FISA with Telecom Immunity Passed

firstdown

So then what is your opinion on Obama voting for the bill and I'm still not sure what rights have been stripped from you. This is nothing new. If a cop is called to your home for some reason he can not enter without your permission or without a warrant. Now if he susspects illegal activity he can then enter your home. Whats the difference.

12thMan

It really was a no win situation for him as a candidate to be honest. On one hand, vote against it and you look weak on terrorism. Vote for it, you appear to slight the Constitution.

Also what isn't being reported is that earlier that same day Obama voted for a similiar bill, sponsored by Chris Dodd, that would have stripped out the immunity portion. It was defeated overwhelmingly. Later that day Obama voted for the other version of the bill that passed through the Senate.

Slingin Sammy 33

NSA has the capability to decipher a 256 bit key in minutes. Otherwise this encryption technology wouldn't be available to the public.

While many of our politicians are not the "sharpest tacks in the box", the folks doing the work at NSA are pretty smart and they have almost limitless funding.

marxbitware.com - Cipher Strengths - Are They To Weak?

Computerworld > Researcher finds RSA 1024-bit encryption not enough

__________________
...[If] an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything]....you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.

firstdown

So then what your saying is that Obama votes based on what he thinks will get him the most votes and does not vote on his belief.

12thMan

Not saying that all. But it still remains a fact. He's damned if doesn't and damned if he doesn't. Is he a politician? Absoulutely.

Votes? I'm not sure how this get's him more votes though.

Slingin Sammy 33

I don't understand why some folks wanted the telecoms liable for cooperating with a Federal investigation. If they could've been held liable the result would've been a group of lawyers representing terrorist/anti-American interests and suing the telecoms for damages. This would then force the telecoms to not allow the government to access their information for investigations involving national security. The cost of the judgements if the telecoms lost would've been passed to the American people in the form of higher rates. It's a lose/lose for the American people we've hampered the government's ability to track and disrupt terrorist activity and we've raised our costs for phone/E-mail/internet.

I personally don't have a problem with the government(led by Rep or Dem) being able to access my phone/E-mail/Internet records if it has reasonable suspicion that I am involved in supporting terrorist activity. For the government to actually prosecute me or negatively affect me in any way they've got to jump through numerous legal hoops to make it happen. They can't break through my front door and cart me away to prison because I looked at a terrorist web-site one time.

I'll go down with a fight anyway, thanks to the recent 2nd Ammendment ruling (sarcasm)

__________________
...[If] an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything]....you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.

Miller101

WHAT!?!??! You actually believe that crap? The "Bush wiretapping broke no law" one.

If Bush's wiretapping broke no law then why is immunity included in this law THAT WAS JUST PASSED? It makes no sense dude! No offense, but this bill SUCKS!

Slingin Sammy 33

I haven't read the bill, but the immunity was for the telecom companies that cooperated with the governments requests/demands for information. I don't see how any rational person would think they should be liable.

__________________
...[If] an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything]....you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.

12thMan

I too find it hard to prosecute a company when the White House were the ones requesting the information. I understand that they were complicit, but if the POTUS is asking for information to make our country 'safer', how could they deny such a request.

firstdown

One thing I have noticed is that the people who had a problem with the gun rulling last week and supported gun bands now oppose this citing their constitutional right. The ones who liked the ruling about guns which they stated the 2nd now support this. So I guess we prove that people use the constitution as it fits their believes.

12thMan

Basically. We bend the Constitution to suit our needs. We're no better than the politians at the end of the day.

cpayne5

I do not believe that the NSA can break RSA reliably. They may get lucky here and there, but I would have a hard time believing that they can crack a totally random key in a matter of minutes.

Even if they could crack RSA, they would have to catch the key negotiation when the AES keys are passed, in order to listen in on the good stuff. No way do I believe they can crack an AES stream on its own, though.

The openness of the these cryptographic standards is what makes them safe. The world is filled with brilliant mathematicians; they don't all work at the NSA. If there was a flaw besides brute force, I'm confident that the world would know about it.

__________________
"It's not about what you've done, but what's been done for you."

saden1

It's about the algorithm used and the key size. Even at 1024-bit key size RSA encryption is trash when it comes to encrypting data. No one in their right mind would use it nowadays because it's susceptible to chosen-plaintext attacks and there are better encryption schemes out there. What you really want is AES (Rijndael) which the NSA approved for encrypting classified documents or Twofish which is even better.

__________________
RG3, RGIII, RG三, RG३, RGγʹ, RGג, RG٣, RG๓, RG..., RG셋, RGԳ!