That's a new excuse though. Guess they can't fight terrorism or protect the children all the time.
oh wait no,
>...provide criminals an invaluable tool to prey on women, children, and threaten our freedoms
Is there a real human trafficing problem there?
Can't you just make people open their phones? Is that somehow more illegal and taboo than banning encryption?
>omg encryption helps criminals, we should ban encryption!
Omg guns help criminals, we should ban guns!
Seriously, why is it that the two are fundamentally the same?
EVEN IF YOU DO NOT FEEL LIKE YOU NEED A GUN THEY ARE NOT INHERENTLY BAD THINGS THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN AWAY FROM EVERYONE.
The same is true about encryption.
Cars help criminals (the getaway driver). Cars should be baned to protect children from terrorists criminally robbing them of there lives!1!
>This isn't true though.
But it is true. When the last time a gun attacked anyone? They are inanimate objects.
Has anyone informed them yet that that's not even fucking possible?
>guys criminals sometimes sit on chairs let's ban chairs
>criminals sometimes walk let's ban legs
Theoretically possible I guess, but completely nonsensical
have some better examples
>criminals are sometimes behind locked doors let's ban locks
>criminals sometimes live in houses with walls let's ban walls
>haha what's a bank?
>have some better examples
Those are examples of something else entirely.
I agree with you that it would be bad for us if they banned encryption.
But I do not agree that it's impossible.
What metric will they use in deciding over what is encrypted data and what is not?
I can embed some encrypted data in a jpeg in some chosen manner. How are they going to catch that?
“Full-disk encrypted operating systems provide criminals an invaluable tool to prey on women, children, and threaten our freedoms while making the legal process of judicial court orders useless.”
Is this literally the incognito mode walk free meme?
But seriously, aren't they claiming, in other words, that they can't make a case against a human traficker without him having self-incriminating evidence on his phone?
Apart from that full disk encryption seems completely vulnerable to weak passwords and cold boot attacks, which, from a law enforcement standpoint, should be more practicable than relying on people who routinely break the law to not break that law?
fine anon, it is not an absolute impossibility
it's also not an absolute impossibility that the government decides to ban locks and walls
>without violating civil liberties
anon, that boat sailed a long fucking time ago
>without violating civil liberties
What exactly makes you think they won't violate civil liberties?
>there is some data not related to image in this file; you are suspect in this and that case; decrypt it for us
>it's just junk data, not encrypted data
>our expert says it is; go to jail
>There's no security risk if the CEO of a company has access to encryption keys to be able to assist the police when appropriate.
Except he is a huge target for corporate espionage.
>>require companies to be able to decrypt their encryption
>>hurr durr they want to ban encryption
* It's essentially the same thing.
* It's pointless because the mathematical formulas are known. Tell the companies they have to install back doors and you will immediately see 3rd party tools to accomplish the same thing by people outside CA's jurisdiction.
* FDE is not stopping the prosecution of those in human trafficking. These politicians do not care about that at all. If they did, there are a thousand laws and tools on the books to break trafficking rings wide open (which is a problem but not a massive OMG problem like they claim). Most trafficking goes on with police, DAs, and politicians looking the other way thanks to bribes.
Protip: I've spoken with a Long Beach dock worker who claims he has witnessed trafficking and that the cops know about it, but won't dare touch it because of the bribes to them and to the unions. He said if he made a stink about it he would wind up dead, and I know him well enough that I believed him.
These politicians don't give a shit about "muh womynz and muh childrenz!"
>What exactly makes it impossible in your mind?
The fact that the mathematical formulas are known and therefore any 3rd party outside of CA's legal jurisdiction can provide all the encryption tools they want.
Fuck, you don't even need to write the damn code yourself. There are excellent free and open source AES libraries out there.
* In an hour or less any competent programmer could whip up an AES file encryption program.
* FDE would require some research/work because it would involve drivers or kernel extensions, but I bet there are guys out there who could do it in less then a day.
Another pointless law by pointy haired IQ90 ass hats.
How is everyone not laughing at all the dumb politicians who think encryption, in short maths can be banned.
What is wrong with people, how can they take any politician seriously who indulges in childish fantasies like banning mathematics?
But they can make it illegal. Writing a program that does this would be illegal. Using a progress that does this would be illegal. It will help a bit with catching actual thieves, it will hamper lives of normal people worse, and it is possible.
Can anyone provide a summarized form of that fucking video, without all the;
> I used to be in law enforcement so I know how important it is to read your text messages.
> I am sad, because people are bad :(
What did they actually do?
>Cars help criminals (the getaway driver). Cars should be baned to protect children from terrorists criminally robbing them of there lives!1!
