|
U-Know! Forum » Calling Grufty Jim (& the rest of you 2) |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 10, 2002, 15:41
|
||
|
i think the Guantanemo Bay option is the best one... and why restrict it to just the government MPs? I'm sure we can find enough cages to put the whole lot of them into, including the Lords lot. Incarcerate them without trial, refuse them any legal representation, refuse them any contact whatsoever with their families or the outside world in general, ignore all international and national laws about the treatment of prisoners... and why? Well, because we "think" they might be a threat. Frankly, i KNOW that the government of this country is a threat. Not just to millions of Iraqis (though that's perhaps foremost), but also to every person in this country not earning an MPs salary, who might find themselves needing health care, or education, or public transport at some point in the future. Clare Short - and anyone else complicit in this sustained attack upon their own population; this probable attack on another population; this active support of the US decision to flaunt any international law that they find inconvenient... for shame! The lot of them are 100% more deserving of locking up and forgetting about than anyone rotting away in American cages on Cuba.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 10, 2002, 16:12
|
||
|
Hey YAIP, In your message you say you're "more technician than mathematician". Me, i'm the opposite. I can read and comprehend (after a few tries and a headache or two) the mathematics used by Einstein to describe Special Relativity, but a few minutes of staring at a car engine, say, and i'd probably start to hyperventilate (even though i can give you an accurate energy-systems analysis of that very engine! :-) So i'm aware of the inherent strength of 2048 bit encryption. I understand how it works, and frankly believe that 128 bit is probably - for all practical purposes - currently uncrackable. Increasing key length is a way of increasing encryption complexity almost exponentially. So whilst a 56 bit key will only take 3 days using 100 networked computers; 109 bit will take a year and a half, using 10,000 computers and a professor of mathematics. HOWEVER, and it's a *big* however; all of this is "today". Thanks to Moore's Law (which i notice has recently been extended yet again), but also to huge increases in the scope of distributed processing, the timescale for cracking any code is shortening every day. So in 18 months time (say), the same 109 bit code that it took 10,000 computers to crack in 18 months, will only require 5,000 much faster computers and will take half the time. So although 128 bit encryption is secure today, i wouldn't bet on it still being secure in 10 years time. 1024/2048 bit encryption, however (and remember it's an exponential increase in key complexity - not a linear one) is probably secure for our likely lifetimes. Only "probably" though, for one reason. Quantum computing. This is a subject i don't know much about, but the little i've read seems to suggest that quantum computing *may* allow incomprehensibly large increases in the ability of computers to perform mathematical analyses. We are still some way from quantum computing however (and frankly, i suspect we'll never see it outside laboratory prototypes for a bunch of reasons). So until then, 2048 bit encryption is 100% reliable WHEN USED CORRECTLY AND SECURELY. There are dozens of possible human errors which could lead to even theoretical 4096 bit encryption being compromised - but the math doesn't lie, and is completely safe for now.
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Nov 11, 2002, 14:23
|
||
|
Whats the correct and secure procedure for use then? To deal with the problem of the key being coerced from one of the corressponts I'd suggest arranging a signal ( ie a set phrase in any messgae here) to warn your corresspondent that the key is compromised. Bear in mind encypted data stands out amongst other traffic, it gets special attention. Even after applying encryption it should be easily possible to embed that file in an innocous file - use Camera/Shy to do that easily with image files if you can't code. It is also possible to minimise the risk of key stroke grabbers being doing a clean install from a secure clean image. If you can afford it use an LCD screen as vdus can be read across the street if you don't provide them with heavy duty shielding ( lead from your local church roof seems appropriate).
