Should encryption be legal? The french government recently came

Yes. Even if if were illegal, what would stop terrorists or other criminals from developing their own software for encrypted communication?

Fuck your fear mongering. Keep the Internet an unregulated wild west. Keep encryption strong, unbreakable, and completely unrestricted. If you want to stop terrorists, stop letting them into your country, and start bombing them in theirs.

>>56108706
They dont have the knowledge to.

Remove crypto libraries
Remove crypto papers from outside academics

And youre left with sand people who have no way to know how to code up AES, set up servers for secure end to end, etc

>>56108706
>if it were illegal, what would stop terrorists or other criminals from developing their own software for encrypted communication?
Law enforcement

>>56108745
That sure works.

>>56108674
You can't ban a subset of mathematics... that's just stupid. Besides, they'll just go back to using pen and paper or meeting up in a mosque.

>>56108741
>Remove crypto papers from outside academics
Are you a European? You sound so elitist/statist.

>should free speech be banned
I mean I guess Europe already did this but in America that wouldn't fly. Too many tech companies rely on it

>>56108741
Entire nations collectively fail to ban, control and track physical objects (i.e. guns). Now you want to ban public knowledge that is available everywhere and for free?
How delusional can one person get?

>Also: OTP

>>56108773
It works for all the other things that are illegal

>>56108819
Not sure if just stupid or troll

No, keep muslims out instead. The rule is simple: if your ilk is causing trouble, fix it yourself, or get the fuck out. All of you.

>>56108819
You know what else is illegal? Terrorism

>>56108897
This desu. I wonder who was the genius who let mohhamedans into europe, culture is not compatible at least to say.

>>56108674
Acting on terrorists or knowing about them?
There's a difference, encryption stops the latter but not the former.
And only if terrorists use it, which they don't.

Should trucks be legal?

>>56108897
What's worse is that it's not a case of 'regular muslims' not caring, it's a case of them actively supporting their terrorist brethren, thinking that what they are doing is justified.
Mudslimes are just horribly violent people.

>>56108741
It's literally too late to do anything now.
Encryption software is out there. They have it. We have it. Nothing is stopping them from using it. All making it illegal would do is make us stop using it.

Banning it solves nothing. All it does is give law enforcement more work to do because now they have to investigate and police any illegal usage of encryption.

File: 066.png (94KB, 938x823px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 938x823px

>>56108925
>Mudslimes are just horribly violent people.
ALL RELIDGIONS IS BAD, ONLY ATHISM IS GUD BEGUZ SCIENSE AND REASON FREEDHINKING

t. DAWGINS

If you ban encryption then anything involving money online just disappears. No more online banking, shopping, remote working, ...

>Outlaw encryption
>All of your banking is sent through the tubes in plain text

:')

Should maths be legal? The french government recently came out and said maths was preventing them from acting on terorrists.

Honestly shoukd we keep maths around in this day and age for public use?

>>56108961
Tell telegram to turn their servers off and they would be able to use their app

French politician are uneducated fucks. Banning encryption is fucking retarded

>>56109142
That sentence is wrong. Remove the word "French" to correct it.

>beg for net neutrality
>get upset when they want more control
Give government an inch and they'll take a mile

hmmm if only there was a way to stop terrorists without banning encryption

like maybe... not importing millions of people from syria?

>>56109151
Most politicians are well educated

>>56108706
that's literally what Telegram is. I remember when /g/ was shilling it and at the same time the company was shamelessly advertising it to Muslims

>>56108674
You can't ban math.

Oh wait, you guys invented Common Core. Never mind then.

>>56109062
It's just expedient for them to use Telegram. If Telegram shut down they would move onto the next expedient option.
It's not like they suddenly wouldn't know what to do and give up.

>>56108968
>le fedora maymay XDDDDDDDDDDDDD
This is just as bad as those sjws who just call anyone who disagrees with them a racist.
Please go to /b/ if you want to post 6 year old memes and not actually contribute to the conversation in any meaningful way.

>>56108674
It is legal, it should be legal. It's freedom of speech and privacy. Fuck French and fuck NSA.

>>56108741
>just redact knowledge they'll probably forget
Nice plan.

>>56108968
>implying anyone intelligent believes in atheism
Every stance besides agnostic is putting your faith in something, even if your faith says there is nothing out there. Any athiest who says they have reached a logical conclusion can be assumed to be horribly bad at even simple logic puzzles.

