Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[liberationtech] Cryptography super-group creates unbreakable encryption

Nadim Kobeissi nadim at nadim.cc
Thu Feb 7 13:37:31 PST 2013


“I tell them go ahead and use Skype — I don’t even want to talk to you.
This is for serious people interested in serious cryptography,” Zimmermann
said. “We are not Facebook. We are the opposite of Facebook.”
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/security-pioneer-creates-service-to-encrypt-phone-calls-and-text-messages/


NK


On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Nadim Kobeissi <nadim at nadim.cc> wrote:

> The latest "unbreakable even by a supercomputer" article includes
> artistic, black and white photographs of Phil Zimmermann and John Callas:
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2274597/How-foil-eavesdroppers-The-smartphone-encryption-app-promises-make-communications-private-again.html#axzz2KDR1XKE6
>
>
> NK
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Ali-Reza Anghaie <ali at packetknife.com>wrote:
>
>> And even the "proponents" already have. Here, elsewhere, .. Nobody is
>> happy at technically ignorant gee-whiz journalism.
>>
>> The discussion has been, a few times now, how we tend to speak out about
>> it. And what busses people on the same side seem willing to throw each
>> other under. Gods know why. -Ali
>>  On Feb 7, 2013 3:46 PM, "Jillian C. York" <jilliancyork at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not going to get into the politics or pettiness of this because
>>> frankly, I don't care.
>>>
>>> But this headline<http://www.extremetech.com/mobile/147714-cryptography-super-group-creates-unbreakable-encryption-designed-for-mass-market>and the accompanying claims of unbreakability are so incredibly egregious
>>> that I would expect *every single person on this list* to speak out
>>> against those (claims, that is), regardless of their feelings on the actual
>>> product.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Yosem Companys <companys at stanford.edu>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just as a reminder, please let's all try to refrain from engaging in
>>>> any personal attacks.  We're all build and use liberationtech to make a
>>>> difference in various ways, and we're bound to have disagreements.  But
>>>> let's not forget that we're all working toward the same broad goal of
>>>> making people's lives better.  Otherwise, we would likely not be on this
>>>> list.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> YC
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Ali-Reza Anghaie <ali at packetknife.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Douglas, I'm not sure many people are disagreeing with the end-goals
>>>>> and even Zimmerman acknolwedges the window for verifiable source proof is
>>>>> closing fast (longer than many would have liked as-is).
>>>>>
>>>>> My comments to Nadim are coming from a tact perspective - if the goal
>>>>> is to gain wider adoption and recognition for all the community work, good
>>>>> projects, verified projects, etc. etc. then it helps when you play in the
>>>>> sanboxes occupied by more than the hackers and programmers making it happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not uncommon to have people, who need solutions the most, to be
>>>>> afraid of projects because of the "main name" associated with them after
>>>>> some cursory rant reading. Nadim = Cryptocat, Jacob = TOR, Theo = OpenBSD,
>>>>> etc. etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's easy to tell everyone else to pound sand or to roll all activist
>>>>> causes into one for the collective libtech "us" - it's not so each when we
>>>>> take it elsewhere. Just trying to see how we can promote things that look
>>>>> less like personal grips and trolls - and more like building something
>>>>> useful. -Ali
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Douglas Lucas <dal at riseup.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can Silent Circle promoters explain why Zimmerman is excused from
>>>>>> Kerckhoffs's principle?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it because something unverifiable is allegedly better than nothing?
>>>>>> Even if we had divine knowledge to tell us Silent Circle is secure,
>>>>>> isn't it an overriding problem to encourage lock-in of closed source
>>>>>> being acceptable for something as common as text-messaging?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is good to have a scrappy talented young person such as Nadim being
>>>>>> pesky to older, accepted people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/07/2013 09:45 AM, Julien Rabier wrote:
>>>>>> > Hello all,
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I'm no sec expert but to me, it's so obvious that Nadim is right on
>>>>>> this.
>>>>>> > Perhaps the form is not perfect, but if he's the only one fighting
>>>>>> for our
>>>>>> > own sanity here, as he says, that's no surprise.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > We should all be asking Silent Circle to commit to their statement
>>>>>> and show
>>>>>> > us the source code of their so-called unbreakable encryption tools.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Again, I'm no sec expert and I won't be the guy who will do the
>>>>>> hard task of
>>>>>> > auditing and reviewing this code. But as a user, as a citizen and
>>>>>> perhaps an
>>>>>> > activist, I want the source code of such tools to be reviewed
>>>>>> widely and
>>>>>> > publicly before using and promoting it.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > My 2 euro cents,
>>>>>> > Julien
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Le 07 févr. - 10:31, Nadim Kobeissi a écrit :
>>>>>> >> Small follow-up:
>>>>>> >> Maybe it's true I look like my goal here is just to foam at the
>>>>>> mouth at
>>>>>> >> Silent Circle. Maybe it looks like I'm just here to annoy Chris,
>>>>>> and I'm
