>he fell for the encryption meme

>>56612932
Huh? Commie meme? Okay, kid, I don't think you know what communism is. Total government control of the citizenships personal life is exactly what communism entails as it is the only way communism can exist. Perhaps you don't live in a past soviet state so you never heard of commie police busting in your communal apartament to search you and your roomates for "signs of enemies of the state".

File: 14204834642981).png (192KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 300x300px

>>56613011

But positive rights are statism, you retard.

>>56613053
What?

>>56613075
it's a libertarian

do not bother

>>56612932
Why do you need encryption?
To protect personally identifiable information from parties who would be interested in exploiting it for their own personal gain.

>>56613094

Then the use of encryption should be limited to protect that information and nothing else, lest terrorists and child-pornographers exploit it to avoid the law.

Honestly my porn tastes are incredibly vanilla. Baremaidens.com, Femjoy things like that.

I really just don't like the government's dick resting my shoulder trying to sell me things.

>>56612932
>commie meme
>privacy
Nigger, commies wiretapped people just for kicks after shadowing political dissidents and making them disappear. Commies had no sense of privacy.

>>56613160
How do you know it's personal information and not cp when the data is encrypted?

>>56614326

You install backdoors that the authorities can use to decrypt it so they are able to tell, you fucking moron!

>>56613287
Commies also hated and persecuted gays and jews, but apparently it's some kind of meme leaked from /pol/ that equal rights are communist ideas.

>>56614326
>You install backdoors that the authorities can use
and also the identity thieves and snoopers and crooked governments too.

>>56615248
Nice conspiracy theories, fagtron.

File: ano_natsu_05_4.jpg (137KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1280x720px

>>56615248

Just don't give them access, you mongoloid.

>>56612932
No, communism implies less privacy

>>56615814
>>56615717
>leaks don't exist
>exploits used and maintained by governments are never used by thieves, snoopers and other crooked governments

>>56614392
>You install backdoors that the authorities can use to decrypt it so they are able to tell, you fucking moron!
if there is a backdoor anyone can use it. you moron!

Here's some piece of logic:
The ban on encryption, would totally work because __criminals__ sure love to follow the law.

We can also install backdoors on every piece of hardware known to man, because sure no one will find out, because the government is a hell lot smart.

>>56615928
>let's not do anything because we're too scared, the risk are too big!
Boo fucking hoo why are you even online then?

>>56615975

>What are passwords?

>>56616158
you dont know what a backdoor is son.

>>56615814
If it was that easy, the security industry wouldn't be required.

>>56616258
>let's not do it because it is too hard
No wonder you're such an unsuccessful underachiever.

>>56616207
Have you ever heard of asymmetric backdoors?

You paranoid lunatics calmly trust massive corporations with more sensitive keys and then look surprised when your credit card information is compromised, but talk about putting in place a secure system to allow government to investigate terrorism and you go apeshit in a second. What the fuck are you hiding that makes you so scared of such a possibility?

>>56612932
Because I have a right to privacy.

>>56613053
TAXES ARE THEFT!!!! I DON'T WANT ROADS, HOSPITALS OR POLICE FORCES!

>>56616347
the more holes you put in security the more holes there are to exploit. plain and simple.

>>56616366

Haha ok. Next thing you'll tell me you have a right to healthcare, education and clean water.

>>56616403
Well with encryption I can enforce my own right to privacy.

>>56616418

Ahmed, pls

>>56612932
Well, it didn't seem to help Hillary

>>56616384
You're repeating yourself, that claim has already been addressed. Reread the thread.

>>56614415

This.

That stupid "durr everything I don't like is gommunism!" meme has to stop!

>>56616446
maybe you jsut dont get it. anyways have fun with your bait thread time for pannycakes and bakey.

https://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/lop.html

>>56616486
>you don't seem to be convinced by my half-baked "ad nauseam" fallacy, so you must be bait
Grow up.

>>56616537
how about you. you dont have the faintest idea how security works.

>>56613160
What you don't see is that in order to detect those they also have to infringe upon law-abiding citizens' privacy. Like yours or mine.
People can create their own encryption algorithms, it's impossible to enforce a ban on encryption. The only ones who will actually suffer from it are the normal people who use standardized encryption algorithms that can be identified.
Criminals are criminals and won't not encrypt their data because the law tells them not to. And nobody can tell if the data produced by some proprietary encryption algorithm used within criminal communities only is just a secure eraese (random data), an unknown file format, or actually encryption.
Restricting encryption won't permanently solve anything. It will just temporarily get some criminals convicted and then be useless for everything else than hurting the general population.
There is still no ban on talking behind closed doors, which I'd imagine is much more relevant in the war on serious crime.

