Identifying the problem is a good first step, but what can we do about it?
I think we can't solve these problems within the current political and economical and system. We have to found a new radical political movement.
A lot of the problems we face: the crisis of representational democracy, populism, unemployment, xenophobia, the surveillance state, terrorism, ... cannot be solved individually, but I believe must be fixed simultaneously.
We got to get over the fear of the last 40 years against dreaming up Utopias. We should look at the past, at western democracy, socialism, meritocracy, communism, and see what worked and what didn't, and come up with an alternative. It will be as big a break as hundreds of years ago when people came up with the idea of a republic in absolutist times.
And here's why I believe the movement will grow: we can make the same promises Trump made, about prosperity, keeping one's identity, leading a meaningful life again... But as opposed to him, we can actually fulfill these promises.
And then we become really powerful, create parallel structures, and question the power of governments head on. It worked several times in history.
I'm intentionally leaving the deals vague, since I can't speak for everybody. But I believe core values will be tolerance, individual rights, decentralism, and openness to learn from mistakes and change.
I know it sounds crazy, but I think we won't get more freedom without a major rewrite or at least refactoring of society...
Man on internet claims that his statements are totally more trustworthy than man on TV.
I'm not disagreeing with you per se - but "fuzzy on the details but this will totally work I promise" is not exactly a radical new line of thought
"tolerance, individual rights, decentralism, and openness" sounds nice, but are not enough alone to bring food on the table, keep the lights on and the warm water running, which is something most people want to be sure of, before they join your revolution ...
Otherwise I am with you on the dreaming part about how a new society could look like. But I think this is something which needs to be much more concrete, before you can start to think about "revolution", unless you want something like a October Revolution, but then count me out ...
This is only a crisis if you're the loser, though, which seems a bit like sour grapes.
Of course Obama was going to cause a backlash, just like Bush did and Trump will. But, we have gotten to the point where 'power' and 'the will of the people' have got little to do with each other. And that's not a stable path long term.
EX: We don't talk about it, but several million Americans don't get representation in the house or senate. Sure, that's the way the system is built, but frankly that's not a good enough reason on it's own.
If you want to start movements in individual states changing the first past the post system, I think that's a logical first step. Colorado recently changed their primary system to be more open, so we will see what that impact has on their elections soon. But what I see is people wanting to throw out the entire system and start over, which is the rhetoric that got Trump elected in the first place.
I assume by 'several million Americans' you're talking about the territories and Washington DC. The territories consistently vote to keep themselves territories, so they choose to remain "unrepresented" in Congress. I don't think letting DC have a vote in Congress will help diminish the 'power' and 'will of the people' problem you are concerned about.
If you look at the history of US presidential elections the map used to be a lot more fluid. Compare say 1972 with 1964: http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/ And compare that with the string from 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016.
That recent trend is not by accident. Both party's have carefully crafted their message to maximize their chances of winning. But, that divide is all about minimizing the power of choice which is inherently corrosive.
I think the change you should be advocating for is not throwing out the entire electoral college system, rather you should be advocating for small changes over time the system. Small changes might be easier to get through and I think immediate and severe reactions end up being worse than small changes (see the PATRIOT Act among others for examples of immediate action with huge unintended consequences). Citizen ballot initiatives could certainly start changing how delegates are selected, but you don't see (m)any Democrats calling for that in a state like California because it would hurt them overall, just like it would hurt Republicans in Kansas.
As a side note, I would be curious when states started passing laws binding delegates and how that relates to the outcome over time given by your map. I wonder if there is any correlation.
And it will likely continue to be ignored until the following happen:
1. Abolish gerrymandering in favor of a strictly algorithmic approach to redistricting that cannot take into account voting data from prior elections or current party affiliations.
2. Abolish first-past-the-post, winner-take-all voting, probably using approval voting and some means of apportioning representation that is proportional to approvals.
3. Alter ballot access laws such that no party gets preferential treatment, and the burden is low enough overall that those people wishing to participate in politics are able to do so without quitting their day jobs.
That's why I said the push shouldn't be to burn down the whole system, it should be minor changes that both major parties can agree to implement. You can't shoot for the moon if you can't even get a launch pad.
Therefore, the likely course of action is clear. Such reforms will never be implemented, and I will essentially be permanently disenfranchised.
I can react to this inevitability with outraged dismay, or with grim resignation. I know what would make me happy, and that it makes sense, and also that it will simply not happen, because this representative democracy is a sham. I can try to ruin things for everyone else because it isn't fair, or I can accept them as they are and take my pathetic, lopsided share of that 2%-4%.
