Yeah and maybe they should also throw in the NSA and GCHQ
who have lied bear faced to the IT industry about encryption standards that they intentionally made backdoors in to weaken IT security for their own benefit, whilst lying to the entire world.
But of course that's not relevant here right?
(
Firkinfedup last shat on your wife's tits at, Wed 11 Sep 2013, 12:57,
Reply)
Isn't that one of those logical fallacy things I read about on Wikipedia once? Something along the lines of "this happened!" so therefore "this!".
(
JamTallons, Wed 11 Sep 2013, 13:02,
Reply)
'Internet security' is an oxymoron, when it comes to data privacy.
Anyone who think otherwise is deluded. Of course National Security Agencies are going to lie about their capabilities, why would they tell everyone exactly what they can and can't intercept?
It's also irrelevant. There's a big difference between a security agency doing what it's designed to do, and flying planes full of their citizens into a building full of more of their citizens.
(, Wed 11 Sep 2013, 13:06, Reply)
that's bullshit
I work in IT security. I know full well the way they work, entirely meant to delude as opposed to protect peoples information.
So you think they because they opened a back door only they can get to it? Get a clue, they weaken it for everyone.
It's not irrelevant it's lying to the masses for the sake of political / military gain. So it's very relevant.
(
Firkinfedup last shat on your wife's tits at, Wed 11 Sep 2013, 13:26,
Reply)
No, *that's* bullshit
"I know full well the way they work, entirely meant to delude as opposed to protect peoples information"
It's not their job to 'protect people's information', it's to intercept it.
For a *Secret Security Agency*, lying to the masses is in the fuckin' job description.
Kind of the entire raison d'etre of spying, no?
(, Thu 12 Sep 2013, 9:29, Reply)
The secret services keeping secrets, and doing underhand secret things in the interest of national security?
That's kinda their job isn't it?
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Wed 11 Sep 2013, 13:15,
Reply)
no and thats a silly argument
(
Rebel biscuit stercore sumus et nos esse novimus, Wed 11 Sep 2013, 13:18,
Reply)
Well I hope we're not paying them to sit around doing nothing then.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Wed 11 Sep 2013, 14:22,
Reply)
It's hardly for national security
weakening protocols so that it's also easier for the "enemy" to obtain otherwise secure information from. It's dumb.
(
Firkinfedup last shat on your wife's tits at, Wed 11 Sep 2013, 13:37,
Reply)
They can't really do that....
www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/brute.html
It's not like Crytpo AG, unless you are seriously dumb.
(
The Ann Coulter Fan Club Babylon is burning at, Wed 11 Sep 2013, 13:25,
Reply)
They have weakend not only supposedly secure
cryptographic number generators but also elliptical curves for their own gain, promoting their weak ones above the cryptographically sound.
Azure has a "cryptographically secure" random number generator, you can't attach additional hardware to azure instances so unless you get your entropy from elsewhere (external, which adds another level of risk) you have to trust them, even though they won't tell you shit all about it,
(
Firkinfedup last shat on your wife's tits at, Wed 11 Sep 2013, 13:31,
Reply)