Immigration and shipping are used to traffic women and children. We should immediately close the borders and the ports to protect the children.
>tfw this would be disastrous but is at least physically possible where banning encryption is not
So... will it be illegal to store noise on your hard drive or what?
>But they can make it illegal.
I bet you're one of those "special" people who think posting a "Gun Free Zone" sign will stop gun violence? Am I right?
>make the decision to engage in a sick, twisted crime like human trafficking
>give up and become a law abiding citizen because CA says you can't use FDE without a backdoor in their state
REALLY? YOU'RE REALLY THAT STUPID?
Heh...somebody needs to inform all these IQ90 politicians that there is a literally 100% secure encryption method that no one will ever be able to break.
And it was known before computers were invented.
It's cumbersome to use, but used correctly nothing will ever break it, not even quantum computing.
Anyone on /g/ know what it is?
>hint: noise is the key
I bet you're with the terrorists anon, arguing against poorly defined laws with far-reaching consequences
Ujlw gjbdkwxl xi s lzwi letudkj. 10 aavbii lh rdlcues pesgnmb ea rtszhaym fr
Fair enough (I thought you were for it). But it literally can't be done. It will only hamper the occasional person who gets caught for some petty crime and then gets charged with MUH ENCRYPTION along with whatever else he/she was going to be charged for.
Petty, stupid, ignorant politicians.
Those are the often very large keys to encryption that's used in satellite TV decoding. Keys can be banned from being spread around, but mathematical functions can't be, functions are merely processes to change days in a particular way that you want, that means functions can even be explained in words, because they're ideas.
I knew /g/ wouldn't let me down.
Nope. Languages, by nature, have structure that you can use to start to decipher their meaning. It might have worked against the Japanese in WWII (Native American languages), but with modern computing it wouldn't work for long at all.
>Is there a real human trafficing problem there?
Sort of. Chinks sell smuggling services to other chinks and sometimes they decide to keep them as sex slaves. Massage parlors are often just a front for them as you may already know.
It happens with Mexicans and other assorted brown as well but Asians are more known for it (or we just care more about them)
jesus fucking christ man i nearly spilt my wild turkey!!!!
>lets ban encryption, that will surely make terrorists not use it
Liberalls can't tell an adjustable stock from a barrel shroud and we're supposed to respect their opinions on "assault weapons" and "gun safety"
Except they've been known to discharge unexpectedly and kill people so that lame ass inanimate object argument is kind of out the window already.
The main point people seem to gloss over or flat out ignore is that guns are devices specifically designed to kill - there is no alternative use like a knife. You don't spread butter with a gun. You don't cut steak with a gun.
"Swimming pools kill people!"
They're not designed to kill people.
>the only way to die is to be alive
just ban births. Can't kill what's not alive.
>Except they've been known to discharge unexpectedly and kill people
can you cite that? I thought this stopped being a problem more than a hundred years ago.
I'm going to ignore your other comment about alternative uses because there are alternative types of knifes designed for specific uses and alternative types of guns. (You wouldn't argue that a NERF gun is designed to kill people)
And you might as well have said:
>In the beginning the Universe was created.
>This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
That was my first post to this thread, I wasn't trying to argue anything. That comment started out with my first line and then I went back and added more. I wish ids were still a thing.
Tough shit, asshole. I don't care what you think, I'm just curious for a source on a bit of information.
>known to discharge unexpectedly
Only if the owner is incompetent
>guns only designed to kill
Well yes. Kill various things like people who want to kill you, animals for food. Hell target shooting's a sport and so is practical shooting.
Even if guns were banned there's still all the manner of "weapons" until shit turns UK and people want to ban kitchen knives.
Just because something is "a" does not mean it is not "b".
A nerf gun IS a toy but it is ALSO a gun. A non-lethal gun designed as a toy. A stun gun is a gun but it is also a tool. A non-lethal gun designed as a tool.
See where I'm going with this or do I need to break it down more?
>actually trying to argue witih gun nuts
These are people who unironically believe that guns have magical properties (the literal physical manifestation of freedom as granted by the founding fathers) when arguing against the idea that events such as the Sandy Hook shooting or the San Bernardino massacre actually happened, but guns are "just a tool lol why libruls hate tools their not magic lmao" when arguing in favor of the acceptance of facts.
The difference between crypto and a gun is that you can't make and disseminate 20 million copies of a gun in seconds, despite the wild fantasist notions pushed by the makerbot/3D printer crowd who literally believe that their shoddy exploding plastic guns are actually a viable form of self-defense against big gubmint, despite arguing until they're blue in the face that if we can't guarantee that every batshit crazy racist militia redneck is equipped with a Davy Crockett nuclear bazooka and a 20mm autocannon (but not blacks), it's literally tyranny worse than hitler who didn't kill jews but should have.
