What is Digg?116 Comments
- dssstrkl, on 07/10/2008, -4/+143I want total network encryption, especially since the government wants to spy on all my communications.
- daniel, on 07/10/2008, -1/+115Those who want total network encryption, raise your hands.
o/ - umbrellainabin, on 07/10/2008, -16/+76***** BUSH
***** THE RIAA
***** THE MPAA
***** THE IFPI
***** THE BFI
***** VIACOM
***** COMCAST
***** MEDIADEFENDER
***** AT&T
***** BREIN - shortkid422, on 07/10/2008, -1/+58At least they're trying.
- inactive, on 07/10/2008, -0/+46Total network encryption is only part of it. Realistically even though 40 bit encryption is considered weak and easily broken, if everyone on the planet used it, it would force those monitoring to pick and choose much more who they monitor. Move up to 256 bit symmetric and 4096 bit asymmetric and its nearly impossible short of a flaw in the algortihm itself.
The biggest problem I see however is the increased cpu load of processing all of this, along with longer setup times to establish the session. Even if you are using SSL3 with web, and keys are cached, it still has a considerable overhead vs clear text.
You will also find a cultural difference, in the US most people only want to encrypt specific bits of information, such as financial, medical, etc. They do not think that its better to encrypt all so you dont paint a big bullseye on the information that is private. They do not think that googling for a bankrupcy lawyer lets some know that you may be considering that. They do not think that searching for medical information on a specific condition might reveal that conditions existance to others. In Europe however I see a lot more pages at least offer the ability to encrypt all the time, if not require it.
End to end encryption can do a few things, which are properties of encryption itself generally.
Privacy - no one else can read the content, even if its just grannys blog
Authentication - know who you are talking to - phishing, malware, etc become harder
Integrity - know that no one modified the data in transit
Non-repudability - this is the hardest, but remove the ability for someone to claim they didnt do something
Encryption does not just stop those that want to abuse information about you, it stops those that may want to do more evil things. It does not just stop governments, it stops others who may be abusing that information (such as your ISP with a transparent proxy looking at what type of deviant porn you like). Comcast is one of the larger ISPs in the US that is known to use transparent proxies for collection of advertising data.
It will be a good thing when encryption is the default, and unencrypted pages are looked at with skepticism, when instant messages are considered private (AOL's AIM policy is they own what you say, and can use it in a variety of ways), when email encryption is more standard, when people decide they want privacy and do not want to voluntarily give it away to others (the technology is already there for all of this, people refuse to use it though).
Of course if the algorithms are the "standard" ones then as soon as quantum computers come out, all bets are off. ECC is believed to be immune from quantum computer attacks, but that may not be true in the future. - MrZee, on 07/10/2008, -3/+46They don't just want to, they are.
- 007Allmighty, on 07/10/2008, -5/+35Thieves or not, they still fight against government policys and laws. Thumbs up for them and their work!
- notwizt, on 07/10/2008, -0/+26Total network encryption is a win-win situation. Why? Because the only people that should read your and your recipients message is you and your recipient. It's as simple as that.
- 321george, on 07/10/2008, -3/+27Yarh long live TPB!
- makenshi, on 07/10/2008, -0/+23This is another good use for IPv6 since one of the fundamentals of the protocol is to support end-to-end encryption.at the network layer without having to set up tunnels or VPNs.
- MizuhoChan, on 07/10/2008, -1/+21o/
- SSUK, on 07/10/2008, -2/+19/o/
- inactive, on 07/10/2008, -1/+18I see encrypted websites and apps which run at full speed, so I request a short explanation of why it "greatly slows down".
- inactive, on 07/10/2008, -1/+16Performance issues.
- blackmesa, on 07/10/2008, -0/+15I think that as processor tech becomes cheaper and cheaper, we'll see network hardware (and dedicated chips on motherboards/NICs) that are there to handle encrypting/decrypting. Effectively, the CPU overhead issue will become a non-issue.
Honestly, I'm surprised we still transmit data in plaintext these days. The internet was formed with an implicit "honour code", and that was maintainable when everyone using it was a scientist/researcher. These days, that doesn't exist. Plus, I'd love to see the extensive wiretapping BS that several governments have introduced become completely redundant. - ElbertF, on 07/10/2008, -0/+15O_o/
- Andrwmorph, on 07/10/2008, -0/+12I sometimes wonder how many government lists I'm on
- Pixelante, on 07/10/2008, -5/+17My, you have a long list of funny people you want to have sex with. Are you feeling lonely?
- doldr, on 07/10/2008, -0/+10"Greatly slow down"? You do know that _one_ modern processor core can push way more than 30 MB/s data through a normal algorithm such as AES. On top of that most people now have multi-core CPUs or special hardware for encryption acceleration (like VIA processors with padlock).
- Andrwmorph, on 07/10/2008, -0/+10\o/
- mutz, on 07/10/2008, -1/+9Google are thieves too making profit on my searches...