>>56109479
It seems you're a bit confused as to the differences between atheism and agnosticism. One addresses knowledge and one addresses belief.

You either believe the claims of these cults or you do not. Agnosticism addresses something else.

I think sending data unencrypted should be illegal.like there should be a government enforcement agency that cracks encryption and persecutes companies whose products are not up to encryption standards in court.

No, only pedos and terrorists have something to hide

>>56109479
God doesn't exist
Because he doesn't exist in the Universe
And the Universe is defined as everything that exists

>>56109424
>>56109479
>>56109424
It's a sarcastic remark alluding to the typical reaction of some to claim that there isn't a problem with Islam (when there clearly is), which is followed by criticism of the concept of religion and a self-reassuring promotion of that person's irreligiousness, which is accompanied by unwarranted claims of some sort of ownership of the faculty of reasoning; which is ironic considering that what these people are essentially doing is criticizing even completely non-dogmatic spiritualist personal beliefs which not only have absolutely jack shit to do with science and critical thought, they are seeking to meet arbitrary criteria for being considered a reasonable person, and they do so in an entirely dogmatic way.

And the sad thing is it that it is an utterly futile exercise.

>>56109619
Does the Universe include the set of things that aren't in the Universe?

>>56109479
>atheism
>belief
Meanwhile, you've proven yourself to be horribly bad at understanding what atheism even is to begin with. I'm sorry those logic puzzles are so difficult for you.

Here's a hint to get you started:
You can't believe in atheism

>>56109767
Anon there is literally nothing outside of the universe.

>>56109897
So it does include the set of all things not in the Universe?

>>56108674
Fuck France.

>>56109850
Parting from the premise that "theos" is being used with its proper meaning, to describe a superior order of existence, you can't not believe in either theism or atheism.

We know that we exist, or that at least something exist. You either believe your existence is preceded by the comprehension of a superior order, or you believe it is not. There is no amount of pseudophilosophy sprinkled with quotations and unrelated scientific (material) observations that will in any way prove otherwise.

But if you mean "theos" as in "the one God in abrahamic religions", that garbage belongs in Reddit.

>>56109897
>I don't know where the limit of the Universe is
>I don't know what's beyond its limits
>I don't know what its limits could be
>I don't even know what it really is
There totally is nothing guise, I read it in a book so it must be true.

>>56109850
Not him, but can you blame him for having this impression when atheism is explained to people in the West as the educated alternative to religion, and not a philosophical methodology? I'm from a very pro-religious place and that's how "atheists" push this point of view. It does very little to convince anyone to change their mind.

To OP's point, as has already been said, you can't undo cryptography. It ain't that hard to use basic techniques if sophisticated ones are throttled, if such a thing is even practical to do.

>>56109767
If by "include a set" you mean "include the things that are in this set": No, the universe doesn't include things that it doesn't include.

>>56110134
Guess it doesn't include everything

I truly believe that encryption was a mistake. It's simmering nobody should have. But since we do it's only right that everyone has it.

>>56110193
Exactly, for example God

File: Atheism.png (79KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1280x720px

>>56110037
You're not getting it, clearly, so I made you a diagram.

>>56110407
Classically, atheism is concerned with dogmatic religions; not even dogmatism itself, but specifically religious dogmas. The aversion to spiritualism is a more recent thing, but current atheists get triggered by the term "neo-atheism".

Semantics aside, I am highly critical of the position that non-belief in spirituality is not a belief in itself. It's an arrogant statement, because it is painted as a more rational or reasonable position; again, because of the unwarranted atheist claim of ownership of "pure" reason and logical thought.

>>56108674
>Implying they'd be able to catch any terrorists if encryption was banned anyway

>>56110715
If it's arrogant to suggest that religion and spiritualism flies in the face of logical thought, then sure, it is. However, this is a demonstrable fact, in many respects.

Aside from that though, one need only look at the word atheism to understand that it is not a belief itself but the lack thereof. Rather, you could describe atheism as a system of trust, based on available information, rather than of belief or faith. Atheists look to what we know as facts, and trust that those are reasonably accurate, and as the information and thus the facts changed, so too did atheism.