>>56616403
Privacy is an actual right, healthcare, clean water, education are privileges.

>>56616384

By that logic we wouldn't do anything because every action has a risk.

Have you people never heard of risk management?

>>56616627
you dont intentionally poke holes in security there are already plenty. why do you think everything is getting hacked lately. the nsa actively pays companies to put in exploits and then tell them how to access them.

>>56616581
Enlighten me then, know-it-all.

>>56616586
>What you don't see is that in order to detect those they also have to infringe upon law-abiding citizens' privacy
Let's ban police searches then too.

>>56616372
AM I BEING DETAINED!?

>>56616664
Seems like paranoid conspiracy theories to me
I'd rather go for the logical conclusion that it's more widespread, there's more incompetence and anybody and their mom has a laptop and could potentially look for holes in software
Look at all the efforts people make to make development and administration easy. It inevitably brings vulnerabilities with it.

>>56616664

Asymmetric backdoors by definition can only be exploited by the ones who planted them. Study some more.

>>56616609

That's just like your opinion man. One could argue privacy isn't a right. Even if it undoubtedly were, no right is absolute. Rights have limits.

>>56616668
A police search is far different. That would be like demanding to see someone's unencrypted data.

>>56616460
>>56614415
HAIL H̶Y̶D̶R̶A̶ CULTURAL MARXISM

>>56616372
Ever heard of toll roads, private hospitals or security companies?

checkmate commie.

>>56616721

Not really. Encryption enthusiasts often claim nobody lives in glass houses, making the analogy between encrypting data and hiding something. When the police searches your pockets, your car or your house, they are searching your hidden things. When the police tells you to open your bag so they can see what's inside, they're telling you to reveal something hidden. A police search isn't far different. As a matter of fact, by the privacy enthusiasts' own analogy, it is the exact same thing.

>>56616711
>That's just like your opinion man. One could argue privacy isn't a right. Even if it undoubtedly were, no right is absolute. Rights have limits.
Maybe, but privacy cannot be given, it can only be taken.

>>56616776

>build wall
>give privacy

wut

>>56616668
a backdoor is an exploit that someone programmed into a program they created in order maintain access to the information after they no longer have access to the system. It is inherently unsecured because it is security hole hard coded intentionally into the program. The only thing keeping it secure is that it has to be discovered by other would be hackers before it can be used. Since the knowledge leaked that the nsa is doing this it gives hackers the motivation they need to keep looking for it because they know somewhere there is most likely an nsa backdoor.

>>56616748

You are aware that cultural "marxism" is a misnomer, right?

Political correctness has nothing to do with communism or marxism. That's a right-wing meme.

>>56616765
Except encrypted data is not hidden. It simply does not exist until the key to decrypt it is provided.
What's behind a locked door does exist even if it isn't provided.

>>56616799

lrn2cryptography

http://www.cryptovirology.com/cryptovfiles/newbook/Chapter10.pdf

>>56616789
That would be giving privacy back, which implies it has to be taken away first, by other people being around.

File: 1311763499070.jpg (31KB, 300x354px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 300x354px

>>56616805
>encrypted data does not exist

File: wtf-am-i-reading.jpg (41KB, 409x425px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 409x425px

>>56616831

You are aware that walls don't naturally exist, right?

>>56616828
>Based on our knowledge of the subject, the
following appears to hold: no experimental implementation of an asymmet-
ric backdoor in RSA key generation has been made publicly available and
none have been scrutinized by the research community.

>56616805
>it simply does not exist until the key to decrypt it is provided
You don't need the key to decrypt it, don't you know that? It just takes billions of years to decrypt it without the key with current computers, but it is possible.

>>56616843
>>encrypted data does not exist
Sorry, to clarify, the unencrypted data doesn't exist until it is created from the encrypted data.
Just like PCM doesn't exist in MP3 until it's decoded from it.

>>56616883
>>56616805
Fuck, deleted a meme arrow by accident!

>>56616860
You are aware that humans following you around anywhere you go doesn't naturally exist, right?

>>56616911

I am not on the paranoid side of this argument, kid.

>>56616883
>>56616908
Then you are creating the key, or a substitute for the key that works the same way. And then you are using that to create the data you want from the encrypted data.

>>56616927
You fail to understand, humans following you around and listening to your conversations is exactly your privacy being taken away from you.
Walls are not the only form of privacy, being all alone somewhere is also privacy.

