Re: Surrogate factoring, update

From: James Harris (jstevh_at_msn.com)
Date: 07/14/04 

Date: 14 Jul 2004 16:05:35 -0700

David C. Ullrich <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message news:<95q4f010kr3htjanokp1pqq1pvd2pg93gu@4ax.com>...
> On 11 Jul 2004 17:15:33 -0700, jstevh@msn.com (James Harris) wrote:
>
> >[...]
> >
> >I contacted the NSA. I didn't hear back from them. If that sounds
> >crazy, ok, but I hope you understand that it's really about the
> >seriousness of the situation as I see it.
>
> Yes, that sounds crazy.

Well, I don't think so, as any responsible researcher who finds
something that worries them should feel free to contact the government
agency that covers that area.

Now I'm sure some of you might be terrified at the idea of contacting
the NSA just because you're worried you discovered something that
might affect public key encryption, but I figure it's just prudent.

After all, what I found might be important, and better to contact them
now, than have to debate about it later.
 
> But here's a thought: Did you inform them of their possible
> liability if they ignore you? Your warnings to "us" about
> this also sound crazy, because there's no way any of us has
> any legal responsibility to safeguard the world from
> people cracking encryption algorithms. But surely the
> NSA will take its responsibilities in this area seriously
> (giggle).
>
> You should contact them again, warning them that there
> may be Big Trouble if they continue to ignore you. I
> doubt that that would lead to a reply either, but it
> could get you onto a list of people to watch carefully...
>

Actually, I pointed out that if a viable approach comes from this idea
of surrogate factoring, and people lose millions of dollars or worse,
to hackers, then some might wonder if there was any warning possible,
if someone might have sounded the alarm *before* the intruders walked
through systems.

Then, if they check back and find out that the ideas discussed here
were acted upon and expanded on by people outside the mainstream,
while mainstream mathematicians failed to consider these ideas, then
they can look back at the discussions that took place here.

Then they can consider statements by mathematicians made here as
expert testimony. As mathematicians are by definitions expert in
mathematics so their statements are given a substantial amount of
weight when they cover mathematics.

That expert testimony is public and can be reasonably inferred to
affect debate.

If some of you make public statements taking a stance on these ideas
then your stance might be used later, your statements here taken to be
expert testimony, and your willingness to make them an assertion of
expert privilege, with its responsibility.

An expert need not testify about a particular idea, but once they make
a public statement, they can be held liable for their position, if
others suffer a tort that can be related to their expert statements.

It's just the law.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, nor is it a protection.

Here's an example. Let's say that it is your expert opinion that a
building is safe, though some residents of that building proclaim that
they are worried that it is unsafe.

Let's say you are are a building inspector and *publicly* state that
the building is safe.

Later the building falls down, and people are injured.

You can be sued for your statements as people can *reasonably* say
that your expert opinion could have swayed the building owner from
making the necessary repairs.

Expert status comes with a weight of responsibility.

Your public statements--if you're legally considered an expert--can be
used against you in a court of law.

I am not a legal expert and none of my statements here should be
construed to be expert opinion. I am not a lawyer nor do I pretend
to be one. Those interested in the law in this area should consult
with an attorney or an appropriate legal expert.

James Harris

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Surrogate factoring, update
    ... >>I contacted the NSA. ... > Yes, that sounds crazy. ... Then they can consider statements by mathematicians made here as ... expert privilege, with its responsibility. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Shotguns in Alaska
    ... Now the crazy broad doesn't want anyone with a FAMILY to run for public office because every flaw of the family will be exposed. ... At the very end of the interview, say that it's totally not your responsibility that the kid turned out that way. ... The majority of families are far from perfect, but those who care about their family members, especially under-aged ones, don't expose their mistakes to national scrutiny. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Bad at Math
    ... The last math I took was high school algebra ... SR is a con, Mr. "Nice Guy" Einstein and his disciples are hucksters, ... not mathematicians. ... "Orr was crazy and could be grounded. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Breaking RSA & Securing RSA
    ... >information collection of the associated country having a system dedicated ... one very important detail -- the NSA does not have a monopoly on the ... There are plenty of mathematicians ... mathematicians haven't stumbled upon any new breakthroughs in ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Breaking RSA & Securing RSA
    ... There are plenty of mathematicians ... > working at the NSA already have? ... but by their available resources. ... Has China? ...
    (sci.crypt)