I'll take the latter.
If, however, the status quo implodes on its own, or explodes because someone got rid of it, I'd be all too happy to try to push the new thing that replaces it towards a better direction.
If eliminating the existing system is the goal, the way it is achieved is (as has been the case for many changes which aren't supported initially by the major parties) to first move it by, and in States which have, citizen initiative processes which supercede the preferences of elected partisan politicians.
Approval plus proportional is a bizarre concept; approval, to the extent it makes any sense for public elections (and there are serious problems with it for that purpose) makes sense really only for inherently single-winner elections.
For proportional systems with large bodies elected together, proportionality to first-party votes is probably the most sensible; for bodies small enough that doing that has significant wastage due to the threshold necessary to get one seat, something like STV (possibly modified to drop loser elimination) makes more sense than approval.
(A proportional, STV-like generalization of approval with a form of winner elimination might make sense, but seems intuitively worse than STV itself, even if approval ballots had consistent meanings.)
It seems obvious to me that any voting system that involves ranking would tend to discourage more open ballot access, as people are more likely to honestly and accurately rank 2 or 3 people than they are to rank 10. If it can handle proportionality almost as well as single transferable vote, without additional complexity to the voter, it may actually be better fro ma practical standpoint.
While there are some good arguments for allowing ties in ranked ballots (unforced vs. forced preference), I think there are pretty big problems with forcing tied rankings.
> If it can handle proportionality almost as well as single transferable vote
I don't think it can, but because there is no clear mapping between actual preferences (or preferences that would be provided on an unforced preference ballot) and approval ballot (or any other limited-rank-preference ballot) markings, that's a hard empirical question that's not really analytically addressable.
correct you are. our problems are too intertwined with the current political system to be solved by them. without exception.
there's no point in waiting for the perfect moment, because it won't ever come. our best bet is to make use of the utter chaos the current administration is causing as an excuse for destroying our moribund institutions and remolding them into something fresh and more useful.
Psilocybe spp are legal nowhere in the US.
Darknet markets have made all drugs available everywhere.
Just sayin'.
But I haven't seen news about mass arrests of buyers after Silk Road got pwned. Not in the US, anyway. I mean, could the courts handle the volume?
I'm a hopeless cynic, but I always find a bit of reluctant optimism about the present after reading a bit of history. Especially the dirtier sides of American history, politics, business, social norms, discrimination, etc. When I do, I can't help but conclude we Americans are living in the best version of America that has ever existed, to date, even with all the shit in front of us. And possibly even one of the least divisive and polarized versions of it as well, even though the popular consensus is just the opposite.
Basically, the system actually seems to kind of... sort of... work. No thanks on the revolution.
But your second sentence isn't accurate. The US is almost unique in the degree to which discussing the violent overthrow of the American government is not only tolerated, but held sacred by many people. From right wing talk radio to the Tea Party to Republican political ads during the Obama administration to NRA rallies, intimating the need for revolution and "Second Amendment solutions" is common enough that it may be the oldest meme in American culture.
Of course, there is a line beyond which it becomes conspiracy to commit murder, and then it becomes illegal, which is to be expected as every state assumes its own legitimacy. But the chilling effect you seem to be trying to suggest doesn't really exist as far as I can tell.
Oh jeez what a travesty - the people getting what they want rather than a focus on "everyone but us first"!
> xenophobia, the surveillance state, terrorism, ...
Yes a reasonable fear of mass immigration from places that don't vet their refugees well enough isn't a legitimate concern and should be mixed in with an actual fear like the surveillance state.
> last 40 years against dreaming up Utopias
Venezuela is doing pretty good with their attempt at a utopia.
> But I believe core values will be tolerance, > individual right
Choose one.
Sorry bud, I don't mean to be rough. But I'd love to see the world through your rose colored glasses.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
But nevertheless, after the reset, things often get better for a while--if you survived, that is--before they get worse again.
So you can either screw yourself up to do some bloody murder against those whom you believe to really deserve it, and make a real change, for better or worse (usually worse), or you can parade around making some fake change that lets you feel better about yourselves, but probably won't do any real damage, such as a devastating nuclear winter, or another miserable dark age of terror, brutality, serfdom, and slavery. You can pick out your targets now, and wait for the right time to pull the trigger. Or you can make signs and sing Kum-Bai-Yah. But maybe there's another option, that has never been tried before.
