Yes and no. I'm neither a security expert nor an expert in intelligence/counter-intelligence. However, if I were to break a crypto scheme, it is paramount that I never reveal that I have broken the crypto scheme. That way, I can continue to intercept and decode your secrets while you believe that your crypto scheme is safely protecting them.

If AES were broken, the last thing that a government entity would want to do was reveal that it is broken. In fact, if AES has been broken, UK law enforcement officials are extremely unlikely to even be aware of this. It would most likely be an entirely different branch of government (or a different government altogether - e.g. US) who has knows of and has the means to break a scheme like AES.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with your assertion that crypto is good, but this story does not in any way suggest that AES has not been broken yet. I am still suspicious, particularly given that the scheme was "blessed" by the American NSA.

The CNET article fails to mention context, and my understanding of the case law is that it isn't so simple. I can't speak to the specifics of the Colorado case in the CNET article, but I do know that the case of the Sebastien Boucher/CBP, Boucher was compelled to reveal his key based upon more than just reasonable suspicion. In this case, agents had actually seen child pornography on the system, and then shut the system down. The key was flushed from memory upon shutdown, rendering the data inaccessible. However, officers had already seen the incriminating data. Certain federal district courts have protected defendants from being compelled to reveal keys for the purpose of "fishing expeditions", when it is uncertain whether or not there is any incriminating data.

IANAL

I misspoke - I actually meant the Bill or Rights rather than the constitution itself. A grant is perhaps a less than ideal choice of words. How about "guarantee" instead? Maybe limitation of government powers?

Lighten up, Francis.

I know that this doesn't have to do with the point that you're trying to make, so please excuse me for hijacking your thread; but referring to any rights under the US Constitution as God-given has always given me pause - and I'm curious about your meaning. How are any of your rights as defined by the United States Constitution to be considered God-given? The canons of any Abrahamic texts (save, perhaps, for the Book of Mormon) were closed long before the fairly modern American Constitution was written...and these rights were not stated in any biblical text that I'm aware of (apologies in advance if you subscribe to some alternative religious doctrine). The term "God-given rights", in my understanding, is derived from a Monarch's assertion that their right to rule comes directly from a divine source. I suppose that Locke did write about certain rights as natural and therefore God-given, but he offered little basis for his religious overtones, and it seemed more like hyperbole than anything else to my (admittedly untrained) eye.

The same goes for assertion that a right to self-defense is God-given, albeit to a lesser extent - as the Bible may contain some verses about protecting ones self.

I guess what I'm asking is whether or not you've considered what you mean by God-given, or are you just using an old saying without any consideration to its meaning? If you believe that rights granted under the US Constitution are somehow explicitly endorsed by some sort of deity, what basis do you have for this belief? I'm legitimately curious, because I see this term used quite often, and it has always seemed strange to me.

Why would you let facts get in the way of a perfectly good argument? How anti-Slashdot of you.

I'm curious - in an open-carry situation; what is the legality of firing at someone (who is presumably shooting at someone else - e.g. a TSA officer) in a crowded area? If they're not shooting at (or threatening) the person carrying a gun, when is the citizen legally allowed to shoot?

Liberty and dignity...and the right to troll anonymously. ;)

Reading through this thread, I find your sense of ethics to be bizarre. It sounds to me like you're suggesting that if you don't agree with one law, everything else goes out the window. Given a large enough society, there will always be injustice. Justice is never perfect and it would be naive to assume that it can. A good society does its best to recognize injustices and and correct it where it exists...but there will always be different perspectives on what qualifies as injustice. Having a perspective that's different from the mainstream, or even being ahead of the historical curve on what qualifies as injustice that doesn't give one license to break every law. That would be stupid and that person would be an asshole - or at the very least, a criminal.

My apologies. I was using your example of high value communication and terrorism interchangeably; especially with regard to the NSA supporting other agencies. However, it does little to diminish the point that I was trying to make. It's only a matter of time until it's cheap and easy enough to look at anyone for any reason - the phone call that the NSA was waiting for to have them mine our data will soon become an email, then a batch request, then they'll be helping any federal or state agency to look at everyone automatically. Over time, that cost:value curve changes - and the cost of analyzing the data drops to the point where an extremely low value target is worth looking at extensively...or am I still misunderstanding your point?

