Oh, wait...never mind....
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: 230RN on March 12, 2016, 11:48:35 AM
For those who are mystified, see the section on coded messages to the French Resistance during World War Two:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Londres#Coded_messages

within the full article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Londres

Terry, 230RN

Grandmama needs a new trebuchet.
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: MikeB on March 12, 2016, 06:40:09 PM
They can have my encryption when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

Well I guess that is probably true. I use the fingerprint thingie(technical term) on my iPhone.  :rofl:
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: Angel Eyes on March 12, 2016, 09:53:39 PM
Yankee . . . Hotel . . . Foxtrot . . .
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: HeroHog on March 12, 2016, 10:21:11 PM
My hovercraft is full of eels.

I am sad that no one picked up on that and translated or at least came back with the following line...  =(

https://youtu.be/G6D1YI-41ao

"My nipples explode with delight!"
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: freakazoid on March 12, 2016, 10:35:13 PM
I am sad that no one picked up on that and translated or at least came back with the following line...  =(

https://youtu.be/G6D1YI-41ao

"My nipples explode with delight!"


I've never seen that one! :rofl:
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: sanglant on March 13, 2016, 03:06:12 AM
They can have my encryption when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

Well I guess that is probably true. I use the fingerprint thingie(technical term) on my iPhone.  :rofl:
is it limited to ten attempts? >:D [popcorn]
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 13, 2016, 01:00:53 PM
Anti-encryption laws remind one of laws against body armor. "Citizen, you will not even attempt to protect yourself!" Why don't they just have us wear transparent smocks, and a ball and chain?
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: RocketMan on March 13, 2016, 01:03:38 PM
Anti-encryption laws remind one of the laws against body armor. Why don't they just have us wear transparent smocks, and a ball and chain?

I am sure that's part of their plan.  They just haven't reached it yet.
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: HeroHog on March 13, 2016, 07:09:56 PM
Quote from: MikeB on 12-03-2016, 17:40:09
They can have my encryption when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

Well I guess that is probably true. I use the fingerprint thingie(technical term) on my iPhone.

I do NOT. The courts have held that you may be compelled to use the fingerprint reader to unlock your phone WITHOUT a search warrant but if you use a PIN or Key code, they can't. You have been advised.
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: BlueStarLizzard on March 13, 2016, 07:28:06 PM
Anti-encryption laws remind one of laws against body armor. "Citizen, you will not even attempt to protect yourself!" Why don't they just have us wear transparent smocks, and a ball and chain?

Well, forcing everyone into transparent smocks would defiantly give the "healthy" food lobby a boost, since dieting would be on everyone's minds... Well, except the proud fatties, I guess.  [barf]
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: birdman on March 13, 2016, 09:05:30 PM
I do NOT. The courts have held that you may be compelled to use the fingerprint reader to unlock your phone WITHOUT a search warrant but if you use a PIN or Key code, they can't. You have been advised.

Just power it off.  PIN rather than finger is required on startup.
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: Hutch on March 15, 2016, 01:14:43 PM
Just power it off.  PIN rather than finger is required on startup.
Thanks, BM.  I was worried.

"Hutch, you are commanded to unlock your phone!"
"Okay, hand it here... Oops, did I do that?"
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: Ben on March 15, 2016, 02:29:40 PM
Thanks, BM.  I was worried.

"Hutch, you are commanded to unlock your phone!"
"Okay, hand it here... Oops, did I do that?"

My Samsung goes straight to fingerprint on startup. I only have to use the unlock password if it misreads my fingerprint 10 times.

Though the information regarding search legality is making me thing about switching back to a swipe pattern.
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: birdman on March 15, 2016, 04:53:13 PM
My Samsung goes straight to fingerprint on startup. I only have to use the unlock password if it misreads my fingerprint 10 times.

Though the information regarding search legality is making me thing about switching back to a swipe pattern.