Let's take the classical system of flat-Earth as an example: Atheists likely believed for a long time that the Earth was flat, because all the information available pointed to that being the case. Primitive science believed it to be true. However, once we had solid, verifiable evidence that the Earth was in fact round, people who "believed" in flat Earth kept on bucking the system, because that challenged their beliefs (hell, they still exist to this day, ignoring overwhelming evidence), but Atheists would have simply gone "Oh, so it's round after all? Interesting." and adjusted their view.

Which isn't to say that you can't be both atheist and skeptical of modern scientific establishments, but once sufficient proof is displayed, an atheist would generally adjust their understanding to include this new evidence.

>>56110851
this way they can catch the criminals who engage in hate speech

much worse than the ones blowing people up obviously

>>56110407
Wouldn't that be nihilism?

>>56111012
No, because Atheists still believe in morality, and believe that we must find our own purpose for existing. However they believe that morals are innate and are not tied to spirituality or religion.

Fun facts: If religion is the only thing keeping you from killing or harming or robbing the people around you, you're probably a sociopath.

STARS UNITE

>>56110912
Clashes between dogmas and scientific evidence are another subject, there's nothing to discuss about those, if it's wrong, it's wrong.

Now, to discredit the very concept of spirituality is arrogant, and no, there is not a shred of scientific evidence that supports the *belief* that none of it is real. Leaving aside the problem with relative skepticism and the never-ending degrees of skepticism that gets scoffed off as "the wrong kind of philosophy, the unreasonable skepticism", we are talking of some very different things here.

"Any form of sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Ever read that? Metaphysics is but the degree where our observational capabilities end, the limit of our instruments, as far as we can agree (nearly) unanimously.

The burden of proof is an inconvenient thing, but that's how it works. Proving a negative is hard. But you don't know until its proven.

It's only scientific reasonable up until a certain point. From there on out, it's all spiritual (as in a synonym for metaphysical) reasoning, meaning it's an entirely subjective, personal reasoning. With that said, saying "I believe there is no soul" is no more or less valid than "I believe there is a soul". If you don't believe, it's because you know. You either believe or know. Does anyone the answer to that question?

>>56111117
Ethics are for atheists, not morals. Morals are underpinned by theology. Ethics are underpinned by logic.

Personal use of encryption should be banned. What do you have to hide that requires encryption? Nothing legal at least.

>>56111376
Ethics and Morality often go hand-in-hand, but if you want to argue semantics then fine, Ethics. Though morality can also be derived from personal experience and not merely theological teaching.

>>56111361
This is another semantics argument on Spirituality vs. Metaphysics. A spiritualist says "I believe there is no soul." An atheist says "There is no evidence to suggest the existence of a soul." It is not a matter of belief for the atheist.

>>56111494
Tax returns, wouldn't want hackers or other nefarious ne'er-do-wells to get hold of them.

>>56111534
>Tax returns, wouldn't want hackers or other nefarious ne'er-do-wells to get hold of them.
They could set up a government-controlled server for storing sensitive data but that way they could decrypt it if they suspect a crime.

>>56111568
>Not keeping your own personal copies just in case
Naw bro, I want to make sure my data goes un-molested.

>/reddit/

>>56111534
>An atheist says "There is no evidence to suggest the existence of a soul."
So will a non-atheist. What makes you think *that* is what makes an atheist?

>>56111494
Why the government wants to look into all my devices and communications in a flagrant violation of my privacy looking and storing my personal files (work, messages, videos, photos, contacts), location (that can be used to know with whom you've been).

why treat everyone like a criminal?

PS. Banning encryption would make cyber attacks lot easier. With no password and network encryption you can just post theme on facebook.

PSS. What happened with transparency and corruption it seem most governments doesn't want to talk about it.

>>56112738

>why treat everyone like a criminal?
Because the alternative is to treat arabs and blacks like the criminals they are, and that's profiling, which is taboo.

Killing people is illegal, but does that stop terrorists?

>>56112738
>“In the wake of the revelations of mass surveillance the [US] president [Barack Obama] appointed two independent commissions to review the efficiency of these [surveillance] programs, what they really did and what effect they had in combating terrorism. [The commissions comprised] the highest priests of these programs, they found these programs had never stopped a single terrorist attack and never made a concrete difference in a terrorist investigation,”

>>56111494
fucking this so much

>>56112738
>why treat everyone like a criminal?
If you've got nothing to hide just show your stuff to the government and you're fine unless you actually are a criminal.

