A few things on Snowden
Created on 02 July 2013
Written by Jim Stone
As I have said from the beginning, based on my own NSA experience, Snowden is the real deal. Many people were wondering if Snowden was bluffing about having additional information, and with the new release of info published in the Guardian for a whopping six hours before they were pressured into pulling it, America has no true allies and spies on everyone. From my experience, this is a change in policy.
I have also stated that there is no encryption America cannot break, and it was also published today that there was a grand total of FOUR (4) encrypted communications America failed to break in the last 10 years. This is because people doing the encryption fail to realize one of several factors, including the fact that all processors inevitably follow patterns that you cannot program around, and that even if you get a truthfully random encryption algorithm generated by a random source – such as the wind, once you encode a language with that encryption the language itself puts patterns into the data that can be extracted with brute force.
The only encryption that is not crackable is that which uses base 256 at a minimum, a random source such as a windmill, and an enormously long encryption key that has so many multiple representations for every single character typed that you never get a repeat across the entire span of a lengthy document. PGP is PURE B.S., I have been ridiculed for not using PGP but if you knew what I know, you would know why I don’t bother with data security AT ALL, it’s all a load of bunk when dealing with the types of people I am up against.
I would like to clearly explain what I am talking about when I say base 256. Different numbering systems have different numbers of characters representing their numeric values. Binary uses only two, 1 and 0. So a 1001 in binary equals 9 in base 10, which is a more powerful numbering system because with base 10, fewer digits represent more. Usually, base 256 uses the extended ascii character set because that is a set standard with readily available digit representation. Binary, which is the weakest numbering system, requires 4 digits to represent 1 digit of base 10. In turn, 4 digits of base 10 can represent 9999 numeric possibilities. In turn, 4 digits of base 256 can represent 4,294,967,296 numeric possibilities. To find out how much less data it takes to encrypt with using base 256, take that number and divide it by 9999. Base 256, from a computational perspective, is 429,539 times as difficult to crack when using the same number of digits as base 10. Base 256 is NOT 256 bit encryption, it is far more powerful than that with far fewer digits.
Because base 256 can be based on a nearly universal character set, it is the obvious bread and butter solution for everyday folks that won’t totally tax the processor, and when it is fed it’s reference from a random source, will do away with the problems of processor patterning. If I was a government then, the obvious answer when dealing with the NSA would be to develop a 16 bit character set (extended ascii is 8 bit) and 16 bit will in turn allow over 65,000 unique characters, and a 16 bit character set still won’t tax a processor that badly because it is only twice as difficult for a processor as base 256. With the source input coming from a windmill base 65,000 would be a real nightmare for the NSA to handle. And for those who are laughing because they think I just said 16 bit encryption will work, you need to go back to college.
For personal security then, base 256 would probably be adequate. Any government not using base 65,000 should be considered negligent, if your geeks sit down and say it is impossible to crack their weaker encryption anyway, so stick with it, you just got your answer from Snowden which is consistent with my own experience – there was nothing we could not crack, we were never beaten EVER. I don’t think the NSA could crack base 65000 with custom characters, a windmill input, and a key so large that a thousand page document would never repeat a single character with the same number representing it. No individual would want to use that, but a government would be stupid not to.
Anyway, I rambled
My point about Snowden is this:
You can expect every scamming spook in the government to try to undermine Snowden and say he is a psy op, a setup, a distraction. And many innocent people in the truth movement will latch onto that and push it to the max. But WHY would the U.S. government do that to itself – Why would the Fed want every government on earth to know everything is monitored and cracked and known, ally or not, and now the world’s governments need to get REAL data security in place? Don’t take my word for it, if you want to know if Snowden is for real, put your thinking cap on.
And I would also like to state that if the NSA had not gone rogue, if their mission was legitimate as it once was, I would NEVER speak out against them as I am now. When I was with them, they were damn near sacred . . . . . . What changed?
And if ANYONE trusts an Israeli or zionist owned company to handle their security and provide a firewall against the NSA, they need a cranial evacuation to make room for sand in their head, which would do them a lot better intellectually than what they currently have occupying that space.
