On the enforceability of laws
sealedabstract.com
sealedabstract.com
If governments find it impossible to tax income as they lose their monopoly on cash, they will still be able to tax tangible property: land, buildings, cars, airplanes, etc.
However, I loved the quote at the end: "Technology bestows rights in a way which is true and real far beyond the law. The law can be changed, but you cannot undiscover AES. The law gives you rights as a fiction, but technology gives you rights as a fact."
is the author suggesting that there is nothing to fear from the possibility of a "pain gun" being used against civilians because sooner or later the steady march of technology will ensure that we all have pain guns to use on eachother?
that doesn't sound too comforting to me.
Until about the 1970s, if you wanted to send a secret message you needed to employ a small army of mathematicians
No you didn't. You used a one-time pad. Computers were not first used for battle, they were first constructed for pure math: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_engine
And I eagerly await the day my M-1 Abrams battle tank arrives in the mail.
I won't list all the problems in this article. If you want to read it, it might be entertaining to try to find as many as you can. Sort of a rhetorical Where's Walo
A OTP assumes you have an off-channel secure messaging system.
It's like the cryptographical equivalent of begging the question: it's easy to send a secret message! Just already have sent a secret message first!
> Computers were not first used for battle, they were first constructed for pure math
The difference engine wasn't actually constructed until the 90s. You might have an argument for the Z1.
Make a pad from those numbers, make an exact duplicate of it, give one to your field agent before he goes off on his super-secret mission and keep one at home base. Now you two can communicate over a guaranteed secure channel (provided you don't reuse the pad).
This is cryptography's version of "begging the question". A OTP means that "Given that you already have a secure communications channel (to exchange the one-time-pad), you can send secure messages over other channels." Of course if you already have a secure communication channel, why wouldn't you just use that? Perhaps you think that your "real world example" offers an explanation--remote communications can be more advantageous than local ones. However, as soon as we enter "the real world", we see that the OTP you wrote down can easily be captured along with your physical self, and the message compromised or even modified. This happens often enough in practice: see the "Exploits" section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad
Modern cryptography (specifically I'm thinking of public-key-based exchange of a private key) doesn't depend on having a secure channel to communicate with in the first place. In addition, private keys can't be captured on your person like a OTP can. So it is both theoretically and actually better than a OTP by multiple orders of magnitude.
For these reasons, I think comparing a OTP to modern public or private key cryptography is pretty silly.
If you're talking about private keys in public-key-cryptography, those are usually encrypted with another private key, which exists only in your head.
If you're talking about private keys in private-key-cryptography, they are either encrypted with a private key that only exists in your head, or they only exist in your head to begin with, or they are a "one-time" random private key, i.e. for a key exchange algorithm, that is not re-used.
An OTP is not usually encrypted. We can AES it now, of course. But the point of the article is that encryption has gotten two orders of magnitude better. That point is still valid.
In this case the author wants us to see pain guns as we see computers, as progress that helps us more than it hurts us. A better analogy may be nuclear weapons, let's see him try to argue the positive effects of bomb which can and has been used to vaporize cities.
18 years in, it doesn't seem any closer.