The usual problem is that the masters of the universe have no incentives whatsoever to change their own behavior or give up their own power. But there is a magical, mythical substance in the Illuminatus! trilogy called AUM. This was described as a drug that permanently changed someone from a neophobe into a neophile. It changed minds with one dose. So perhaps, like so many sci-fi speculations later found to have landed near the marks discovered by future science, a cocktail of known hallucinogens and entheogens might be employed to bestow an artificial chemical sense of compassion and empathy upon those who lack one of their own.
In short, black-bag some elites, and shoot them up with a witches brew of MDMA, LSD, DXM, Datura, nicotine, cannabis, salvinorin-A, high fructose corn syrup, fluoride, chemtrail distillate, et cetera (Poe's Law disclosure: the latter three were satire), and see if that can cure them of being selfish assholes. You flip the enemy to your side, and you gain power without killing anyone--or at least without producing dead bodies, as forcibly making permanent changes to someone's brain against their will could be construed as psychological murder.
It's the same problem as eradicating any parasite. If you kill 99% of them, that just leaves the niche open for that remaining 1% to repopulate. So you capture some, sterilize them, and release them back into the wild. Those continue to compete among their own kind, and then die off without progeny, which crashes the whole population enough that it can now be controlled by other means. Just as the parasites subvert others to work for them, you subvert the self-interest of the parasites so that they destroy themselves.
1990 would also count as the biggest revolution in our lifetime (assuming there are few WW2 vets on HN). Plus China has changed drastically, without bloody revolutions, and that whole EU thing. Mandela. Gandhi. Venzuela, Turkey, Brexit (for the worse). Iran, Cuba (for the better).
Democracy is a fast-path civil war: "yeah, I guess we could go actually shooting each other but let's just count who has more men and move on".
So have yourself a revolution. Or don't. Or rearrange the deck chairs and rename the ship. Do any of those things, but you're still caught up in the shared delusions of tribalism writ large.
Vonnegut said it best: "To find the substance of a granfalloon, just prick the skin of a toy balloon."
Every four to eight years, there is a great heaving shift in what people think they are supposed to be, with little to no fundamental basis in reality. Real wages have been stagnant in the US since the 1970s. Technology is better. Environmental catastrophe looms taller. Younger people agitate, and older people dissipate. Charlatans and con men ply their trade on the unsuspecting. Those who wish to eat must work, even if the work is gratuitous and unnecessary.
What really changes for that middle 80% of Earth's population? They gain freedom of speech? No one is listening. Freedom to own property? They can't afford to buy it. Freedom to cross borders? The available work-for-hire can move away faster than you can chase it. All the while, people like Putin and Trump wield the power to reduce all those people to radioactive dust without care, while meting out lesser (still deadly) consequences at whim, with even less possibility for remorse. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The tsar becomes the party leader. The shah becomes the ayatollah. The king becomes the president. Mr. Machiavelli sidles up, whispers into their ears, and the pigs move in to the farmer's house.
You may very well be right, but it's too soon to make that judgement rationally unless you want to call it a forecast.
Also, I'd add the Velvet Revolution to your list.
No, it'll give them a bad trip and they will hang you by your own guts. This (and more) had already been tried fifty years ago, read about project MKULtra and the book "Acid Dreams".
I am specifically suggesting a cure for antisocial personality disorder. Hallucinogens have been successfully used clinically to treat addiction and other self-destructive behaviors. Anecdotal reports from recreational drug users sometimes include sensations of being connected to everything else on the planet, and coming down with a profound and newfound respect for life. MDMA reportedly enhances natural empathy.
Currently, the only proven, permanent cure for sociopathy is to put a bullet in the sociopath's head and then cremate the body.
While that is effective, it is morally abhorrent to go around murdering people for having a brain defect. And most mind-altering drugs are barred from serious research into peaceful clinical applications, due to being scheduled substances. There may be a banned substance, or some combination of banned substances, that could form the basis of a treatment or cure for antisocial personalities, and particularly for the narcissistic sociopaths.
Alternately, a pacemaker-like device implanted into the brain might work, but that seems dangerous and expensive.
If no cure can be found, and no cure is possible, the logical thing to do would then be to devise an objective test, targeting 0% false positives, to identify sociopaths, and exile them away from all normal humans. Or murder them. But only a sociopath would be able to implement such a solution, so you might see the problem there.