>>56112957
yeah, let me just log in to my bank account without any encryption, what a great idea

>>56108674
nope, mint on my t430s and my win 7 desktop are fully encrypted along with my phone.

>>56112964
>show your stuff to the government and you're fine

They'll keep treating you like a criminal spying on you 24/7.

The only way i can be "fine" with this is a 24/7 stream of every government worker out there, they need to be an example and show us that they have nothing to hide and this will prevent corruption too so everyone wins.

>>56109850
Atheism is a belief you moron.
You're mixing religion and belief.
Atheism is not a religion, does not have any dogmatic believes but fundamentally it is a belief that there's no god(s).

>>56112091
>He omitted the very next sentence that put it into context

>>56108674
Encryption is a munition. And it's a second ammendment right.

Shall not be infringed.

The American citizen shall have it for the same reason as a gun to defend against a tyrannical goverent.

>>56109142
France banned it before and there were viruses to switch your default country to france. All your passwords would switch to plain text.

Fuck retarded frogs.

encryption is legal, and crypto technology can't be outlawed since its out in the open.

a better question would be, should the government force tech companies to enforce encryption on consumer data and communication ? This might be coming in the EU. And should the state force companies to have backdoors in their encryption?

>>56113105
>Atheism is a belief
Wrong. Atheism is the lack of a belief in any god.
It is the default, natural state from which you shift into theism. Until you believe in a God or Gods, you are an atheist.

>>56108674
Arabic serves as an encryption layer in itself, given that the vast majority of the civilized world doesn't know/speak it.

>>56108706
Pretty much this. No criminal has ever given much shit at stuff he needs being illegal, that's pretty much the definition. If you construct a fence, a tiger will jump over it, a snake will sneak through, and it's only the common cattle that will keep being fenced in by it.

>>56109613
In the words of Duke Nukem, blow it out your ass

>>56108674
A perfectly encrypted message is indistiguishable form random data (it has maximum entropy). Will you outlaw (pseudo)random data (or generators of such) too?

>>56108674
it should only be legal if you are smart enough to manage the algorithm yourself

kind of like how guns are for cowards and you should only be allowed to defend yourself not rely on cheap jewish made firewarms

>>56108815
>if 1 person breaks a law we can have no laws. all laws must be perfect.


ladies and gentlemen, the nu right. now that the scary black man is president you cant make any laws ever again.

>>56113390
Believing there are no gods is a belief. You have faith but no mathematical proof that god is not real. If you knew he wasn't real it would then not be a belief.

>>56113390
Atheism is the firm belief that there surely isn't a God. If you are indifferent and/or believe there isn't enough evidence to prove neither the existence nor the non-existence of a God, you're an agnostic.

>>56113551
And apatheism - who cares

>>56113551
Youre not wrong youre just an asshole. Even the Catholic church is agnostic and you're being misleading. How can anyone know the existence of god?

That said religion is the opiate of the lower tier of human trash. Lower than people hooked on actual opiates.

>>56113551
How does an atheist, or anyone for that matter, prove the non-existance of a God?

File: 1461043474878.gif (3MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 400x225px

>>56108674
>French Government
>acting on terrorists

>>56113607
>he doesn't follow the ways of the great teachers jesus, buddha, and confucious
Lmao @ your life kid

>>56113551
>Atheism is the firm belief that there surely isn't a God.

Wrong. That's Antitheism.
Anti = Against
A = None
Agnostic = Maybe there is, maybe there isn't we can't know for sure.

Do I really have to post the diagram again?

>>56108674
> Should encryption be legal?
> Implying it is illegal

>>56108741
There's nothing stopping these "sand people" from hiring a contractor to create a form of encrypted communication for them. Since many are backed by the fucking Saudis, it's not nearly as difficult as you are making it out to be. As many others are already posting, it would only prevent normal users from using it.

>>56113833
That diagram doesn't prove your point, besides, it's shit.

>>56108674
this is fucking retarded. you can't "ban" crypto. Crypto is just how people hide messages. yea you could get rid of shit like AES but that would just cause the (oh so law abiding terrorists) to use other non standard forms of encryption. This is so fucktarded it hurts.

