They don't have authority and jurisdiction to just "arrest" (aka kidnap in this case) people from other countries.
If they actually want to arrest someone, the local authorities need to do it, and they would agree only if the request is valid based on their international agreements, their asylum laws, etc.
There are all kinds of different adversary models: these kinds of algorithms are tailored towards IoT or short-term communications use cases, where size and performance on constrained devices are more important than being secure against a nation state for X years.
For example: you may have a “smart” device in your household that indicates whether you’re home or not. You don’t want a passive adversary to be able to snoop its RF traffic, but you also don’t need its traffic to be secure for more than one week. “Lightweight” algorithms are meant to give you formal guarantees around that, while also balancing performance, power consumption, and other interests.
More like "lightweight" in terms of code size (or hardware equivalents like FPGA fabric area), RAM requirements, and CPU cycles per byte of encryption/authentication. In some cases this means that a message could be brute forced slightly more quickly. But in practical terms that not a big deal, who cares if someone can crack your code in 2^10 years instead of 2^14.
I think for most crypto, brute force times aren't the biggest concern. What's more potentially an issue is the breakability of the algorithm (is there a way to find the plaintext more efficiently than brute forcing?) and how susceptible the algo's implementations are to things like timing attacks (which can be an issue with s boxes although maybe not as big of a deal as I thought considering the results of the competition).
In terms of NSA conspiracy theories, it would've been more of an issue if the competition had gone towards Simon or Speck (which weren't eligible because they're block ciphers, but there's ways to adapt... I think OCB mode is no longer patent encumbered.
No, more tuned for small message sizes, code size, RAM usage, power usage, etc. The security goals are essentially the same as the "high performance" ciphers, but the performance trade-offs are different.
The most frustrating thing about Waze is that it doesn't have offline maps. I get that the main selling point is live traffic data, but that's not necessarily an either/or with offline maps.
> Telegram disguises itself as encrypted chat app, when it is actually just a regular centralized plaintext messenger that has an encryption feature that nobody uses.
Best description of Telegram that I've seen so far.
I do trust Signal to keep the phone numbers safe with their methodology for doing that, but probably wouldn't anyone else.
Wait before they start complaining about "car piracy" and how they can't afford to stay in business unless they do all of this stuff and show you ads on your windshield while driving.
I mean you already here such arguments from smart TV makers and their fans as well as in other industries.
The real truth is all of this stuff would be fixed if a new standard and baseline was set for them so none of them have to do any of this stuff to survive. They'll find other ways to compete.
>so none of them have to do any of this stuff to survive
They aren't doing those things to survive but for extra profit. That said TV ads is the reason their prices have dropped so much and can block them by simply not connecting them to the internet. You still get a superior dumb monitor for their cost.
I know it's sarcasm, but you don't have to have "big secrets" in order to want privacy. Everyone knows what you're doing in the restroom, doesn't mean you're ok to going to a see-through public restroom.
Maybe the real problem here is that the police shouldn't be shooting people on sight just because they were told on the phone that someone is dangerous in a building, and instead should be properly assess the situation before getting too trigger happy?
> I think that almost any sane, logical human should be having problems keeping up with the fast changing world.
There is simply too much shit, too much stupid and not enough time to understand things without sacrificing family, relationships, or health.
World is messed up, and it's not worth understanding it anymore, I don't think the payout is worth the cost.
Adobe is a large company. I think markets benefit more from large companies being forced to create their own competitors to the threats they perceive rather than buying out the largest threat and thus eliminating that large threat at the same time as them suddenly owning the best player in that market.
Probably around 7-10 years, which is the time limit it originally had.
Copyright is meant to be a "public pact" to encourage creation and innovation.
But think about that goal for a minute. It doesn't necessarily mean you should be able to create one awesome thing once and then benefit from it for life as a rent-seeking fat cat.
Instead, it should give you a reasonable amount of time to benefit from the fruits of it, but afterward, you should be encouraged to create again. So you'd be motivated not just by the carrot of making a lot of money over a 10-year span after launch, but also by the stick that you will no longer get royalties after 10 years, so you need to keep innovating. There is even a study out there that shows that the buyers of most books drastically drops after 10 years.
This benefits society at large, since it creates more competition, both from the original author of a work, but also by others who are then allowed to make iterations of the original work.
That's why patents are time-limited, too. The idea isn't to give one company the "right" to make money off an invention for eternity, but to allow the whole society to profit from it eventually by allowing others to drastically improve upon that original idea afterward.
But why was it ever intended as a "public pact" and not like an "actual right" that authors have? Because let's not forget that no idea is 100% original.
In fact, most aren't even 10% original. We all live "on the shoulders of giants" as they say. So most works are just rehashing of old works - so that also means that if enforcement was 100% the inflow of new works would drastically be reduced. So you don't "deserve" to benefit from a "new work" that's actually mostly rehashed old ideas anyway.
I always recommend watching the Everything is a Remix series to get a new perspective on this based on the history of copyrighted works:
You're dead-on-arrival. I vouched cause it was a respectful answer.
You probably should abandon this account and create a new one that isn't "dead" on post.
--------------
> Probably around 7-10 years, which is the time limit it originally had.
Samuel Clemens stated that if copyright was shortened to this long or shorter, then he would not issue books. Instead he'd public chapters as to restart the clock for each. And naturally, would arbitrarily lengthen copyright to however long he'd string readers by.
As for me, I have no answers. This problem is larger than I think anyone can view.
(It is interesting, as if you go back, mtgx has been banned since 2019 because of a "personal attack" on Carmack 100% is NOT personal and that, supposedly, their views are "predictable", which, if applied fairly, would get most of us banned as we are all broken records ;P.)
Regardless, that copyright was 7-10 years originally is close but not quite right in a way that matters: it was 14 years with the ability to request a 14 year extension. (This being the same in the US law which came much later, but was originally from the Statute of Anne in the UK.)
So like, 10 is close enough to 14 and yet, not only do those 4 years feel (to me) like they matter a lot, it is arguably 28, and 7 is definitely underselling the protection they were being granted. That said, it also only applied (in the US) to books, maps, and charts, so in some sense wasn't even the same, broad concept.
The discussion of how long over time is interesting as, in a very real sense, our ability to monetize copyright quickly has increased: the Internet lets you immediately address a nationwide market, while it easily could have taken decades with nothing but (expensive to use) printing presses making materials to distribute around using (slow) horses and (for even wider distribution) boats.
These days, I almost get the impression that a lot of media companies try to make the vast majority of money off of something in the first few MONTHS and then nigh-unto discard it entirely--not even bothering to finish things for later syndication--while they move on to new content and new IP.
They are then occasionally mining their old catalogs of IP to do like, a "reboot", but I frankly feel like no one would stop making content if they lost the ability to later do that, and I also doubt that the original creators are being compensated much for that later possibility (as it is so hit and miss).
> then benefit from it for life as a rent-seeking fat cat.
Instead the benefit of creative works would almost exclusively to middle-men who created nothing.
7 years is sooo short. Many TV shows and book series take longer than that from start to finish. And often times they grow in popularity.
Movies based on books frequently come out more than 10 years after the book resulting in a surge of popularity. With 10 years the original author would see no benefit from either the movie or their new book sales! There’d be a lot of fat cats, just not the actual creator.
If they actually want to arrest someone, the local authorities need to do it, and they would agree only if the request is valid based on their international agreements, their asylum laws, etc.