>>>>>> >> truly sorry. These are not my goals, even if my method seems
>>>>>> forced.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> I've tried writing multiple blog posts about Silent Circle,
>>>>>> contacting
>>>>>> >> Silent Circle, asking journalists to *please* mention the
>>>>>> importance of
>>>>>> >> free, open source in cryptography, and so on. All of this has
>>>>>> failed. It
>>>>>> >> has simply become clear to me that Silent Circle enjoys a double
>>>>>> standard
>>>>>> >> because of the reputation of those behind it.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Silent Circle may be developed by Gods, but this is just quite
>>>>>> plainly
>>>>>> >> unfair. If someone repeatedly claims, towards activists, to have
>>>>>> developed
>>>>>> >> "unbreakable encryption", markets it closed-source for money, and
>>>>>> receives
>>>>>> >> nothing but nods of recognition and applause from the press and
>>>>>> even
>>>>>> >> from *security
>>>>>> >> experts* (?!) then something is seriously wrong! No one should be
>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>> >> to commit these wrongs, not even Silent Circle.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> I feel like I'm fighting for our own sanity here. Look at what
>>>>>> you're
>>>>>> >> allowing to happen!
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> NK
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Nadim Kobeissi <nadim at nadim.cc>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Christopher Soghoian <
>>>>>> chris at soghoian.net>wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> It is clear that you seem to have developed a
>>>>>> foaming-in-the-mouth,
>>>>>> >>>> irrational hate of Silent Circle. As such, anyone who fails to
>>>>>> denounce
>>>>>> >>>> Phil Zimmermann as the great Satan is, in your eyes, some kind
>>>>>> of corrupt
>>>>>> >>>> shill.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Chris,
>>>>>> >>> You have repeatedly stood up asking VoIP software to be more
>>>>>> transparent
>>>>>> >>> about their encryption. You have repeatedly stood up when the
>>>>>> media
>>>>>> >>> overblew coverage into hype.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> However, Silent Circle remains *the only case* where you remain
>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>> >>> regularly in articles on the company, where you make a point to
>>>>>> completely
>>>>>> >>> ignore that they are posting everywhere on their social media
>>>>>> that they are
>>>>>> >>> developing "unbreakable encryption", and marketing it,
>>>>>> closed-source,
>>>>>> >>> towardsactivists. When I confront you about this, you publicly
>>>>>> accuse me of
>>>>>> >>> "soliciting a hit piece" (!!) against Silent Circle.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> That is what I have a problem with: A huge, clear, obvious double
>>>>>> standard
>>>>>> >>> strictly made available for Silent Circle.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> I proudly stand by every single statement quoted in that Verge
>>>>>> story.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Chris
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Nadim Kobeissi <nadim at nadim.cc>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> Chris Soghoian gives Silent Circle's unbreakable encryption an
>>>>>> entire
>>>>>> >>>>> article's worth of lip service here, it must be really
>>>>>> unbreakable:
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/6/3950664/phil-zimmermann-wants-to-save-you-from-your-phone
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> NK
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, Brian Conley <
>>>>>> brianc at smallworldnews.tv>wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> I heard they have a super secret crypto clubhouse in the belly
>>>>>> of an
>>>>>> >>>>>> extinct volcano.
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> Other rumors suggest they built their lab in the liberated
>>>>>> tunnels
>>>>>> >>>>>> beneath bin ladens secret lair in Pakistan...
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 6, 2013, at 19:42, Nadim Kobeissi <nadim at nadim.cc>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> Actual headline.
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.extremetech.com/mobile/147714-cryptography-super-group-creates-unbreakable-encryption-designed-for-mass-market
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> NK
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> --
>>>>>> >>>>>> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
>>>>>> >>>>>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>> --
>>>>>> >>>>>> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
>>>>>> >>>>>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> --
>>>>>> >>>>> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
>>>>>> >>>>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> --
>>>>>> >>>> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
>>>>>> >>>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> --
>>>>>> >> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
>>>>>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > --
>>>>>> > Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
>>>>>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
>>>>>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
>>>>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
>>>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> US: +1-857-891-4244 | NL: +31-657086088
>>> site:  jilliancyork.com <http://jilliancyork.com/>* | *
>>> twitter: @jilliancyork* *
>>>
>>> "We must not be afraid of dreaming the seemingly impossible if we want
>>> the seemingly impossible to become a reality" - *Vaclav Havel*
>>>
>>> --
>>> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
>>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/attachments/20130207/6177b434/attachment.html>


More information about the liberationtech mailing list