Silk Road forums

Quote from: kmfkewm on September 15, 2013, 03:35 pm

Quote from: comsec on September 15, 2013, 11:30 am

Quantum computers have the **theoretical** ability to break common public-key algorithms (RSA/PGP), and Elliptic Curve cryptography regardless of key length and to effectively halve the key length of any symmetric algorithm (AES, Blowfish)

It's doubtful any of the prototypes around have the ability to do this yet, plus it's more likely they would build SKYNET or something with it than spend all day meddling with encryption. Who knows what the NSA has though.

If you want to trade super secret stolen government secrets encrypt it with SHA-2(512)/AES-256 or SHA-3(1024)/Threefish-512. https://www.schneier.com/skein.html

I would recommend the actual NIST SHA-3 winner which was Keccak but since nobody can trust NIST anymore would seem logical not to use anything they are promoting http://keccak.noekeon.org/

AES-256 can only take a 256 bit key, you would only be able to use half the output of SHA-512. Threefish-512 can only use a 512 bit key, you would only be able to use half of the output of SHA-1024.

The security strength of SHA-2: SHA-224 is 112-bits, SHA-256 is 128-bits, SHA-384 is 192-bits and SHA-512 is 256-bits and if I remember correctly that's the default value in Truecrypt (SHA-512).

Threefish is a built-in block cipher for Skein, which is the same size as the block so you're right that Skein-1024 would be Threefish-1024 by default, Skein-512/Threefish-512 ect.

Quantum computers have the **theoretical** ability to break common public-key algorithms (RSA/PGP), and Elliptic Curve cryptography regardless of key length and to effectively halve the key length of any symmetric algorithm (AES, Blowfish)

It's doubtful any of the prototypes around have the ability to do this yet, plus it's more likely they would build SKYNET or something with it than spend all day meddling with encryption. Who knows what the NSA has though.

If you want to trade super secret stolen government secrets encrypt it with SHA-2(512)/AES-256 or SHA-3(1024)/Threefish-512. https://www.schneier.com/skein.html

I would recommend the actual NIST SHA-3 winner which was Keccak but since nobody can trust NIST anymore would seem logical not to use anything they are promoting http://keccak.noekeon.org/

At the opening of America's iconic (albeit controversial) romance epic, Gone With the Wind, 16-year-old Scarlett O'Hara fends off flirtatious propositions from the 19-year-old Tarleton twins -- a moment rendered indelible in the subsequent film by the gifted actors Fred Crane and George Reeves. I suspect few of the countless high school students who read this novel each year reflect on the morality of the age difference between Scarlett and her suitors. The stark reality is that a consensual sexual relationship between a 16-year-old and a 19-year-old is a prison offense in many states, including New York and California. New York State goes even further: Two 16-year-olds enjoying a voluntary sexual relationship are legally committing crimes against each other, with both partners being "victims" and possibly even sex offenders. These draconian and puritanical laws are largely the product of a conservative political culture that has transformed the fight against child molestation into a full-blown war on teenage sexuality. We now live in a moral milieu so toxic and muddled that we lump together as "sex offenders" teenagers who send nude photos to each other with clergymen who rape toddlers. A first step toward reversing this madness -- and actually protecting the health and safety of teenagers -- would be to revise the age of consent downward to a threshold in accordance with those of other enlightened nations.

The widespread decriminalization of homosexual intercourse over the past two decades has led many Western nations to reexamine "age of consent" statutes for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Great Britain, after considerable national debate, chose 16 at its magic number in 2003, although a minority of liberal Britons, led by gay rights activist Peter Tatchell, continue to push for a cut-off at 14 years. In 2008, Canada has also settled upon 16. French law sets the age of majority, in matters of romance, at 15. Our other closest cultural and moral allies fall into a similar range: Belgium (16), Denmark (15), Germany (14-16), Greece (15), Holland (16), Italy (14), Norway (16) and Sweden (15). The outliers are even lower, not higher, such as Spain's threshold of 13. What these nations have accepted, and many in this country still refuse to acknowledge, is that teenagers do have sex -- lots of it -- and that criminal law is neither an effective or an ethical means of deterring their sexual desires. (The average age of first sexual intercourse remains well below 18 in the United States, including in those states with an 18-year-old age floor, suggesting that a majority of teens violate these laws with impunity.) Furthermore, when it comes to older teens, it is not at all clear why safe sexual relationships should be deterred. If a 16-year-old can enjoy sex responsibly -- using birth control, taking measures to prevent the spread of disease -- and he or she wishes to add sexual pleasure to the rich tapestry of adolescent life, why shouldn't we encourage that individual to do so? It seems a far less dangerous endeavor than hunting, which New York licenses at the age of 12 (versus 17 for intercourse) and California allows at 16 (versus 18 for sex). Driving, too, is far more dangerous than sex. Whether the age of consent should be 16 or 15, or even a year younger, is a complex question that our society needs to address. Keeping the age of consent at 18, as do 12 states, is no more reasonable that setting it at 10.