File: +.jpg (86KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1280x720px

>>56612932
>It's another "You can trust the Stasi episode" on /g/

>>56616931
Encryption doesn't destroy data, it just transforms it. The data was created before and it keeps existing even after encrypted.

lrn2math

>>56616956

No, naturally you don't have any privacy. That's a human creation. Even sex is something done in public in nature. We don't naturally live alone, and having to move somewhere desert to be private is the process of gaining privacy.

>>56616971
And until it is transformed back it doesn't exist.
Just like how the past does not exist, only the result of the things that happened.

File: 1468725638202.jpg (11KB, 251x242px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 251x242px

>>56616862
>if nobody has done it yet, that means it can't be done

>>56617014
Naturally you have the right to go somewhere and be in private. By being around other people you are willingly giving up your privacy.

>>56612932
>Why do you really need encryption, /g/?
That's entirely the wrong question to ask. It's irrelevant whether I "need" it or not.
Why should the state or anyone else have any right to tell me I can't use it?

>>56617035
But a police search is precisely about determining somebody's past as a function of its result.

>>56617059
it means theres nothing to learn from that article because its just a concept. and why would you want htis anyways wtf is wrong with you?

>>56617158
The objects used to determine that still exist in the present.

>>56617171
So does the ciphertext.

>>56617060
If going places is a right, then you were wrong here >>56616956 when you claimed humans following you around is taking your rights away. It isn't, because they're just exercising their right to go somewhere.

>>56617132

Yeah, why should the state tell me if I can use child porn or not?

>>56617161

>theres nothing to learn from that article because its just a concept
Holy shit, you are dumb! Everything starts at the concept level, you retard!

>why would you want htis
To stop Ahmed from blowing your entire block to bits and raping your 11-yo daughter on camera, you fucknut.

>wtf is wrong with you?
Wtf are you hiding, you piece of shit?

>>56617188
But that's not the original data.
If you eat a banana and shit it out, the banana doesn't exist anymore, your shit exists.
Sometimes the results of the past can determine the past, but not always.

>>56617228
A lot of rights infringe upon others' rights. This is why rights are restricted.

>>56617325
The original data can be determined from the encrypted data.

>>56617338
>This is why rights are restricted.
Except for privacy, right? That right is unlimited according to you paranoid encryptards.

Will bernie sanders swoop in before the election now that hillary can't hide her parkinson?
Or will she just forfeit to trump?

>>56617324
>calling people dumb for not wanting to build backdoors into encrypted security.

all they do on the internet is recruit. I bet you think they are collecting phone conversations from every American because Isis likes to call America on the phone too.

considering all the shady shit the government has already been caught covering up I wouldnt trust them with being able to access personal and business records. whats stopping them from giving trade secrets and inside info to the highest bidder? I mean we are already letting drug cartel bosses off the hook in the name of national security.

File: franklin.jpg (21KB, 350x240px)

21KB, 350x240px

>>56617490

>giving up freedom from terrorism and child pornography just so you can be safe from the GUBMINT boogeyman

File: tommy.jpg (68KB, 605x731px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 605x731px

>>56617562

>>56612932
>muh technology sector
>implying trump and hillary didn't receive much more money

>>56613011
>Commie meme? Okay, kid, I don't think you know what communism is. Total government control of the citizenships personal life is exactly what communism entails as it is the only way communism can exist.
but that's wrong, you fucking retard

File: blart_nice_meme.jpg (125KB, 1802x1250px)

125KB, 1802x1250px

>>56617608

>>56617721
>reverse troll
kys.

>>56617690

>implying trump and hillary didn't receive much more money
They did, but from Wall Street.

>>56617562
>implying this shit will ever stop terrorism
Backdoors don't really help that much against terrorists, or any other organised crime. They aren't really trying to control criminals anymore, but people.

>>56618118

"They" who?

>>56618180
The government :^)

File: cognitive-dissonance.png (102KB, 968x257px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 968x257px

>>56618216

>the government is disorganized, incompetent and erratic
>but they sure are carrying out some highly elaborate conspiracies to spy on us

>>56618325
nice strawman.

>>56618395

The real strawman here is:

>"they" aren't really trying to regulate encryption in order to fight crime, "they" wanna control our lives!

That's not only a strawman, but also a red herring. By questioning the motives behind it, you drive debate away from the possible benefits or drawbacks in implementing widespread asymmetric backdoors and onto irrelevant and wild conspiracy theories.