This article was first published on Jimestonefreelance.com.
As I have said from the beginning, based on my own NSA experience, Snowden is the real deal. Many people were wondering if Snowden was bluffing about having additional information, and with the new release of info published in the Guardian for a whopping six hours before they were pressured into pulling it, America has no true allies and spies on everyone. From my experience, this is a change in policy.
I have also stated that there is no encryption America cannot break, and it was also published today that there was a grand total of FOUR (4) encrypted communications America failed to break in the last 10 years. This is because people doing the encryption fail to realize one of several factors, including the fact that all processors inevitably follow patterns that you cannot program around, and that even if you get a truthfully random encryption algorithm generated by a random source – such as the wind, once you encode a language with that encryption the language itself puts patterns into the data that can be extracted with brute force.
The only encryption that is not crackable is that which uses base 256 at a minimum, a random source such as a windmill, and an enormously long encryption key that has so many multiple representations for every single character typed that you never get a repeat across the entire span of a lengthy document. PGP is PURE B.S., I have been ridiculed for not using PGP but if you knew what I know, you would know why I don’t bother with data security AT ALL, it’s all a load of bunk when dealing with the types of people I am up against.
I would like to clearly explain what I am talking about when I say base 256. Different numbering systems have different numbers of characters representing their numeric values. Binary uses only two, 1 and 0. So a 1001 in binary equals 9 in base 10, which is a more powerful numbering system because with base 10, fewer digits represent more. Usually, base 256 uses the extended ascii character set because that is a set standard with readily available digit representation. Binary, which is the weakest numbering system, requires 4 digits to represent 1 digit of base 10. In turn, 4 digits of base 10 can represent 9999 numeric possibilities. In turn, 4 digits of base 256 can represent 4,294,967,296 numeric possibilities. To find out how much less data it takes to encrypt with using base 256, take that number and divide it by 9999. Base 256, from a computational perspective, is 429,539 times as difficult to crack when using the same number of digits as base 10. Base 256 is NOT 256 bit encryption, it is far more powerful than that with far fewer digits.
Because base 256 can be based on a nearly universal character set, it is the obvious bread and butter solution for everyday folks that won’t totally tax the processor, and when it is fed it’s reference from a random source, will do away with the problems of processor patterning. If I was a government then, the obvious answer when dealing with the NSA would be to develop a 16 bit character set (extended ascii is 8 bit) and 16 bit will in turn allow over 65,000 unique characters, and a 16 bit character set still won’t tax a processor that badly because it is only twice as difficult for a processor as base 256. With the source input coming from a windmill base 65,000 would be a real nightmare for the NSA to handle. And for those who are laughing because they think I just said 16 bit encryption will work, you need to go back to college.
For personal security then, base 256 would probably be adequate. Any government not using base 65,000 should be considered negligent, if your geeks sit down and say it is impossible to crack their weaker encryption anyway, so stick with it, you just got your answer from Snowden which is consistent with my own experience – there was nothing we could not crack, we were never beaten EVER. I don’t think the NSA could crack base 65000 with custom characters, a windmill input, and a key so large that a thousand page document would never repeat a single character with the same number representing it. No individual would want to use that, but a government would be stupid not to.
Anyway, I rambled
My point about Snowden is this:
You can expect every scamming spook in the government to try to undermine Snowden and say he is a psy op, a setup, a distraction. And many innocent people in the truth movement will latch onto that and push it to the max. But WHY would the U.S. government do that to itself – Why would the Fed want every government on earth to know everything is monitored and cracked and known, ally or not, and now the world’s governments need to get REAL data security in place? Don’t take my word for it, if you want to know if Snowden is for real, put your thinking cap on.
And I would also like to state that if the NSA had not gone rogue, if their mission was legitimate as it once was, I would NEVER speak out against them as I am now. When I was with them, they were damn near sacred . . . . . . What changed?
And if ANYONE trusts an Israeli or zionist owned company to handle their security and provide a firewall against the NSA, they need a cranial evacuation to make room for sand in their head, which would do them a lot better intellectually than what they currently have occupying that space.
This article was first published on Jimestonefreelance.com.