If you are so worried about the boogyman invading your home, you are either
a. Suffering from paranoid delusions, are a danger to yourself and others, and shouldn't be allowed to own weapons, or
b. Living in a terrible area and should be working to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, not collecting bang-bang toys and shitposting on the internet
Which of these is you?
Guns were all grouped together as one group and contrasted with knifes when the exact same examples exist. I feel as though I had to point it out. I'm glad I made someone laugh though.
>tfw I'm still waiting on that source
My last bastion of hope /g/<<<<,,,,,,,,,
ruined by fagPeds,,,,,,,,, that should be on /b/
memes aside how would this not completely kill e-commerce? I don't think google, amazon and the other major players would just let this happen.
I think it is an awful crime.
What some of these girls goes through should be stopped.
But having a backdoor to your security (regardless of why) is bad security and someone will exploit that.
The scenario they presented was pimp sends orders to victim via phone and they cannot access phone because it is encrypted.
But if they have the phone of the victim, and the victim coorporates with the warrant, they have access to one side of the conversation.
If the pimp ignores the warrant, he can be held in contempt as well as being prosecuted by a jury.
And if you are being accused of human trafficking and he refuses to give up his pin when the judge orders him to, that is not a good case to defend.
We have other ways to find these people than breaking security for all people
I can encrypt data with a pencil and paper, a computer just makes it easier, it is nonsense to talk about banning it and impossible to actually achieve.
what banning it will do is always give them an excuse to arrest you, which is what the government always wants.
Good fucking luck.
If they try to ban smartphones without encryption Apple will just say "Fuck you, no".
If they try to tack on a fee for every iPhone sold without encryption Apple will just boycott their sales in California and EVERYONE will lose their fucking minds and protest.
Apple has more power than most state governments.
>The year is 2036
>The main black market import in the United States is now Chinese produced terabyte drives filled with randomly generated noise, since all all rand() functions were banned 15 years ago.
They're not banning encryption they're just purposely introducing flaws into the implementation of software to defeat encryption making it useless for its intended purpose. Oh and encryption standards that don't do this are banned. Yeah but it's not a ban though, only technically sorta.
For a year I lived in a small town near Oxford.
The front door only had a mortice lock, no latch, so most nights I just didn't bother to lock it.
Maybe you need stronger meds.
>I saw one story where one guy did a bad thing, therefore everyone does!
With every single new news article I read about enforced backdoors and banning encryption the more I want to fight against it. Every single time I read about this shit it increases my motivation to contribute to FOSS projects, especially ones that appreciate privacy.
It's pretty much just the democratic states doing this for some reason. I think republicans are just as retarded with computers but they seemingly never try to do things like this.
Anon, mandatory backdoors have been a thing for a while.
Every wireless device in the US from your laptop to your TV remote must be able to accept interference, even if it causes undesired operation.
> WE BANNED ENCRYPTION
> THEREFORE IT DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE
Holy shit someone stop them, they will literally destroy the universe if they ban math.
America in 2020:
> Dude learning how to program
> write a sortString() function
> FBI blows the door
> 50 years in prison
> get anally raped by niggers because of 3 lines of code
Thanks god I live in a third world country.
Read this article, guys.
McAfee makes some really good points against encryption that would convince most people (read: normal, non-tech people).
>Except they've been known to discharge unexpectedly
Even guns from the cold-war era have fairly good protection against unexpected discharge. Let alone modern guns that will never fire unless you pull the trigger yourself. You could drop a loaded glock off a building and it still would not fire. Get educated faggot.
>giving a shit about security
yeah keep believeing that, kiddo.
>My wife uses them to great effect. A discrete whisper in my ear while we are at a dinner table with friends, promising provocative events at home if we leave immediately, has many times caused me to manufacture some emergency that forces us to leave posthaste.
Well, he just set up himself and his wife for endless ribbing when they try to leave.
The Sobhraj story is a pretty cool one to tell at a dinner table.
>A simple thing like an invention that has not yet been patented requires that as few people as possible know about it, and meetings between these people must be held in secure locations in absolute privacy.
>If someone had discovered the design early on by eavesdropping on these meetings, I might well have been preempted and all of my work would have been in vain.
Hopefully many people utilize Windows 10 for their innovations and secret designs. :^)
>In any case my wife also uses Chadder, so that while she is getting her hair done in the town next door she can text me some enticing suggestions that motivate me to stop what I'm doing and make sure the bedroom is in romantic order.
Either his wife is going to be mad or they're exhibitionists. Their friends might want to install a camera under their dinner table for maximum keks.
>My wife just texted me. I must stop here.