From: "Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 15:23:13 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: A case for 2560 bit keys
In-Reply-To: <199607092058.NAA05528@mail.pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.94.960709203427.833B-100000@gak>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Tue, 9 Jul 1996, jim bell wrote:

> I don't think it's going to make a great deal of difference.  We've "all" 
> shifted to 1024-bit keys, even though it's unlikely anybody will have the 
> resources to crack them for decades if not centuries.  And the moment any 
> government prosecutes anyone with information obtained by a decrypt of a 
> 1024-bit key, the (then) stragglers will join the rest of us at 1500 or 
> 2000+.  The government knows this and there's nothing it can do about it, 
> except possibly for GAK and it isn't making much headway in that.

Wiretaps aren't always used as evidence.  It's a very effective way to snoop
on people under suspect and get some information on where some incriminating
information may be, but they rarely produce hard evidence.

- -- Mark

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
markm@voicenet.com              | finger -l for PGP key 0xe3bf2169
http://www.voicenet.com/~markm/ | d61734f2800486ae6f79bfeb70f95348
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four.  If that
is granted, all else follows."  --George Orwell, _1984_


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBMeL7lrZc+sv5siulAQGAeQP9GWDx/lapMeBCUW+0+P24uf/Il5eJUg+S
4RSZb8owZvWJ0queF+ygfFjSI8DV+HJNFryOJ87vNRmINvTCTuepNJzod1QG8+tk
B2NMJ59rO7AFGWhikqlLLA4QOc5qX5Uvti/Rwu8BmqS/TAt3RFjqciRiDakJA2Pa
SCVhOh3GnwQ=
=mVY8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----