Am I Being Paranoid?

[OpaDC]

No I don't think you're being paranoid at all. Used to work in the network security field with the feds. Worked with a couple of math/computer wizards that made my head swim. And if you really want something hacked, just give it to some of the College student geeks. Encryption is just part of the story too. If what you have is sensitive information, then I would take care of backups myself. Best system anyone ever had was the Navaho's.

[DaveS]

In my humble opinion, anyone who thinks their data is safe (from prying eyes) at home is fooling themselves.

(disclaimer: unless it is on a removable media, powered off and put in a locked secret drawer under the desk).

In truth, data encrypted with AES256 (stored where ever it may be) is far more secure than that pile of data sitting on your C: drive being protected by Microsoft.

[tin foil hat firmly applied]
secure that is, from everyone except the government... everyone knows that the current algorithm was chosen because there exists a mathematical "master key", and the government has it...
[tin foil hat removed]

[crokett]

Somebody would need physical access to my computer at home to get the data off it. The stuff I absolutely have to have is periodically burned to CD and stored at my Dad's house. I figure there is a really low risk both our houses will burn down at the same time.

I am glad I am not being paranoid.

[mpc]

Those external USB/Firewire hard drives are an inexpensive alternative way to backup data. Stick one in a fire-rated safe along with your Will & other important papers and you have a backup that'll survive most home fires. I use 2 different USB drives; alternating them, and they are stored on opposite ends of the house (one in the safe) for redundancy. Where I live, floods aren't too likely. Fire and theft are the larger risks. I could lock one up in my desk at work... hmm... much better separation/redundancy. Or lock one in a safe deposit box.

mike c.

[mdutch]

If this general refused to use recognized forms of encryption for field communications, then it tells me volumes about what he knows that I don't. Namely, I think he was telling us that he at least as a strong suspicion, if not specific knowledge, that the government can break even 128-bit encryption.

That is one point of view, but what it really shows is thinking outside the box and resourcefulness (i.e. using hand-carried messages,) can be more effective than relying on technology. In a wargame, the enemy is not matched. He was playing the adversary and may have been limited in what radios he could use. It didn't say he had 128bit encryption and, in fact, I believe the story went, he was playing like Bosnia using older radios and cellphones that had the potential of being intercepted and decoded. He out-thunk 'em by forcing them to need knowledge of the courier's path, or dumb luck to intercept the message -- technology ain't gonna help you.

Consider cellphone detonators vs Humvees, or fuel-filled passenger planes turned missle against skyscrapers. It's low-tech that often can outflank high-tech. It's how this country beat the finest army in the world at the time -- the British. We hid behind the trees. **** them!

The point is, it's not a logical leap that his use of couriers suggests that the government has any real-time decoding of high-level encrypted transmissions on the battlefield. It does say volumes about how we still rely too much on technology sometimes and don't fully train our officers in field tactics and history.

Go back and check out that story further. I think you'll find the General was playing the "underdog" with sub-standard US issue communication gear.

[DaveS]

Somebody would need physical access to my computer at home to get the data off it. The stuff I absolutely have to have is periodically burned to CD and stored at my Dad's house. I figure there is a really low risk both our houses will burn down at the same time.

I am glad I am not being paranoid.

I'll buy this is, only if the computer in question is totally isolated from other computers, i.e. not on a network of any kind.

No,I don't think you are being paranoid; skepticism and paranoia can be a good thing.

For example, a small company is selling an "encrypting" external hard drive, that, once someone actually examined it, doesn't actually do any encrypting - it just does a simple math transform on the data, and that is all.

[JeffW]

I do not trust central storage facilities for my stuff. All my data is kept on my laptop, an external hard drive as well as important data is also duplicated on an 8 gig flash drive. All are either encrypted or have complete hard drive lock that requires a password to access. Next new laptop will have Pointsec total hard drive encryption. Each set up data is updated daily.

[herb fellows]

Just because everyone is out to get you, doesn't mean you're paranoid.

The way I heard it was 'just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people AREN'T out to get you'.