So the thing you said is wrong. An OTP is nothing like any of the things you are saying it is like. You are making shitty analogies, and I am telling you how shitty they are and why. For example: when you said "it's not a problem that you can't hack a OTP, unless you also consider it a problem that you can't hack your way into data that's on CDs in a sealed vault," that was actually totally dumb. Because the former is a matter of extracting information from transmissions occurring right in front of you, and the latter is a matter of extracting information from devices it is physically impossible to access that are not transmitting anything in anyway. Even the most casual inspection reveals that those are different problems for the ruleset to tackle.Ice9 wrote:Again - so?
Seriously, you could replace "OTP" with "symmetric key encryption" and reach the exact same conclusion - i.e., the conclusion that "encrypted communication is not like encrypted communication, but is actually like not having access to stored data (the key)." Your analogies suck donkey balls and you should stop making them. They do nothing for the argument you've adopted (which is that unbreakable encrypted transmissions aren't a problem when it is too expensive or impractical to be ubiquitious) but they do make you look like you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.