There were many, from "truth serum" against captured enemy spies through mind control over the US population (they considered adding psychedelics to tap water) up to "pacification" of Soviet leaders in the exact way you described.
> Hallucinogens have been successfully used clinically to treat addiction and other self-destructive behaviors. Anecdotal reports from recreational drug users sometimes include sensations of being connected to everything else on the planet, and coming down with a profound and newfound respect for life. MDMA reportedly enhances natural empathy.
It only worked that way for people who already wanted it to work for them that way.
MK-Ultra wanted to make normal people more biddable by the US government. That's a far cry from attempting to cure the apparent combination of antisocial personality disorder and narcissism that seems prevalent in the behaviors of many of the worst heads of state (and other, less-privileged government officials) known to history.
We know it's possible, because the majority of humans manage to grow a sense of empathy attached to their limbic system that actually makes them feel bad when they hurt other people and feel good when they make other people happy. The human brain naturally develops this capacity when exposed to the correct combination of chemicals and stimuli. So I have to believe that a cure is possible, because otherwise we have no business letting those monsters anywhere near our livelihoods, our relationships, or our institutions. They are currently physiologically incapable of caring whether the rest of us live or die, feel fear or joy, love or hate. They might as well be randomized time bombs strapped to stray cats. If you let them go, you have no idea where or when they will go off.
I believe that a significant fraction of the world's ultra-rich elites are either naturally narcissistic sociopaths, or have conditioned themselves to numb their sense of empathy and their humility. If the dangerous ones can be cured, they don't all have to be indiscriminately thrown under the guillotine next time. Because that often just allows the reserve corps of narcissistic sociopaths, formerly kept in check by the previous top predators, to assume power.
I want to believe in a cure. If I couldn't believe in that, I would have to support committing crimes against people whom I cannot be certain are truly antisocial personalities--in the name of the "greater good", of course--and that would mean that I would be one of the monsters unfit to participate in civilized, cooperative society. I'd have to wonder whether I genuinely wanted to help other people, or whether I was just removing the competition for their future exploitation.
Also, you are taking it as a given that the problem is that a lot of high ranking power positions are taken by people with sociopathic and/or narcissist personality disorders. I'm with you on that btw, no need to convince me, but I'm not sure if it's a generally agreed upon fact :)
Also also, AUM worked not just with one dose but also a (near?) 100% success rate. But that was in a work of fiction, specifically, one with the premise of "what if ALL conspiracy theories ever, were true, simultaneously?". It's one of my favourite books for sure, contains a lot of real wisdom as well, but more in a philosophical sense than practical. There's no way even a perfectly researched cocktail of hallucinogenics, MDMA, other drugs and I dunno what else, would attain a practical permanent success rate past 10% even.
In a philosophical sense, AUM is not an actual chemical cocktail. It is the basis for a viewpoint wherein a past enemy may become a future friend, and the normal human fear of the unknown is the barrier between them.
So you recite to yourself the Litany Against Fear from Dune and offer to your enemy the opportunity to become less alien to each other. A dose of real-life AUM takes decades, or even generations, to administer.
This is why most wars are preceded by a psychological campaign to dehumanize and alienate the designated enemy.
Emphatically, yes. They're the ones challenging the NSA in court.
Does it solve every problem? Of course not. Is it part of the solution? As long as the judicial branch continues to function correctly overall, yes. Hell yes.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
>Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
You say this as though there were a known solution to the problem.
You may as well say "what about the heat death of the universe?" Quid de morte ad universum calorem, if you prefer ;)
>You say this as though there were a known solution to the problem.
The opposite, actually.
I'll say it again: you could have argued "what about the heat death of the universe" and it would have been just as substantive a contribution...
Yeah. Suing the NSA is not going to solve this problem, which was my original point.
Good. It's probably better that a young curmudgeonly asshole like myself that has zero respect for unquestioned authority go through the years long process of bringing a clear case of 4th and 5th amendment violations through to the supreme court.
I personally would rather rot in jail in contempt if it meant that these questions of personal property, privacy and self-incrimination were discussed and settled legally. It's a question of civic duty at that point.
> ... Once the amount of risk is determined, consider cost, time, and effort of implementing OPSEC countermeasures to mitigate risk. Factors to consider include:
> (1) The benefit and the effect of the countermeasure on reducing risk to the mission.
> (2) The cost of the proposed countermeasure compared with the cost associated with the impact if the adversary exploited the vulnerability.