It does seem like you have an understanding of systems security, and I do agree with what you say about weighing the value of what you're securing versus your adversaries interest, resources, etc. (Not exactly what you said, I know; but please excuse my loose paraphrase).

I disagree with your assertion that since you're not a terrorist, the NSA has no interest in you and/or what you do. Law enforcement tools are always used to their fullest extent. I mean, it makes sense; law enforcement is a bit hamstrung by rights guaranteed under the constitution - they will use whatever tool is at their disposal to get their job done.

Whether or not you were investigated when the system was new is irrelevant to what law enforcement has started (or will start) using these systems. Also, to obtain a FISA warrant for an investigation related to terrorism is quite trivial and open to interpretation. Any evidence discovered of other crimes in that warrant is usable in court. I have seen it first-hand while siting on a federal jury last summer. A US khat-selling ring's sending money overseas was investigated by DHS due to concerns about possibly funding terrorism. It wasn't, but the multi-million dollar investigation had to net something - so I sat on a jury for 5 weeks and sifted through mountains of wiretap transcripts so the federal government could incarcerate a bunch of taxi cab drivers who wanted to chew some khat so they could work a little later and make a little bit more money.

I hate to be the slippery slope guy...but this is typical. It's only a matter of time until these law enforcement tools are used on a wholesale basis (if they aren't being already). After reading about the extremes that the Soviets would go to under Stalin (if you were being investigated, you must be guilty of something), I feel like I have a fair understanding for how far things can go. I'm not suggesting that America is going that way...but why give her the chance, especially when we can do something now? Why not start setting some limits on this stuff? I think that the risks of what's going on outweigh the benefits. Is it unreasonable to do an honest analysis of the real risks of terrorism against the security measures that our government is putting in place?

Welcome to Slashdot (and the Internet at-large as of 2013)! This is a place where people often come to be a dick, just for fun. The fact that you are upset about suggests that you must be new here. It's cool...AC posters are almost universally douchebags. Anyway, mostly due to the lack of civility, I've long since quit posting here unless I have something very specific to say...or because it's late and I can't sleep (like tonight).

If you had cited a source, I would have read it and our discussion would have been framed around that rather than the lack of basis. My point was that I really had nothing to work with and any discussion was losing proposition from the start (for me).

I won't dismiss your suggestion out of hand. In fact, it's quite a reasonable hypothesis, and I actually think that it warrants serious consideration and/or study.

I was specifically referring to (among others) the second result using your search terms. This is exactly why I stated that you need to cite your own research. You're hung up on my reaching a different conclusion than you did - because you didn't cite your sources...even after I had asked for them. This is exactly why I said what I did - please go back and read it, and then please cite your sources next time.

With regard to the (summary of the) single scientific article that I read - the Cornell article, the authors specifically stated that the data was not sound and that it was a commentary on policy rather than actual science.

I have no idea what you're basing your opinion on. I prefer science - it's all I have. I still have no clue where you're coming from, and I don't have any definitive answers - I'm not trying to bullshit you, my friend. However, you've only offered presumption and Google search terms. I would be happy to discuss this with you when we're on even ground. Unfortunately, we're still not speaking the same language.

I would prefer that you back up your own claims. To rely on my doing so will invariably lead to me doing independent research that is likely different than yours; likely leading to a different opinion. A quick Google search using your terms points to a number of articles - some say that natural gas could release an increased amount of methane. There are many articles on politically charged sites that I tend to discount on principle. One more promising one summarizes a Cornell study linking natural gas to increased methane, and the authors state "We do not intend for you to accept what we reported on today as the definitive scientific study with regard to this question. It is clearly not. We have pointed out as many times as we could that we are basing this study on in some cases questionable data". The study was more a commentary on policy than actual science.

Anyway, I can only assume that this is the science that you're referring to. If this is the case, your claims sound (at best) presumptive.