|
U-Know! Forum » Calling Grufty Jim (& the rest of you 2) |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Nov 09, 2002, 17:26
|
||
Straight from the bottom of my memory and I can't be arsed searching for the story as its not very relevant. You tell the story the way you remember it.
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 09, 2002, 18:08
|
||
|
i know of no example of recent PGP encryption being broken. What happened last year is that a hacker exposed a specific flaw in the verification process. This has been patched (PGP 7 Hotfix 2, i believe) and according to the most recent PGP faq, 1024/2048 bit PGP keys are still - for all practical purposes - completely secure. An interesting news article from the past couple of days regarding this subject is at: http://europe.cnn.com/2002/TECH/ptech/11/07/certicom.contest.reut/index.html This week, having had 10,000 computers and the services of a top mathematician, the University of Notre Dame announced that it had "cracked only a 109-bit key". It took them over a year and a half. What's more, it didn't invalidate the code; merely exposed the contents of a single message. As the PGP FAQ (updated August 23rd 2002) points out... "almost every week there's a story about a college kid cracking PGP. As yet this is just a demonstration of the paranoia within the encryption community. There is currently no evidence to suggest that PGP, when used correctly and within a secure environment, is not for all practical purposes secure." (A secure environment, by the way, is a way of stating that PGP is insecure if someone has installed "keystroke logging" software on your computer, or if you wrote down your passphrase somewhere and left it unattended, etc etc etc). So yeah, having spent the past 40 minutes or so trying to trace evidence on the web of PGP being cracked, i have drawn a blank. So unless you can provide a reference to the story; i submit that you are simply perpetrating an urban myth.
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Nov 09, 2002, 19:08
|
||
Like I said I can't be arsed checking so I'll accept what you say since its irrelevant, even perfectly uncrackable encryption isn't secure for the other reasons I mention.
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Nov 09, 2002, 20:50
|
||
|
You are saying that killing some people in the UK wiould be worth it if it stops a far greater amount of killing in Iraq. Thus, you are prepared to kill people in order to fuck up liquid fossil fuel supply in the Uk for a short period. There is one screaming flaw in your thinking, YAIP. What makes you believe that disrupting petrol distribution in the UK will stop the bombing of Iraq? I can't see any way you arrive at that conclusion. What I could see is such an action - if you really can pull it off - being another excuse for tighter 'anti-terrorist' domestic measures, and the resultant panic making good oppotunity for strident political action such as, say, internment without trial and bombing an outside enemy. Like, say, Iraq. You have made comparisons with being someone who could've stopped Hitler. It sounds to me more like killing some shepherds cos their sheep provided the wool for SS uniforms.
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Nov 09, 2002, 23:11
|
||
|
Ta for your input, please respond again for it is troubling me deeply. For a start I am not prepared yet to kill or even risk hurting people directly to save Iraqi lives, except my own. I am however prepared to contemplate indirect deaths, to argue about it, and to discuss it. Just like Chomsky is, just like Gandhi was, just like many better folk than me have before. For instance I personally believe that is is possible if Blair choked on a pretzel tonight, we might be less likely to attack Iraq. You are right, my proposed action would bring the wrath of the state down and an attempt would be made by the media to vilify every dissenter as a terrorist. In fact the mechanisms for that are already in place. Since I have thought long and hard about this I can think of even worse possible repercussions. Just as the attempt on Hitlers life by Ribentrop had dire consequences for internal opposition to Hitler though that attempt was worthy in itself imo. You also doubt the effectiveness of the action in stopping the invasion of Iraq. So do I. Its just I have just never witnessed any action as effective as the one I propose, which is basically a rerun of an action that was carried out successfully recently - without a single death. Not one death yet government policy was changed because this nation was stuck in petrol station queues. Not I realise that won't happen this time, but it will bring the war home to all the morons who drive but don't know Iraq from Israel. They may look at a map after that. Now if you can suggest a more effective, less dangerous action then I am all ears. Perhaps if it was your mother that was about to be cluster bombed, your children that were going to be mutated by DU shells then you would have less qualms about a few possible, unlikely, deaths here. I am not doubting the analysis or commitment of people who disagree with me on this, I am genuinely unsure myself and I realise I'm not qualified to act alone ( though I could I won't). I am not talking about stopping uniforms being made, I am talking about the same sort of effect that the Dambusters mission intended ( in vain). An impedement to our military, a blow to our economy and a show of unity with the Iraqi people. And quite frankly I realise that the sort of actions I have participated in so far are nothing more than ineffectual PR compared to the damage I could really cause. We get all these phony terrorist warnings every day. On my first arrest two middle aged people swam onto a Trident sub, painted it and rang a bell. If they were Al Quaeda then Glasgow would not exist. As they were pacifists the story was forgotten, its significance lost instead of the city. Now we are preparing for an unjust war for oil. How can I impede this ? My MPs can't vote on the issue. Public opinion is ignored and manipulated by lies. Waiting until the war starts is too late. Hitting military bases won't succede during war. Hitting the petrol stations is the best option I have just now, except perhaps for trying to kill Blair which I am not yet prepared to consider and not as likely to pull off. Like Jim said, the infrastructure is vunerable. The best metaphor I can think of just now is if some stranger was being beaten up by a big gang of youths. I might claim that I didn't try and defend the victim in case I harmed one of the youths, or a bystander got hurt, but I would have to acknowledge my own fear of injury. I think many pacifists are cowards, and I say that knowing the bravest people I know are pacifists.