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Nov 12, 2002, 14:40
|
||
|
OK, there's a few things you've said that don't add up to me. "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." The previous blockades worked because the oil companies wanted them to work. Imagine how different they'd have been if heads of oil refineries were hassling Chief Constables, if heads of oil companies were hassling the Home Secretary. Add to this the different way police treat 'subversives' such as anti-war people and you start to see how long this'd last. The police would wade in with riot gear straight away. The public would support that, in part precisely because of the success of the last blockades and they don't want to have the queues again. They would also support it cos last time it was making things cheaper for motorists, this time it's done by some random person who thinks BP are something to do with bombing Iraq. "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." These people *do* know Iraq exists - how would a fuel cut make them realise and agree with your political opinion? And, beyond any such symbolism, how would it prevent the bombing of Iraq? I asked this in my last post but you don't seem to have answered it, whilst still grandly comparing yourself to an assassin of Hitler. "I am not prepared yet to kill or even risk hurting people directly to save Iraqi lives, except my own." - you are still claiming you'll be 'saving Iraqi lives' here. How do you reach this conclusion? "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" You are using the word 'effectiveness' to mean two *different* things here, and yet you talk like they mean the same thing. In the first instance you mean stopping the war against Iraq, in the second you mean the impact of the action in stopping fuel supply. They are not the same thing at all. Asking for a "more effective action" continues this idea. Shutting off fossil fuel spully would indeed be effective at pissing people off. At the risk of repeating myself, the unanswered idea is how this would affect war with Iraq. "Perhaps if it was your mother..." is a cheap shot that's beneath you. It presumes that I know how much this'd stop a war with Iraq but don't want to risk my own neck. "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..." Whether this is true or not, if this is the army making war then they are surely just as guilty whether they 'want' to do it or not. "and it is wrong to interfere with an army during a war" is the most bizarre thing I've heard any non-military person say about war, what on earth do you mean? Given that the miltiary are waging war, I'd have thought they'd be your first choice.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Nov 12, 2002, 14:41
|
||
|
Menwith Hill will certainly be part of the war against Iraq. The Menwith Hill base near Harrogate is the world's biggest telecoms listening post, set up as part of US 'defence' in the Cold War. It's run by the USA's National Security Agency. All telecommunications traffic to and from Europe and that passing through Britain can intercepted at the base. The base's 'radomes' (giant golf-ball looking things that do the listening) have doubled in number since the end of the Cold War. It is not marked on any map. It is the most secret US base in Britain and the world's largest spy base. It is the hub of US military planning in the northern hemisphere. The security isn't actually that good. Someone wanting details of how bad the security is, and how to get around it and directly affect the US military planning - would probably like to visit this website. http://www.menwithhill.ukf.net/ It should also be noted that the main gate at Menwith Hill is closed while building work goes on. So, the base is using two much smaller gates. On 16th October entry to the base was shut down for 5 hours by a dozen or so people blocking the two gates. There's a sister base nearby at Fylingdales near Whitby. There's also a sister website about the security arrangements there. http://www.fylingdales.ukf.net/
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 12, 2002, 15:28
|
||
|
When you talk about having a PGP passphrase / key "coerced" from someone, you completely mystify me. PGP isn't designed to be an anti-coercion device. It effectively secures digital communications. That's what it's designed to do. To criticise it because it can't prevent information being beaten out of someone (or coaxed out of them with threats of incarceration) is like criticising it for not making you toast in the morning. PGP allows secure communication. That is all it does. Yes, it can becompromised if the person you are communicating with has been bought off, or threatened effectively. But so what? If one member of a trusted communications system has been compromised, then the method of communication is irrelevant - and why coerce the PGP out of them? Why not just coerce the information you're looking for? And yet, despite that; PGP does try to make dealing with a compromised key as easy as possible (within reason). Because public keys are distributed on open key-servers which synchronise with one another constantly; it's possible for someone - who knows their key is compromised - to 'revoke' it, and within hours at most have it removed from the system. What's more - although someone can't 'revoke' someone else's key (for obvious reasons :) if you found out, say, that my key was compromised; you could list it as 'untrusted' on your key - that would then cascade to everyone else who has your key in their keyring file. They could then decide whether to trust your 'untrusted' decision or not. So no, the system isn't perfect (in the sense that any information contained in a human brain can theoretically be coaxed out of that brain by a determined interrogator); but as a means of sending digital information securely (which is all it claims to be), it's - for all practical purposes - secure. Keystroke-logging software is a separate issue (though it is one way that a PGP key could be compromised). Pretty much any half-decent tech-head could unearth such a trojan on a machine and remove it. Of course, not everyone is a tech-head, but a clean install of the OS is probably overkill unless you don't know any geeks and have reason to believe that someone has had access to your system (remember, even a bog-standard firewall or real-time virus monitor will prevent such software being installed remotely). On the subject of shielding your computer. In my opinion the security services in this country do not have the resourcs to carry out that form of high-tech, low-level surveillance on more than a handful of people. On the other hand, this is probably changing - and certainly in the States it's becoming more of an issue. I'm not sure if you're aware of the technology that allows that kind of surveillance, however. It's basically EMR scanners (or related technology), and lining your room with lead is (a) very silly and (b) possibly toxic, when all you need is a home-made Faraday Cage made out of tin-foil. I once considered building one - but realised *just* how paranoid i must be to consider such a thing, and resolved to sort my head out instead (a project i'm still working on, needless to say).