>>56618599
nice strawman. I never said any of that. but you should look up the definition of government.

>>56618635
>I never said any of that.
Nice backpedaling, you nigger.

>>56618678
>everyone on /g/ is the same person.
saged.

File: 07 - vIQ1c81.png (414KB, 725x865px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 725x865px

>>56616760

>>56618721

Follow the trail, fagtron, look me straight in the face and tell me again you didn't claim the GUBMENDT wants to control people!

>>56618635 >>56618395 >>56618216 >>56618118

>>56618775
> he believes the police will come

>>56614415
>>56616460
This is not meme, commies use faggots to destabilise western countries. Lurk more, search Jurij Bezmienow.

>>56619121

Nigga, you seem confused. Capitalism pushed that shit to promote consumerism, corporations force countercultural values down our throats to sell shit. Read Žižek, and do note that he's a raging commie and yet he's actually defending traditional, straight marriage:

http://www.goethe.de/ins/be/prj/eli/en11356900.htm

>this thread
as expected of /g/

>>56612932
Anyone who thinks Donald Trump would make a true to god, good president has no idea what the fuck they're talking about.

>>56619416
The problem is that all candidates in the US suck.
My country currently doesnt even have a president and it works just fine.

>>56619416
Look, /g/, Pajeet strikes again!

>>56619516

That's not true. Bernie was pretty based. Jill Stein is not bad. Americans like the sucky candidates, that's the real issue. There's a whole class of ignorant racist rednecks who love Trump, then there's the elitist Wall Street bankers who are in bed with Clinton, and to top it off, the whole system is corrupt and allows the establishment to sabotage a candidate like they did to Sanders. I want to get off this ride, I'm moving to Canada if Trump gets elected anyway.

>>56619603

I know the "pajeet" thing is satire and all, but it stopped being funny a while ago. Now it's just racist. You can stop already.

>>56619690
t. Microsoft tech support

>>56613053

Privacy is a negative right, stupid. And in particular, it's an extension of property rights. You have a right to be secure in your property, so you have a right FROM having that property searched against your will. Your mail is arguably your property, and so you have a right FROM having that mail opened while in transit. Extending from that, Emails, instant messages, and phone calls, among other things, should also be protected.

Given that the government is often incapable of doing its job, which is to protect our rights (and may often do the opposite), it is also our right to take these matters into our own hands. We have a right to own firearms, that we may use them to protect our life, liberty, and property. We similarly have a right to encryption, to protect our digital property.

>>56613160

What part of the constitution could be construed to grant congress this authority?

File: tmp_28414-FB_IMG_1473974528023273292629.jpg (29KB, 652x415px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 652x415px

>>56619970
>Microsoft
The ones voting for big corporations and anti-privacy laws are the drumpftards, famalam.

>>56620107
I was talking about the Pajeet thing strictly, not the politics.

>>56620099
>encryption is like guns
There are strong limitations on the exportation of weapons everywhere, anon, especially in the US. Also, most countries implement at least some form of gun control, including very limitedly the US (some states).

>constitution
>congress
What constitution and what congress, anon? This discussion is not limited to America, and encryption control could also happen on the state level.

>>56620297

>Also, most countries implement at least some form of gun control, including very limitedly the US (some states).

With the exception of maybe background checks (as felons do not actually have inalienable rights), all gun control laws in the US violate the constitution. The second amendment does not say "unless the arm in question can fire more than one bullet per trigger pull," but rather, in plain English, states that the people have a right to keep and bear arms, and that said right shall not be infringed.

>This discussion is not limited to America

Europeans are welcome to have whatever dictators they wish, but I will have none of it in my country

>and encryption control could also happen on the state level

It would be limited to encrypted messages sent within the state, and that's only if it is not found to violate the constitution. The passage of the 14th amendment, and several court cases, has heavily implied that a reasonable portion of the constitution is incorporated against the states. That is, if the Federal government can't do it because it is explicitly forbidden from doing so, neither can the states.

>>56616431
/thread

>>56616789
>Build wall
>Hinder drug trafficking

>>56621792

>all gun control laws in the US violate the constitution

lolno

Study more before you talk, lest you embarrass yourself by parroting uninformed ideological slogans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/d-robert-worley/judicial-activism-and-the_b_2412471.html

>>56618118
>Backdoors don't really help that much against terrorists
How would you know?

>>56612932
it's because trump's policies will punish companies that outsource, which they all do. of course they'll be against him

>>56619970

DASDA PLS

>>56624668
>terrorism still happens
>still on the same scale as before