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Nov 10, 2002, 01:59
|
||
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/145179.stm This url is the most informative that I can find for the non-technical amongst us. Having had time to search ( I had a family 'do' earlier, my apologies for being curt) me thinks Jim is probably right and I have swallowed and regurgitated an urban myth as regards the kid breaking 1024 encryption in 6 hours. All myths are circulated for a reason, that is the main point of this post, stop reading here if I bore you. Encryption is good and easy. I personally am at more risk for falling for this particular sort of myth because I used to work in computing so I was subject to 'training' - conditioning and technique. Never trust an expert. They lie as they were lied to. I worked on some Israeli military codes that are used in Sky TVs smart cards ( low tech stuff but I couldn't understand it except momentarily), and I worked on the network where half of the worlds financial transactions take place, where the security is as tight as anywhere. To the best of my very unreliable memory I read the myth in a trade magazine. I'm okay technically but I'm both gullible and cynical simultaneously, ( the secret of my 'success') and I do fall for some manipulation or misjudgements, but I'm happy to concede a point if I learn something. I'm not proud of my corporate past, but I never worked for an arms manufacturer, though I have worked on RAF systems with reasonable security clearance for a civilian, which is kind of ironic now. My talents are fixing things, breaking things and changing things. My weak points are obvious. I'm certainly more technician than mathematician and I couldn't tell you whether it is possible to devise a code that is unbreakbale, though intuitively I'd guess not. No defence is insurmountable, but no defence should be ignored for that fact, every little helps. Encrytion is a good habit to get into. You may be able to design an unbreakable code but you can't design an unbreakable person to share it with. Look at the laws, look at the powers the security services have. This isn't an abstract threat to you, this is what is legal. You want to know the security services answer to any critical question (at least to me) ? "Well, you would too, wouldn't you?". They know me well. Please everybody use 2048 encryption, like Jim recommends for it is the best that is widely available and it helps to redress the technological imbalance between you and the modern world. Each encrypted email is an email that they have to process to uncover each free-thinker or dissident.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 10, 2002, 03:20
|
||
|
just a quickie, cos it's late and all... you describe a crippling of the UK fuel distribution system as a potential... > > ... impedement to our military, a blow to our > economy and a show of unity with the Iraqi > people. > It'll certainly be a blow to the economy, and it *may* be perceived as a show of unity with the Iraqi people - but that's debatable. One thing it most certainly will NOT do is be an impediment to the military. Firstly, the military has an entirely separate fuel distribution network (and not one that you can effect any control over... unless you can get to the relevant US supply bases in the Gulf... which will be the only ones worth compromising to have any practical effect on the Iraqi campaign). If you argue that a blow to the economy will inevitably lead to an impediment to the military, then you are assuming that spending cuts will be targeted at the military rather than welfare or public services, say. Attacking the economy of the UK will result in the most vulnerable people suffering long before the wealthy or the powerful do.
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Nov 10, 2002, 12:35
|
||
|
I didn't mean the military would suffer from defence cuts, I just meant the resulting short term chaos would affect military personnel outside of their work /getting to their work / getting food etc as much as the rest of us. I realise the vunerable suffer most from any action and the military the least. The vunerable suffer most period. I know the military have their own tankers and their own pipelines. They may be better guarded but they are vunerable too. Once I 'successfully' blockaded a military oil depot - no one noticed so we eventually got bored and left. Military transports of any kind can be hit by blocks and lock-ons and all the tactics that are currently only used against the nuclear warhead convoys, though obviously they will kick the shit out of protestors during war, as they sometimes do anyway. The gulf bases aren't the only ones worth hitting during war, there are many bases in the UK that will play a direct role in the invasion, though I realise cutting the oil here won't cut the oil to the front given the nature of the battlefield. Was the damage to the economy from the previous oil blockade ever quantified ? I'd like to add to the costs of an invasion for it is not just a war for oil, but a war for oil profits. We'd get the oil from the French and Russians anyway. All the activists I know have prepared their own plans of action in the event of war. Some will be causing disruption to cities, I can't see the point in that though I know that will be another effect of what I propose. Many will be targeting military bases. I'd rather hit the oil infrastructure, partly because I don't think the British army wants this war and it is wrong to interfere with an army during a war, even an unjust war, partly because hitting military targets will fail and the oil infrastrucure is both relevant and vunerable. The army are fairly good at their job, and they will use whatever force is necessary. My blockade wouldn't be able to last as long as the previous blockade, at least not if it follows nvda guiding principles. If you talk me out of this action, ( which would hopefully include hitting the oil company offices not just depots) my personal second choice of target is the politicians that pursue it. Give me a decent way to hit the front benches directly and I'd be grateful (and I'll leave Claire Short alone).
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 10, 2002, 14:56
|
||
|
Leave Clare Short alone? Why!?! Given the sickening militarism of the Blair government, coupled with their Thatcherite project of privatising public services, Clare Short would have resigned from the government long ago if she'd been worth a single thing. As it is, she has repeatecly demonstrated her willingness to trade a position of power for any principles i once believed she possessed. Clare Short is a perfect demonstration that proximity to power will corrupt just about any human being, however decent they believed they were. To sit at the King's table, when you know perfectly well that he's destroying the lives of his subjects makes you complicit - however much you claim to be on the side of the 'subjects'.
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Nov 10, 2002, 15:28
|
||
Fairy nuff, I was just worried if I kidnap the lot of them then IDS would take over. Now does anyone have a spare bedroom where I can keep a few score MPs ? Respond first and you can choose which ones you'd like. Or we could put them without trial in tiny little cages hooded and gagged on that Scottish isle where they tested our anthrax on sheep.
|
| Pages: 6 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