> (3) The possibility that the countermeasure could create an OPSEC indicator.
DoD OPSEC manual at pp 13-14
https://www.opsecprofessionals.org/official/081103_DOD_OPSEC...
Signal was intercepted:
http://heavy.com/tech/2017/03/wikileaks-vault-7-cia-bypasses...
My favorite most depressing take on this by Peter Gutmann - "Crypto won't save you either"
Also, they would have to actively target your phone for surveillance. I'm much more concerned about the passive interception aspect, and I don't for a second believe that I'm preventing myself from being surveilled.
The fact that they should have to go out of their way to break the 4th amendment is important to me.
The "Signal" was not broken & the encryption worked, the part that didn't was when the encryption was removed and the user presented with plain text.
I've setup family members and closest friends with a Raspberry Pi or in a couple cases cheap Intel Atom machines, that I can configure with Ansible.
I run a minimalist "Facebook clone" UI with photo gallery on each box. From their phones or laptop people drop files into a bucket, mostly just photos, and it's SyncThinged over to all nodes. When on local wifi, we can browse each others content.
It wasn't too difficult as we're a DIY group. Not at all interested in feeling like we're friends with the world or even just our former high school classmates.
I have no problem with notions that our government and laws should require our society fair and protective of everyone. That sort of thing. But giving it all up for private interests to enrich themselves, while life generally gets more expensive for the rest of us is bullshit.
Undermining this thing is do-able, in a simple to manage way these days thanks, once again, to open-source and commodity computing.
1. Integrate privacy into your work. Educate your coworkers about the issue, refuse to implement anything that has a negative impact on privacy.
2. Stop patronizing companies that help the government spy.
3. As you said, donate to non-profits that fight against spying.
4. Contribute to open source projects that protect privacy.
RMS was and is right: either the user controls the program or the program controls the user.
When you fix a bug, contribute it back. When you write a program, make it (l)gplv3.
Although I understand your sentiment here on philosophic grounds, it would be far more practical to run Chrome, because the likelihood of NSA hoarding effective chrome 0days is much smaller than hoarding FF 0days.
Ideological purity is nice, but practical defense against the enemies of your ideology is better.
And you're far more resistant to watering-hole attacks than you are with FF.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome#User_tracking
> I can't imagine this threat model being too bothersome
Your entire browsing history reveals too much about you making your profile unique. Then any connection to your other data reveals your real name.
Based on what rational? I think the strongest influence on 0-days is market share. Hence why switching to gnu+linux alone isn't enough (but it's the right start). According to http://www.netmarketshare.com/ Chrome is now almost 60% of marketshare, and lets not forget how many people are using chrome on android devices.
I find your claim to not stand up to scrutiny.
Regardless, this is the mentality that has gotten us into the situation we are in anyway. It's like a technological variation of the ends justifies the means. No, I disagree and I find it to be a fundamental problem with the way many do their computing in the modern world.
While we do have Chromium, it has still had privacy issues, and Google has shown themselves untrustworthy when it comes to data sharing with the world. They had every opportunity to give us a GPL phone with linux on it, and instead we got a half-proprietary, non-rooted series of backdoored android phones. Relying on Google is not the way to go for those who care about privacy and security, as they have repeatedly violated their original motto of "don't be evil".
If we really wanted to base the discussion on data though, I would like to see numbers on fixed remote exploit bugs in both to see who is actively fighting this better. I also feel like once firefox has a 64-bit rust based render engine they will suddenly regain a lot of market share.
The security model of Chrome lends itself to far fewer serious vulnerabilities than in FF.
I do agree with you that rewriting the entire browser in a safe language like Rust would be a significant shift in the security situation.
Why not Qubes OS?
So what do we do? Complain?
Find out how to file a lawsuit, and then do so for LUDICROUS amounts of money. Make the National Debt look small (say 250 trillion might get everyone's attention.) And as it turns out, since Wikimedia is now in the clear to sue the NSA over this stuff thanks to a federal appeals court, you can walk right in on their heels and do the same. [1]
The ludicrous amount of money will suddenly wake everyone up, because everyone's going to catch wind of it via the news. You simply don't miss a lawsuit this large.
[1]: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/wikimedia-v-nsa-4th-cir-...
Why Johnny Why Johnny Still, Still can't encypt [2015] https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.08555
Then discuss and work towards some action. Protests, fight corruption. Don't sit behind your computer, meet, mingle and execute on something.