Sorry.  I meant to clarify for iPhone.
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: KD5NRH on March 15, 2016, 05:10:25 PM
I do NOT. The courts have held that you may be compelled to use the fingerprint reader to unlock your phone WITHOUT a search warrant but if you use a PIN or Key code, they can't. You have been advised.

You just need a more secure phone.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Phone-Motorola-SCN2500A-Leather-Bag-Cellular-Great-Condition-Working-/121879659738?hash=item1c609804da

No way they're getting your midget porn out of that one.
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: HeroHog on March 15, 2016, 07:11:41 PM
Quote from: birdman on 13-03-2016, 19:05:30
Just power it off.  PIN rather than finger is required on startup.

The question is, will you have time or be given the chance to power it down and what if you are using it to record the cop? Now yer screwed.
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: HeroHog on March 15, 2016, 08:06:16 PM
http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2016/03/so-much-for-fingerprint-security-devices.html
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: rcnixon on March 15, 2016, 09:19:10 PM
Need to start sending large enormous amounts petabytes of encrypted data every-*expletive deleted*ing-where.
Said encrypted data should include such dangerous documents like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and tens of thousands of nursery rhymes and naughty limericks.

Get a freeware package called "truly random" and generate petabytes of random text.  It will look just like one-time pad traffic and ages and eons of computer time will be spent trying to decrypt it. It will be faster too, just one step. Along the way, generate yourself some one-time pads for actual use. It's slow but it is unbreakable if you follow the three rules*. The transmitted traffic will also look just like your random traffic too.

Russ

* 1. The key must be the same length as the message.
   2. The key must be kept secure.
   3. The key must never be re-used.
And, just like the other three rules, there is a fourth corollary:
   4. Use message padding and spell out numbers and punctuation.
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: zahc on March 16, 2016, 06:09:41 AM
I have a Perl program to generate pages of OTP, and others exist. Mine makes old-school paper pages with line-numbers for paper-and-pencil use, because I feel there is no practical way to achieve true security of computer systems, so encrypting by hand is the only way, then computer security can be ignored (go ahead, just post your message on twitter). It is relatively easy, in these calm times, to drop pages off with people you may wish to have secure communication with in the normal course of visiting them.

In Vinges "A Fire Upon the Deep", FTL physics has enabled hypercomputation, rendering asymmetric-key crypto obsolete. There is a guild of aliens that make their livelihood transporting OTP data blobs around the universe.

github.com/Fasrad/otpgen
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: 230RN on March 18, 2016, 07:56:34 AM
Anti-encryption laws remind one of laws against body armor. "Citizen Subject, you will not even attempt to protect yourself!" Why don't they just have us wear transparent smocks, and a ball and chain?

Moah bettah now.
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: HankB on March 18, 2016, 08:20:01 AM
I do NOT. The courts have held that you may be compelled to use the fingerprint reader to unlock your phone WITHOUT a search warrant but if you use a PIN or Key code, they can't. You have been advised.
If the phone can read one finger print, it can read more than one. Wouldn't it be possible to use, say, the index finger on your right hand to unlock the phone properly, and the index finger on your left hand to either wipe the phone or bring up some bogus data?  >:D
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: HeroHog on March 18, 2016, 10:39:12 AM
If the phone can read one finger print, it can read more than one. Wouldn't it be possible to use, say, the index finger on your right hand to unlock the phone properly, and the index finger on your left hand to either wipe the phone or bring up some bogus data?  >:D

Not unless you or someone figures out a way to program that. Fingerprint readers are notoriously easy to crack/defeat so I simply don't trust them.
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: Blakenzy on March 22, 2016, 05:22:06 PM
I see a large market for a company that puts out a phone with serious encryption as it's main selling point.
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: cordex on March 22, 2016, 06:38:46 PM
I see a large market for a company that puts out a phone with serious encryption as it's main selling point.
https://www.silentcircle.com/products-and-solutions/devices/
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: Ben on March 22, 2016, 06:47:12 PM
I see a large market for a company that puts out a phone with serious encryption as it's main selling point.

