Cell Phone eNcRyPtIoN

[Safetyhit]

Angry fellow indeed. You wouldn't be Italian, would you?

Well golly, my real-life name happens to be Ottavio Cinelli, so maybe I am just a little Italian. However due to the fact that you berate others with whom you disagree often and simply went a bit too far with me today, what the hell that has to do with anything I have no idea.

Actually this only fits into your spin profile, as now you deflect rather than present constructive arguments. But whatever, as I'd bet 10 to 1 that if we met face to face we'd likely get along rather well due to overall common interests. Is what it is I suppose.

[Mjolnir]

You know what? I found it necessary to not live in New Jersey, specifically so I could have Class III items and CCW. You do not care about those things enough to do anything about it. Therefore, you have a different standard of what you think is necessary.

Clearly, what I think is necessary is, to you, unreasonable and paranoid. Equally, what you think is necessary appears to me to be solidly rooted in denial, is quite careless, and naive. Part of being an adult is realizing that people have different comfort zones.

You seem to be awfully angry about the idea that someone might want more security than you do. Could that be because deep down you know we're right?

What I notice a strange consistency toward in these threads, are you and your city-boy buddies coming in and telling people who live in a different place, in a different lifestyle, and under different circumstances, what you think they should or should not be doing.

Does that sound familiar, Mayor Bloomberg?

How about a little good-old-fashioned MYOB, and do what makes you comfortable, and I'll do the same, and when the chips fall whoever was right was right, and your fate won't matter to anyone but you.

Bull's Eye!

You've stated your facts and points most eloquently.

[chadbag]

Why do you believe this type of commonplace communication should be encrypted? Maybe I don't know what I don't know, so please enlighten me if you will.

When everything is encrypted, as a matter of course, the protection to everyone goes way up. Since the ability to decrypt everything, by everyone, in a reasonable amount of time, does not exist. Even a simple high bit key PGP type public key encryption would be a good idea. Even schemes that can be broken in time.

I actually tried to explain it. Obviously not very well. When everything, all the time, is encrypted, it makes it prohibitive to try and decrypt all of it. If I only send my important, say, financial messages, with encryption, but the mail to my mom, my wife, my business partners [normal types of mail, not top secret], etc unencrypted, the "bad guys" know which messages to attack. If everything is encrypted, by everyone (becomes the new normal), then they have to try and attack everything, without knowing if it will be worthwhile in the end. Their cost to attack goes up immensely.

There are other similar reasons but it all revolves around that sort of idea. Making all communications by default secure raises the security for everyone immensely, even if most messages are not "secret" enough to really need it.


-

[Mjolnir]

Encryption or no encryption, you are not secure. All you've done is make it harder from most regular hacker losers, but don't kid yourself thinking you're secure from someone who really wants your information who's good and has the resources to back them up.

Correct. You're not likely to run into a private citizen with the resources, skills and whatnot to decrypt your info from some of the better software. Gov't agencies? I don't think they do anything but slow them a bit - but not much at all, really. If "they" REALLY want you they just come a get you. There are laws on the books that allow them to do just that.

[chadbag]

So somehow Joe Shmo the gun owner only encrypting here and there raises suspicions because there is an agency out there who cares that he is doing so, therefore you encrypt everything. Got it.

Just glad you didn't raise any red flags when you started encrypting. And surely "they" know you have nothing to hide, this specifically because you always encrypt. 10-4.


Look, I'm not against sensible cyber security by any means. Just think that some of you fellows are taking it a bit farther than necessary.

Who says it has to be "they"? It could just as easily by some cyber crime group scanning internet traffic.

And. Maybe right now it does not make that big of a difference. But in the future it just might. "They" might really be out to get you. If everyone is encrypting everything already, and has been for a while, when some hypothetical point in the future comes that you might start to want to bother with this, it is already in place, part of your (and everyone else's) infrastructure, and the change to encrypting won't raise any flags, since it is already there.

Look at it this way: why not have the best defense against future problem? Already in place! I buy insurance, even though I hope I never need it. I carry even though I hope I never need it. I'd rather have the protection and not ever need it than need it and not have it.

Having said all that, I rarely encrypt stuff because the hassle factor is too high and most people I correspond with are not are not set up to do it. That is a shame, and should change. Every one should really apply pressure to all the vendors to include such capability in their email clients, chat and SMS programs, etc, by default. And everyone should be encouraged to upload their public keys to public key servers, by default, as part of getting a new device and setting it up.

