Yes, but the point I'm making is that there is no difference in key management. Your assertion is that there is a latency problem. That may be true. But the key management for the 1st half would be the same.
So you're going to continue insisting that there is no difference in key management between the scenarios -
- communication between two parties, one of which is physically secure with plenty of time in advance to agree on keys.
- delivering keys to arbitrary receivers on arbitrary points of the world, potentially under combat or other severely adverse conditions with very limited advance warning.
Are you sure you have the right definition of what 'key management' is? Isn't it easier to just admit Bruce Schneier actually _had_ thought out his post and you, not so much?
My point is that there is no difference in key management for the 1st part (drone->sat->base). The rest is a different key management problem, one which the military already faces with communications to forces in the field and with allied forces. But by taking the 1st part out of the picture with the same key management used for the control link, you don't have plaintext perched on a satellite visible to the whole globe.
You still have to solve the rest, but that is at least an improvement.
Your passive-agressive link to Wikipedia -- what is your point in this? What exactly in the article did I miss?
You seem to be of the mis-conception that the video goes back to base and then is redistributed. AFAIK this is not the case :) Also, importantly, these signals are being intercepted as they are transmitted to the troops on the ground :)
You seem to be of the mis-conception that the video goes back to base and then is redistributed. AFAIK this is not the case :)
Thanks for starkly admitting your reading comprehension problem. My proposal is for the video to be encrypted all the way back to the base then redistributed.
Now please go back and edit your responses to me to correct this incomprehension of my position.
Arrrgh, don't they cover reading comprehension in schools anymore?
Thank you.
EDIT: Anyone would find this frustrating:
Me: "They are already doing X. That would be the same as Y. I propose they do Y."
cl: "No it doesn't"
Me: "X = Y (paraphrase)"
cl: "No it doesn't"
Me: "X = Y (2nd paraphrase)"
cl1: "Okay it does, but that doesn't solve the problem."
cl2: "Oh, I thought you said they were already doing Y."
I'm not going to take the time to try to work out who is right and who is wrong in this case, but I believe from my limited time here on HN that the attitude you're displaying in this comment is not entirely appropriate. You can certainly make your point without the personal attacks, even if others don't.
Please, stick to the facts, and if people mis-understand you then restate your point more clearly and addressing the misunderstanding. If you're right, most times they'll apologise and everything is great. If you're wrong then you don't look like a complete asshole.
As I say, I'm not addressing the technical points - I probably don't have the background, and it's Christmas, so I certainly don't have the time. I'm not down-voting you because I can't judge the technical merits, but I'd ask you to be more considerate in your tone. It's one of the things that makes HN so much more pleasant than most other fora.
Ive replied to all your points clearly. What you propose is best case scenario. But as I said the delay and the key maanagement on the battleield is far too complicated against the benefits.
You finally admitted the misconception that I thought the video went back to base to be redistributed. Then you changed your position to say, okay, it's the same key management problem, but that doesn't solve anything. Now you're glossing over my 2nd proposal that builds on top of my first one, which avoids key management on the battlefield.
Congrats. Brilliant troll, and you made me look like the bad guy.