The purpose of "age of consent" statues is presumably to prevent the exploitation of children who are not yet mature enough to make wise decisions or who do not understand the implications and consequences of sex. (Of course, one could apply that same reasoning to many other potentially-corrupting activities -- attending church or synagogue, for example. Yet nobody argues we should shield children from religion until they reach 18 and are thus old enough to understand the implications and consequences of religious practice.) Another justification for age-of-consent laws is that the sort of adults who prey upon young children sexually are also likely to harm them in other ways, including violently -- to cover up their deeds, if for no other reason. These concerns for the safety and welfare of minors justify legal regulation, but only up to a point. A college freshman who asks a high school junior on a date poses little threat to the commonweal -- even if that date ends in bed. Statutes criminalizing such behavior are far more likely to harm teenagers than to help them -- whether by denying them access to necessary information, deterring them from sharing their experiences with teachers and counselors for fear that they or their partners will be reported to authorities, or driving them to have sex in parked cars and dark alleys rather than safe, warm bedrooms. In fact, in many states the responsible and sexuality-aware parent who creates a safe environment for a teenager to explore his or her sexuality with peers can face prosecution and even loss of custody for contributing to the corruption of a minor.

The Christian right and its political allies have similarly co-opted efforts to crack down on child pornography as part of their drive to suppress teenage sexuality. Child pornography statues, which were initially designed to prevent predators from exploiting children, are now increasingly being used to prosecute or intimidate teenagers who receive sexually explicit photos of their boyfriends or girlfriends. Some of these teens have even been charged under child pornography statues themselves -- including a 17-year-old Ohio girl who was prosecuted for "sexting" her own partially-clad photograph to an ex-boyfriend who was over 18. The problem is not with these teenagers. The problem is with the statutes. While sexual images of 16- and 17 year olds may of course be used inappropriately -- as may those of adults, for that matter -- the individuals who should be punished are those offenders who misuse these images, not the teenagers who take them or the romantic partners who savor them. Exploitation is wrong. Neither sex nor nudity are inherently wrong or inherently exploitative. Alas, we appear to have forgotten how to tell the difference.

The media all too often focuses on cases where sexual relations are non-consensual (such as Roman Polanski's encounter with Samantha Geimer) or where authority figures, such as teachers and coaches, seduced young charges in their care. But many teenagers are prosecuted for consensual encounters with their peers or partners only a few years younger than themselves. Some of these cases prove truly Kafkaesque. In Florida, for example, a 15-year-old girl recently had consensual sex with four 17-year-old football players -- and then, by her own admission, allegedly fabricated rape charges against them. The boys, who are the actual victims in this case, now await trial on charges of "lewd and lascivious battery of a minor," a serious felony. In Georgia, the widely-publicized tragedy of 17-year-old Genarlow Wilson -- sentenced to 10 years in prison for consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl -- nearly ruined the life of a promising young man without in any way protecting the welfare of other teens. These are merely the tip of the forensic iceberg. On a regular basis, morally blameless young adults are prosecuted, forced to register as sex offenders, and even deported for consensual sex-acts with 16- and 17-year olds that would be legal in Canada and often in neighboring states. What is a loving relationship in Newark or Las Vegas is the worst of all crimes in New York City and Los Angeles.

Teenagers are smart. They understand that sex can be pleasurable and that it can enhance the intimacy of their relationships. Telling them otherwise -- by insisting, for example, that "sex is for adults only" -- defies their lived reality. We should instead be emphasizing safe sex practices, open communication, and gender equality. We should not tolerate, for example, any double standard that winks at teenage boys for having multiple partners but disparages girls who do so. We should take a warning from the old joke: What do you call teenagers who receive abstinence-only sex education? Anwers: Mothers and fathers. I look forward to the day when those adults who preach an anti-sex philosophy to teenagers become as unpopular as the teens who embrace it.

That is not to say that some teenagers won't choose to remain celibate. I cannot imagine why they would, by I respect their right to do so. However, those 16- and 17-year-olds who want to indulge in one of life's great pleasures should not have to worry about the long arm of the law coming after them or their partners. Even more important, our society needs an open debate on this question. For far too long, those progressive voices who would bring common sense to the issues of teenage sexuality have been afraid to speak out for fear of being branded sympathetic to pedophiles and sex predators. The reality is that a reasonably lower age of consent, and a frank national discussion of adolescent sexuality, would serve the interests of the very minors that current laws are supposedly trying to protect. Pro-sex is Pro-safety. Conservative parents are certainly entitled to encourage their teenage daughters to keep their legs crossed, much as they may tell their sons that masturbation causes blindness. What they do not have have a right to do is to lock the rest of our society in a chastity belt by fighting a war on sexuality under the specious guise of protecting teens from themselves.

THERE are depressingly few fields in which Britain claims top spot among our European partners. More depressing still is that one of them is teenage pregnancy. British teenagers have the highest pregnancy rates in the EU. Rates of teenage births are twice those in Germany. Britain also has the highest abortion rates in Western Europe.