Ironically, I remember when one of Blackberry's largest markets was the US govt, with security being one of the main reasons.
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: brimic on March 22, 2016, 07:17:02 PM
Ironically, I remember when one of Blackberry's largest markets was the US govt, with security being one of the main reasons.

Funny how things change, even considering the idea that hillary had a lot of classified things moved illegally so she could access them with her iPad.  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: RevDisk on March 28, 2016, 10:54:33 AM
Get a freeware package called "truly random" and generate petabytes of random text.  It will look just like one-time pad traffic and ages and eons of computer time will be spent trying to decrypt it. It will be faster too, just one step. Along the way, generate yourself some one-time pads for actual use. It's slow but it is unbreakable if you follow the three rules*. The transmitted traffic will also look just like your random traffic too.

Russ

* 1. The key must be the same length as the message.
   2. The key must be kept secure.
   3. The key must never be re-used.
And, just like the other three rules, there is a fourth corollary:
   4. Use message padding and spell out numbers and punctuation.

Chaff (spurious random or pseudo random generated information) generally hasn't been embraced by the crypto community. Too much overhead, too easy to spot as fake. Also it leads to IT folks getting really annoyed and banning blocking said IPs generating high levels of noise. Sometimes NICs go bad and start spewing out random traffic, which is a pain as well.


Btw, this is not directed at you or in anger. Just a generalized thing that I'd like to let folks know. NEVER EVER EVER USE SOFTWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATORS. If it remotely feasible to not use a software RNG, obviously. On the scale of 1 to 10 in terms of bad ideas, it's a "invading during winter while publicly expressing the desire to destroy every vodka distillery in Russia".

Just as another interesting aside, the best source of random numbers is a laser and a single photon counter, that is a silicon PIN detector. The silicon avalanche photodiode (APD) is the cheaper cousin. Photomultiplier tubes (PMT, aka night vision) can work as well. Basically, it can give you a time stamp of when a photon hits the sensor. Toss out the leading bits, and you literally have quantum noise. Probably the absolute platinum standard for randomness. Previous was atmospheric noise. You can get continuous 100Mbps of quantum noise for under $5k. APD would probably be a gold.

And using a webcam's CCD noise as an entropy seed over it would be silver. Maybe 1 Mbps with consumer hardware. Good enough for routine purposes, but not nuclear weapon related security.

https://github.com/epitron/webcam-rng
http://journals.aps.org/prx/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevX.4.031056

Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: Scout26 on March 28, 2016, 04:15:48 PM
On the scale of 1 to 10 in terms of bad ideas, it's a "invading during winter while publicly expressing the desire to destroy every vodka distillery in Russia".


Challenge Accepted !!!!

 =D =D =D =D
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: KD5NRH on March 28, 2016, 04:45:33 PM
Btw, this is not directed at you or in anger. Just a generalized thing that I'd like to let folks know. NEVER EVER EVER USE SOFTWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATORS. If it remotely feasible to not use a software RNG, obviously. On the scale of 1 to 10 in terms of bad ideas, it's a "invading during winter while publicly expressing the desire to destroy every vodka distillery in Russia".

Oh picky picky picky.  Next you're going to tell me that the digits of pi aren't random enough.   :P
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: RevDisk on March 28, 2016, 04:52:57 PM
Oh picky picky picky.  Next you're going to tell me that the digits of pi aren't random enough.   :P

Technically, every short (maybe even long) random numeric sequence you could generate might be found somewhere in pi.  =D
Title: Re: Obama: We can't have encryption.
Post by: KD5NRH on March 28, 2016, 05:32:43 PM
Technically, every short (maybe even long) random numeric sequence you could generate might be found somewhere in pi.

So pi mod(e) should be plenty random for my new encryption system.  I'll tell the DoD to get ready for the transition.