Apparent Solution: a secret, untraceable and unaccountable murder network that keeps killing people until only the anarchists and killers are left. Oh, and the most effective killers become the de facto power brokers of the new world order.
... something something liberty?
Find a way to make other people care.
That's right Orwell's bitches, you can't do nuffin.
Except there is one way, the only way, but you're not going to like it, the same way Chemo is an indiscriminant carpet bomb that kills cancer and healthy cells.
Cryptopocalypse.
The End of All Crypto.
No more crypto, no more NSA. It's that simple.
NSA has 1 Achilles Heel, the most lop sided asymmetriccadvantage. They need crypto a helluva lot more thanyou or I do.
Without RSA and AES, how could NSA mass infect millions of Grandmother's PCs, every UK hospital, everyone in Fiji, kids playing Warcraft, every Yahoo webcam user, every SIM card manufacturer, every Certificate Authority, every VPN provider, every cell phone in Abottabad for a decade, etc etc etc?
They couldn't! Because how would they exfiltrate all your lolcats, Pepes and dick pics back to Bluffdale via TACLANE and technically impressive covert implant radio channels and radar retroreflectors?
Exactly. NSA only fears one thing more than losing their Secret Laws, Secret Courts and implicit GODMODE.
They fear the whole world being able to steal their own stolen data, they fear being thrown outside naked naked in a blizzard surrounded by wolves.
Now you may be an Innumerate who believes cryptography is magic and that unless you're the next Turing or von Neumann that you don't stand a chance.
dana_carvey_wrong.gif
NSA is weak as fuck. Tottering on the high wire. Their entire existence could cease in a snap of the fingers.
There are only about 5 cryptographic primitives that prop up this wretched corrupt regime of Valligarchs, Monopolists and CORE SECRETS moles who are the legs of NSA's evil system.
Very few professional mathematicians write about this, because the ones who could, are themselves employed by the same NSA system. Never expect a man to understand a thing when his job depends on not understanding.
The moment the Discrete Logarithm Problem is cracked, everyone at NSA is dead, or unemployed like Whip & Buggy makers.
Cracking DLP is mathematically equivalent to factoring arbitrary integers. No, bigger RSA key's won't save you. Once DLP is solved, you can factor any number bigger and bigger into P and Q. DLP will be the end of RSA.
But wait, it gets worse. DLP will also be the death of AES and any ciphers based on S-Boxes.
When you can factor any composite integer, well guess what, you can also factor any polynomial.
I won't tell you more about that one, because I would prefer you don't believe me so that someday when I show you how, I can watch you cry after you realize how dumb you were for believing in BS.
Hash functions won't be spared either. SHA2 is one big ass S-Box. It will fall too.
Cryptopocalypse is coming. There won't be anyway to fix it. NSA's handful of decades old peimitives will be smashed and scattered to the wind. You have to understand this will be final like Judgement Day.
"Someone will invent a new cipher and put NSA's Humpty Dumpty back together again."
Not when the proof that cracks DLP also proves that One Way Functions do not exist. Nowhere. NTRU and multilinear ciphers that are not yet ready for prime time will be dead on arrival.
Remember what I said about how far arbitrary factoring goes? Multilinear is not any safer.
If I ran NSA Cryptologic Exec, right now today I would be dismantling the whole spy machine. Pulling the plug on daya centers. Scuttling 100's of programs.
Because if NSA doesn't cry Uncle, say they're sorry, and roll back their Orwellian Dystopian Nightmare, when that glad Day of Cryptopocalypse arrives, so much of NSA's dirt will be plaintext and the whole world will see the truth with their own eyes.
Enraged peasants with torches and pitchforks would be the most optimistic outcome for NSA.
Of course I realize NSA can't and won't stop themselves. Smoking GODMODE is like crack. You can't physically give it up no matter how much you want to.
The way I see it, if we can just hang on a little longer, we'll get to watch Ft Meade sacked and picked apart into rubble by thousand of angry hands. May God have mercy on any NSA'ers too dumb to flee. It's going to look like Vlad the Impaler. I can't wait.
https://media.blackhat.com/us-13/us-13-Stamos-The-Factoring-...
Not at all, they will still record all your comms to make sure you aren't spying on the US. Also keep producing malware, etc.
> DLP will also be the death of AES and any ciphers based on S-Boxes.
Source? The PDF you linked says nothing about AES and it looks like it would if this was true.
I know many wont do that based simply on political affiliation which is sad but expected in todays environment.