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Nov 12, 2002, 15:29
|
||
|
"police would wade in with riot gear straight away." Thats a tactical consideration. I can't discuss tactics obviously. And incase I'm sounding too grand, the solution to this problem wasn't mine. "this time it's done by some random person who thinks BP are something to do with bombing Iraq" I am a random person, and proud of it. Oil profits link BP amongst others to the bombing of Iraq. "These people *do* know Iraq exists - how would a fuel cut make them realise and agree with your political opinion?" Its not a political opinion, its a moral opinion. I have met folk who don't know Iran from Israel, who haven't heard of the Khmer Rouge or the Sex Pistols. They do remember the oil blockade though. "And, beyond any such symbolism, how would it prevent the bombing of Iraq?" It probably won't if the symbolism is ignored. Nuking every British city won't prevent the bombing in Iraq. However, occupying Menwith Hill or Fylingdales won't prevent the bombing of Iraq either and are just as likely to incur the heavy police tactics you fear ( though without incriminating myself or blowing any plans I'm all for those actions too). Nothing short of a new american revolution will prevewnt the bombing in Iraq imo, what I am proposing is the widest reaching protest I can by learning from recent protests. Lets compare how much press coverage the last Menwith Hill protest got compared to the last oil blockade. And yes, it probably will impede the logistics of the UK militarys if the whole country is brought to a standstill. And the tactic could as readily be copied by US protestors, which may save Iraqi lives. However, the symbolism is important, as is making clear to the oil companies they will not be allowed to keep their filthy lucre. "whilst still grandly comparing yourself to an assassin of Hitler" The truth of an argument is tested at the extremes of an argument which is why I raise Ribentrop. I could also have compared myself to a striking fireman, but even that is too grand. I did try to find an humble example when I compared myself to a pretzel. "It presumes that I know how much this'd stop a war with Iraq but don't want to risk my own neck" Risking ones own life is relatively easy morally, and I didn't impugn you that way. Risking a strangers life is obviously more dubious, thats what we are arguing about. Doing nothing or being ineffective is worse in the face of this threat. "if this is the army making war then they are surely just as guilty whether they 'want' to do it or not...the most bizarre thing I've heard any non-military person say " No, I disagree. The army is a tool of the state, and the state is in the pockets of the corportations. Attacking the army seems like attacking the police - the wrong targets imo, or at least culpable than many, and the scary riot police you forsee are a lot less scary than the commandos assigned to keep military bases open at time of war ( or permanently in Faslane). So far I've only done military bases. In the oil war I'm aiming for the commander in chief and his paymasters.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 12, 2002, 15:36
|
||
|
Right, now i'm really confused. You acknowledge that your plans have a high potential for resulting in "a few innocent deaths". You justify this on the basis that you would be doing it to save many more Iraqi lives. Then you calmly announce: > > Nothing short of a new american revolution > will prevewnt the bombing in Iraq imo > So why are you willing to risk innocent lives? Has it anything to do with: > > Lets compare how much press coverage the > last Menwith Hill protest got compared to the > last oil blockade > Ummm... let's not actually. Let's first examine whether you are seriously proposing a course of action that may result in innocent deaths simply because it'll get more press coverage than alternate forms of protest - having acknowledged that it will not achieve your stated goal of saving Iraqi lives.
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Nov 12, 2002, 15:38
|
||
|
Fuck that then! **************** Onto Faraday cages. I was being shown one by a salesman one day. The company I was working for needed to isolate some measuring equipment (laser inferometers for those that would like to know) so the bought a tent and had the floor done too. Anyways as this bloke was showing around inside his mobile rang! Larf? I larfed so much tears ran down me legs!
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 12, 2002, 15:40
|
||
|
That's hilarious! I have seen them work, mind... the physics is sound... i just wouldn't put my faith in that particular manufacturer! :-)
|
| Pages: 6 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
