On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 14:03:24 +0000
Joe Hart <j.hart@orange.nl> wrote:
Hello Joe,
> Hmm, that's an interesting observation. I didn't think of that. Of
> course, most of the people I communicate with via e-mail don't use PGP
> so I can't send them encrypted mail.
You can *send* it them. They're unlikely to be able to *read* it,
though. :-)
> I do like the idea though. I just wonder, how difficult is it really
> for the authorities who may confiscate my computer to break the GPG
> encryption? I know it has something to do with the length of
Since various governments stopped trying to prosecute Phil Zimmerman,
conspiracy theorists say that they (the governments) have found a
sure-fire algorithm or crack for PGP.
> password, but is seems that a cluster of computers could use a brute
> force attack and succeed in discovering the password eventually. It
> might take a few months of constant number crunching though.
You've never come across Distributed.net, and the brute force attacks
they did with RC5-64 and are now doing with RC5-72? All as an
intellectual exercise. Visit http://www.distributed.net/ for more info.
> Meanwhile I rot in jail for "engaging in suspicious activity".
Just add flagged words if you want to be monitored. Things like, atom
bomb, murder, assassinate, etc.
> In some ways it is better not to encrypt mail. It is like saying "I
> have nothing to hide here, go ahead read my mail."
Just like the Illuminati; Hidden in plain view.
Hmmm, I talk to too many conspiracy theorists.......
--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)rad never immediately apparent"
Well you tried it just the once and found it alright for kicks
Orgasm Addict - Buzzcocks
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature