Privacy Debate - /fucko/

Ask about free software in goverment

>>57966533
Honestly that's hardly a priority if you look at the current state of privacy. But sure i'll keep it in mind.

>>57966484
Ask them about the concept of threat model and how you, as a likely privileged man, can help people who need encryption and how you can prevent cyberfascism, from a crypto-anarchist point of view.

Also try to bring attention about the case of GnuPG, who makes a free and open source encryption standard being used by all the Internet and having not enough donations to pay a second developer.

Who is it you're going to ask these questions?
Cause if they're just politicians, they're likely to be literal retards with no answers.

>>57966734
I like both points.

Especially the first one. That will probably indicate how little they know.

thx man!

I'll post translated answers in this thread if it seems noteworthy.

>>57966856
Well then my point is made and they look like idiots.

In the other case. If they are not utterly retarded they might win a vote. No guarantees though.

>>57966938
I don't suppose the second point will indicate how little they know. Better ask them on:
– sandboxing
– blockchain
– security by transparency.

However don't try too pedant and arrogant questions imo.

Ask them about security and privacy good practices, such as using or not Google's DNS.

If you choose the hard mode ask them about leaked Intel processors serial numbers and the cyberpower (as in cyberspace geopolitics) given to the NSA to trace back 100% of TOR connections.

>>57966484
Ask if privacy is all or nothing. Ask how the average citizen can stay safe while criminals are caught and punished if a majority of x86 machines have a universal backdoor. Ask about where they would draw the line between freedom for all and doing something for the "greater good".

>>57966952
Ask if they see large scale data mining as a national security issue.
Having as much information about everyone as Facebook and Google do puts one in a position to manipulate key people and organizations in a democratic, or really even authoritarian countries. Which is something Facebook and Google would probably shy away from doing, but the three letter agencies they are subject to certainly wouldn't.

>>57966484
ask them why they belive their shitty laws on privacy will make a difference when the NSA has a RAT in every device and is keeping a log of everything that these devices can record

>>57966484
Op here. Thanks for more of the replies. I'll read them and respond if they were discussed. I'll also give a brief summary if anyone's interested.

>>57967053
Thx for reply. Interesting stuff but ofc it didn't became all that technical. I touched on some technicalities though (e.g. End-To-End encryption).

>However don't try too pedant and arrogant questions imo.
I wasn't. There were two other dudes that were though. Classic /g/tards I'm afraid. Socially awkward, passionate about technology but not all that bright or knowledgeable for that matter.

Summary and more replies following. This is now privacy discussion thread (/fucko/ anyone?).

>>57966484
Soo summary of the two hours:

First some terrible introduction by a complete moron. They planned to show some talk short video of Bruce Schneier but failed because they had digibetes (blasting macbook in a huge room doesn't make you able to understand the fucking video).

Then the good part. Gov official that works around privacy gives a really good talk. Pretty nice guy knows his stuff.

Topics that were touched:
>New European privacy law GDPR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation)
Protecting data of all European citizens. No matter the usecase. Contains special laws for law enforcement/intelligence agencies. As usual has to be ratified/controlled on national level. Will enforce Opt-In on all privacy related issues. Non-technical though (I asked this)
>Privacy Passport
Gov will figure out where all data of their citizens is stored and make it transparent what they have on people and where they store it. (excellent idea imho) This would also serve as example for what companies should do in the longer term.
>Ethical hackers
Gov dude is pro. They are creating legal framework to make it happen both for gov and companies.
>sensitization (is this a proper english word?)
He wants to make people much more aware of their privacy. Because you have to participate in it if it is important to you.
>Two example lawsuits against big corps that violate privacy

I did my very best to not pull the entire conversation back to me. Which was pretty hard because there were maybe 3 persons of the 20ish people that actually knew what they were talking about.

One old guy stated the classic:
>"I don't have anything to hide".
Literally 5 minutes later gives an example where he feels his privacy is violated (doublethink any1?)

Also asked about why not enforce e2e encryption for some stuff (e.g. private messages). Gov official answered basically: For 1) Law enforcement and 2) allow companies the to offer peeps more interesting features/discounts.

>>57967064
Again really good question. Wish I had more time to ask this good stuff. All these idiots (except 3 then) in the crowd just really liked their own voice and either didn't know shit or were just to stupid to grasp the concept.

>>57967073
>Ask if they see large scale data mining as a national security issue.
Yes probably. But our country isn't relevant on that scale anyway.

Also it's true that data mining has a lot of economic potential. An example the gov official also gave was e.g. Ehealth: personalized medicine is going to be big. Ofc the laws for medical data are much more strict but still not technically strict (GOD DAMMIT WHY).

>Which is something Facebook and Google would probably shy away from doing, but the three letter agencies they are subject to certainly wouldn't.
Implying Fb and Google WOULD shy away from this.
Tbh i see it more likely that the next war will be between private companies than between countries. They are already ruling a huge part of this planet. Think about it....

>>57967937
>ask them why they belive their shitty laws on privacy will make a difference when the NSA has a RAT in every device and is keeping a log of everything that these devices can record
Well see >>57966734
I really should have asked them about the threat model they have. But really 100% secure/private doesn't exist.