A survey carried out in 2000 showed that nearly a third of men and a quarter of women aged 16–19 had heterosexual intercourse before they were 16. Another survey in 2005 showed that more than one-fifth of schoolgirls have had three sexual partners by the age of 14.

To read these figures you would think that the British nation is sex crazed, with teachers and parents hammering home to children the delights of carnal gratification. Yet the reverse is in fact the case. For Britain is famously prudish about sex. The prospect of having ‘the talk’ fills parents with an icy chill. Then you have the toe-curlingly awkward sex-education classes in school, which are little more than an hour long snigger-fest for teenagers who already know more than the poor teacher.

It is also worth noting that until recently the sex education class fell under the purview of the science department. It was treated as a cold, clinical look at the mechanics of reproduction, and barley skimmed the emotional aspects of relationships and consent.

Britain’s attitude to sexuality is wildly out of date. It is stuck in the mindset of a bygone age, and ignores the facts on the ground. The most fundamental flaw in our slavish devotion to the age of consent remaining at 16.

Sixteen is a totally arbitrary age of consent. It originates from 1885. There is, however, no medical or psychological evidence that 16 (as opposed to 14 or any other age) is the age of sexual or emotional maturity. As we have seen, teenagers are having sex long before then.

Sixteen is also relatively high by European standards. British teenage pregnancies are double those of Germany’s. Yet our Teutonic cousins have an age of consent of only fourteen. So the idea that lowering the age of consent would lead to more teenage mothers is a baseless one.

One can’t even make the argument that British youngsters are exposed to more sexual imagery. Public attitudes to sex and nudity are far more relaxed on the continent, and with access to the internet, there’s northing British teens are watching that French or Dutch teens can’t. Much like alcohol, the difference is cultural. Indeed, it’s rather telling that British and American attitudes to nudity are fairly similar, and both the US and UK have a teen birth rate far in excess of their European counterparts.

The principle argument against lowering the age of consent is that it would make more young people vulnerable to the nefarious appetites of sexual predators. However I would argue that the opposite is the case. At the moment, those under 16 have no sexual rights. The State and society have told them that have no right to make a decision about whether or not they are ready for sex. This is exactly what child abusers believe and exactly what they want their victims to believe.

Would it not be better to educate 14 year olds in their rights? Would it not be better to arm 14 year olds with the facts? Would it not be better to empower 14 year olds to become the masters of their own sexual identity? A sexually aware 14 year old that is treated like an adult is far less likely to become a victim than a sexually ignorant 14 year old who is treated like a child.

Lowering the age of consent to 14 would not only recognise the reality of today’s Britain, it would also encourage a more open attitude to sex and relationships. Under the current system, two 15 year olds in a sexual relationship are criminals. They are forced to keep their relationship secret. This helps nobody. Secrecy means the parents are unable to provide emotional support, and by having to remain hidden, the teenagers are cutting themselves off from the resources and education available to those just a few months older than they.

The desire to prolong the innocence of childhood is an understandable one from parents. Nobody wants to think of their little angels as sexually active. But the reality is painfully different. By blinkering ourselves to the facts, we are doing our youngsters a great disservice. In order to satisfy our own selfish need of a rose tinted view of our teens, we are depriving them of the support they need. This attitude bleeds into the schools. Too many teachers are reluctant to educate those under 16 about sex for fear of being pounced on by puritanical Daily Mail readers, or parents fearful that their precious offspring are being corrupted.

For decades Britain and the US have buried their heads in the sand over teenage sex. Some would like to think that it simply doesn’t happen. Others want to blame the media and the internet. Others even hoped that teaching abstinence would work. It wasn’t even that long ago that teaching teenagers about touching themselves was considered a step too far. The result has been teenage pregnancies, STDs and education system laughably out of sync with the very people it is supposed to help.

Lowering the age of consent to 14 would reap many benefits. Critically, it would decriminalise a swath of young people who are guilty of nothing more than obeying their anthropological impulses. A better educated bracket of young people would more astute, and able to make well informed choices about sex, greatly improving STD and pregnancy rates. And by allowing more youngsters to become the primary stakeholder in their own sexual identity, we are more effectively protecting them from horrors of sexual predators.

A good starting point would be to introduce a sliding scale of consent. For example sex with a consenting 14 year old would be legal provided the other party is no older than 21. Similar systems work well in places like Germany, Israel and Switzerland. These countries have recognised that different people reach emotional maturity at different ages, and that many youngsters engage in harmless sexual experimentation with each other, such as mutual masturbation or oral sex. The solution is education and loose system of safeguards, rather than blanket criminalisation.

If having the age of consent at 16 is meant to be beneficial to society, it has abjectly failed. The figures speak for themselves. Teenagers are having sex earlier than the law states. We can carry on pretending everything is fine and in doing so condemn another generation to become depressing statistics. Or we can recognise the reality and create a system whereby teenagers, parents and teachers drop the mutual deception and engage in constructive education and discourse.

I like how you slipped in the old fact that it wouldn't bother you if they had sex with teenagers. Get yourself over to primeassteens.com and let off some steam.