It can't hurt and it could definitely help. Whether with cybercrime, or some hypothetical future draconian 1984-type state.


---

[VooDoo6Actual]

redacted.

[Abraxas]

You know what? I found it necessary to not live in New Jersey, specifically so I could have Class III items and CCW. You do not care about those things enough to do anything about it. Therefore, you have a different standard of what you think is necessary.

Clearly, what I think is necessary is, to you, unreasonable and paranoid. Equally, what you think is necessary appears to me to be solidly rooted in denial, is quite careless, and naive. Part of being an adult is realizing that people have different comfort zones.

You seem to be awfully angry about the idea that someone might want more security than you do. Could that be because deep down you know we're right?

What I notice a strange consistency toward in these threads, are you and your city-boy buddies coming in and telling people who live in a different place, in a different lifestyle, and under different circumstances, what you think they should or should not be doing.

Does that sound familiar, Mayor Bloomberg?

How about a little good-old-fashioned MYOB, and do what makes you comfortable, and I'll do the same, and when the chips fall whoever was right was right, and your fate won't matter to anyone but you.

Well put, on all of your posts thus far in this thread.

[WillBrink]

The "problem" with these super high encryption products, is that both sides have to be using the same one. So for most people, they are not that practical. Not that they aren't worthwhile as a product, but the practicality goes down way low due to this.

--

Lots of things we do for improved security, both physically and electronically, reduces practicality, which is why houses with alarms get robbed due to the person not actually arming the alarm. You have a company, you have data that needs to be as secure as possible, you make sure they all have the same phone with the tech, tech once in place, easy to use at least.

How about those people who don't lock their safe door because it's too impractical to open it using combination. I know such a guy.

Your teams life depends on secure com, less practical to make sure you're all communicating using same secure tech, but the pay off is obviously there in terms of loss of practicality.

So, basic formula of cost, how practical it is to use/ to what you may lose by not having it.

Friend of mine owns 100 mil + per year company, and I told him he was f-ing nuts talking about sensitive topics over his cell phone with his lawyers (and he's often in court fighting with the gubment) and business related topics (of which a single intercepted email or phone call could cost him everything) was a very bad idea.

The fix was having the essential people he talks with add the tech to their phones (which he purchased for them) he's GTG.

Just adding two cents to your comments, not disagreeing with what you post per se.

[chadbag]

Lots of things we do for improved security, both physically and electronically, reduces practicality, which is why houses with alarms get robbed due to the person not actually arming the alarm. You have a company, you have data that needs to be as secure as possible, you make sure they all have the same phone with the tech, tech once in place, easy to use at least.

How about those people who don't lock their safe door because it's too impractical to open it using combination. I know such a guy.

Your teams life depends on secure com, less practical to make sure you're all communicating using same secure tech, but the pay off is obviously there in terms of loss of practicality.

So, basic formula of cost, how practical it is to use/ to what you may lose by not having it.

Friend of mine owns 100 mil + per year company, and I told him he was f-ing nuts talking about sensitive topics over his cell phone with his lawyers (and he's often in court fighting with the gubment) and business related topics (of which a single intercepted email or phone call could cost him everything) was a very bad idea.

The fix was having the essential people he talks with add the tech to their phones (which he purchased for them) he's GTG.

Just adding two cents to your comments, not disagreeing with what you post per se.

I think you kind of missed my point. I am not in any of the situations you describe. There are times when I do use encryption for email. However, because of the hassle factor, I do not do it for all my email correspondence. If I was the owner of a multi million dollar company and had need for secret communications, the hassle factor, *for those communications*, would be worth it.

I have an alarm system, and I arm it when I leave, pretty religiously. While it is a hassle, the effort needed to overcome the hassle is minimal.

That is unfortunately not the case for communications on an every day basis. The hassle factor to set that up is too great. Unfortunately. Somehow, the manufacturers need to be made to see the light that people would like support for these things built-in to their products. (Of course they will get negative feedback/blowback from the government).

If you have real need today for these things, then no hassle factor is worth the consequences of not doing it. But for the mundane communications we all do every day, which should be encrypted just out of principle, the hassle factor plays a real role.

----