- ssj2119, on 07/10/2008, -1/+9You forgot Rogers
- mijelh, on 07/10/2008, -0/+7I taught you were going to link a document with an exclusive about the EU having any kind of secret method or computer which is able to break into all cryptographic algorithms. However, the site you link to just points out that, in fact, there are many unbreakable cryptographic algorithms, and only mentions that DES was successfully decrypted on 1999, and recommends to use AES instead.
Therefore, I can not understand your statement that "They already can, regardless of your encryption method". It doesn't seem to be the case.
P.S: your link is broken, remember to put an space between the address and the bracket - Screwy1138, on 07/10/2008, -1/+8Doesn't matter if it's breakable or not (at least for music/video sharing). If you've encrypted your stream, and the RIAA breaks the encryption and comes after you, they can't use that as evidence, because they broke the DMCA by breaking your encryption.
- ebidk, on 07/10/2008, -0/+7\o/
- Andrwmorph, on 07/10/2008, -0/+6\o-(o_o)-o/
- mijelh, on 07/10/2008, -0/+6You can just integrate the encryption system into the network card, as they are already doing with wireless cards.
- Zaeth, on 07/10/2008, -0/+6o/
- futur4m4, on 07/10/2008, -0/+6You're buried as lame...
- liebot1, on 07/10/2008, -0/+6Sorry to nitpick, but ECHELON was around long before Clinton
- FLarsen, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5You have tumors on your arms?
- grimfandango, on 07/10/2008, -5/+10I suggested something similar to this a few weeks ago in a number of torrenty forums, and the trolls pooh-poohed it. F**kin idiots, all "I know about torrents and port forwarding" jocks without an ounce of technical ability or protocol understanding between them. Glad to the see the pirate bay taking the initiative, maybe it'll actually get done!
- arjie, on 07/10/2008, -1/+6I could say the same for people who don't read the article. That's assuming of course that you think http://digg.com/tech_news/Pirate_Bay_Wants_to_Encr ... is the original that this is a dupe for. This is commentary on that particular piece of news.
- pckbeta, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5You've been working out.
- inactive, on 07/10/2008, -1/+6If you think about it its only logical that it will slow things down. The difference between plaintext data traffic and encrypted data is the cpu operations to encrypt/decrypt. The plaintext data is otherwise the same, the network load is otherwise about the same (small padding may be applied depending on the cipher involved). But because the cpu is doing more to encrypt than it would otherwise that has to come from somewhere.
What this really means is that to handle the same users you have to add more servers. Servers cost money, not just to buy, but recurring costs in terms of rack space, electricity, cooling, and increased administration costs due to a larger number of boxes. It in essence makes it harder for the smaller operators that are not profitable enough to afford more equipment. - limerope, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5/o//
- maggotsan, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5o/
- YAOMTC, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5o/
- overridemymind, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5Um.. actually TPB isn't making any profits off their actual filesharing operations. The money they do make is from advertisements, just like most other websites -- even Digg makes profit from advertising. All TPB and other trackers are -- are P2P metadata search engines. They're like search engines for who's got a certain file.
Calling TPB "ordinary theives" would be like...
Say there's a man wearing a sandwich board advertising a local deli. The deli is paying the man to wear the sandwich board advertisement. Now say you ask him "Where's the cheapest place to get DVDs?" and he points you down the street to a DVD shop. The DVD shop happens to be bootlegging their DVDs, and thus, can distribute them cheaply. The man in the sandwich board is making money, but not from the actual theft of intellectual property.
TPB is merely a tracker that points the way to whoever's got a file that fits your search query. Yes, they're making their money because people are visiting their site -- but they're not actually doing the stealing. The "seeders" are. - Lunarbunny, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5OGC
Oh wait
o/ - doldr, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5Tor only offers encryption _within_ Tor not when entering or exiting. I'm not saying that's Tors fault but lots of people think that just because it's anonymous it's also secure. A good example of this is the guys who directed their unencrypted e-mail connections through Tor and got properly owned by Tor edge-routers sniffing their credentials.
- aenima987, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4o/
- BanditDee, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4
o/ - glenSM, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4Long Live The Bay!!!
YARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR - anachronaut, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4Their servers are probably built with severed body parts from all the innocent children they've murdered, too.
That IS where you were going with that line of thought, right? - doldr, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4I agree that it's trivial to spot encrypted traffic. I don't agree however that it makes you very vulnerable to ISP throttling. This simple because way to much traffic is already encrypted and straight off punishing all those streams would cause the ISP too much problems (angry customers).
For my part pretty much everything significant (in volume and content) is already encrypted and my ISP sure doesn't care. - SevasTraSi, on 07/10/2008, -2/+6sieg heil?
seriously do any of you know how much this looks like a white power asci march
o/ o/ o/ o/ o/ - astra05, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3When I dug this, the number was 443, like https encryption.
- arjie, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3While I agree, in this case it actually makes sense. The question is rhetorical, and it means that the article is going to take the view that the literal answer to "Who Else?" is "No one."
-
Show 51 - 100 of 116 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is