...and for the first country to ban encryption. I'm going to the first coffee shop I see with wireshark.

>>56108741
Cryptography has been around since the dawn of man and simple shit can outsmart the most powerful computers and it's not like ISIS is poor. Have you see the production quality on the propaganda films.

>>56108745
>Law enforcement
this is a troll everyone

>>56111012
Nihilism and absurdism is what atheism leads to. This is why Existentialism and Nietzsche are so important. It's important to see that morality is subjective and life has no intrinsic value. Thus everything is free range and you have to power to create those things for yourself to live a happy and healthy life.

>>56108819
Like sending unencrypted djihad messages on Facebook/SMS and getting away with it?

File: 1442657846776.jpg (49KB, 252x244px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 252x244px

>>56108722
this guy gets it. even if he is a tripfag.

Come to thionk of it, it boils down to weather or not the owner of the software allows you to encrypt the data. That being said, the answer is always yes. And never should the government regulate encryption.

>>56108674
here's a (You)

>>56108722
/thread

Encryption should be legal to The point where you get asked by the cops to decrypt it.

Cops couldnt give a shit less about your private life and private emails

>>56108674
The french government is up to some serious no good, they want the terrorist attacks to continue so they can keep imposing on your freedom. The french were attacking syria before the paris attacks.
Literally poking the snake. america would have the same problem if they started poking canada or mexico.

Banning encryption won't work.

>>56109850
You say that, but you have faith that there is no god. You have no proof. You can't say I don't believe in pandas because I've never seen one in person, other people have and told me about it. You would be retarded.

>Atheists are religious nut jobs just like any other religion.
>Your taking a stance on something that doesn't matter.

>>56108674
Yes. The right to privacy and security shouldn't be destroyed just because it's inconvenient for law enforcement. If we give up all our rights in the name of safety, then the terrorists have won.

>>56108674
Not to be too /pol/ but if you just deport the muslims that's 90% of your terrorism problem solved right there.

Governments always try to spin the results of their own fuckups as a reason to have even more government and regulation. You see the same things with surveillance etc.

Also banning encryption is total BS, as you basically can't do banking over the net anymore. And if you can get a permit for this to make an exception, now the status quo of banking has more power.

And ultimately I wonder how much it really matters. Maybe instead of well-planned attacks at the same time we'll see more random attacks, but I don't think people will stop terrorizing because they can't hide the chain of command.

>>56111494
Trade secrets

>spending years of your life and gigawatts of mental power educating your self on literally nothing
Why?

>>56108674
>ban encryption
>suddenly hacking anything anywhere anytime becomes a cakewalk
>entire country at the mercy of even the faggiest of scriptkiddy
Yeah there's no way this can go bad

>>56113544
No you stupid fuck, if one person breaks the law in this situation the fucking world can now break the law. This shit is digital and the future is encrypted.

>>56108745
>implying their not busy shooting niggers

File: doggo.jpg (43KB, 354x341px)

43KB, 354x341px

If you think banning encryption is a good idea, you probably have brain damage.

>>56108741
this is the most american sentence I've heard on this board.
You are talking as if your country is the only one that developed the libraries or some shit and that only an American is smart enough to develop the library.
Fuck man, how small is your bubble that you have been in this whole time?
Next you're tell me that if your American company stop doing business with China then the factory in China is going to go bankrupt too.

>>56108674
>Website database leaks now leak plaintext passwords (assuming hashing is considered encryption)
>have to write down my important financial, tax, etc. documents and store them in a safe because my computer can no longer be protected in case of robbery or viruses
>TLS is no longer legal so MITM attacks are trivial
>employees at any financial institution can steal my personal info with ease
>terrorism is slightly easier to prevent

Wow this sounds like an ingenious idea

>>56111361
>there is not a shred of scientific evidence that supports the *belief* that none of it is real

Since you're going to be anal, you can also say that there is no scientific evidence for anything we know because we always have to make an inductive leap at some point.

>>56113547
You can't mathematically prove anything about physical reality. For instance, how would you prove that every electron has the same charge? Or how would you prove that unicorns don't exist? You can't. Proving a fact in reality is not the same as proving a mathematical theorem.

>>56114001
>life has no intrinsic value
That's getting pretty close to absurdism/nihilism...
Anyway, if life has no intrinsic value, why should you exercise your power to live a happy and healthy life?