[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fwd: [Cryptography] Schneier's Internet Security Agency - bad idea because we don't know what it will do




On February 26, 2017 10:41:57 PM EST, Razer <g2s AT riseup.net> wrote:
>
>
>On 02/26/2017 06:20 PM, grarpamp wrote:
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Henry Baker <hbaker1 AT pipeline.com>
>> Date: Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 4:16 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Cryptography] Schneier's Internet Security Agency - bad
>> idea because we don't know what it will do
>> To: Ian G <iang AT iang.org>
>> Cc: cryptography AT metzdowd.com
>>
>>
>> At 07:26 AM 2/25/2017, Ian G wrote:
>>> Bruce Schneier has recently published an impassioned plea for a
>United States Federal Internet Security Agency, which would likely gain
>control of civilian cryptography, among many other munitions.  The
>essay is impassioned, it is much longer than his normal 2 pagers, which
>signals something - belief, preparedness, foundation?
>>>
>>>
>http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/01/the-internet-of-things-dangerous-future-bruce-schneier.html
>>>
>
>I saw this go by on my rss scroll the other day and I thought, as
>Mirimir said, "He's lost it".
>
>Rr

There's something like 4 out of over 530 members of Congress who's college background includes computer science.

Our "lawmakers" (may they rot and die) have made it abundantly clear they don't understand technology with their absurd debates over encryption.

Bruce is saying some scary shit for sure.