Why should people care about their privacy ?

>>59427728
>I don't care about privacy. I've nothing to hide
>I don't care about free speech. I've nothing to say

>>59427728
Encryption defend your data from evildoers who copy pedo shit to your disk and call police to arrest you. It happened irl at a school.

>>59427728
they mad becuz shitnux has no games
so they pretend to care about sth

File: topkek.png (416KB, 644x508px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 644x508px

>>59427770
I love my games, but can dualboot if that matters.

>>59427728
It's a human right.

>>59427728
>posting on an a anonymous website
>pretending not to care about privacy

Why don't you tell us your full name and address. Also maybe post your email address and password, I just want to look through your communications and make sure you're safe. Don't worry, you have nothing to hide, right?

>>59427770
You can run WIndows on near bare-metal using gpu passthrough. That make it possible to play any game on linux, even Battlefield if you got the specs. Then there is wine. You just run "wine some.exe" and it runs pretty good. I run Resident Evil 4 in wine and it's flawless. I can also run Soul Reaver just fine. Need For Speed Carbon runs perfectly. Unreal Tournament... of course. There are tonnes of games you can play on linux.

>>59427814
>That make it possible to play any game on linux
No, you're still playing the game on Windows, in a VM running on Linux.

>>59427728
A whole bunch of reasons but since 4chan is topical here, consider the benefits of anonymity in discussion boards. Ethos is removed from the equation, removing authority-appealing bullshit and institutionally propagated ideas are able to be questioned. Ideas normally rejected by any audience as uninformed hogwash due to the populace's collective validation filter (or the filter artificially created by the feds and so installed if you're "woke") can stand on their own unaided merits. It's a simple enough concept that you probably get on some level if you're posting here, but for worries regarding privacy and global monitoring, take the same concepts and work in reverse.
Without the ability to compartmentalize your life according to your whim, your hand is shown in games you aren't even playing. Your public and/or monitored character is a unbroken gestalt of your outward actions and consumption. Without privacy walls, you'll be disregarded as an opinion holder, evidence presenter, or even firsthand account based on apparently unrelated views you hold. You'll constantly be targeted by inhumane advertisement campaigns scientifically designed to prey on whatever weakness or character flaw can be uncovered or extrapolated. The way you are treated and the options available to you will become dependent not on the capacities you hold and deem relevant, but by the interpretation of you generated by an algorithm, surveillance state, corporation, or public body.
Privacy is important, in part, because it is a tool that allows people to self-define or avoid unwanted definition. People should care about it because it's constantly slipping from our grasp, and the earliest canaries have started choking. Some say one canary is fine, or two or twelve. Others have already taken a hardline stance that just one dead canary is too much. But what do they know? Those people are crazy, they're all unkempt and unintelligent liberal arts hippies. Long hair = discarded opinion.

>>59427917
>on Linux.

I just wanted to point out that little detail in your sentence.

>>59427728
No one should. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

>>59428048
>No one should care about privacy

You're a cuck. A duck and a dumb fuck! I respectfully demand you jump in a canyon.

File: 1174667266948.jpg (70KB, 525x394px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 525x394px

If you don't care then completely remove all the doors and windows from your house, or destroy the locks so they are forever unlocked,
and see how that goes for you.

>>59427728
If you don't care about your privacy then is it privacy?

>>59428116
In what ways physical and virtual properties are comparable.

>>59428178
In that they both contain the same personal information of your life, just in different form.

A person scouring your computer, and say your bank accounts because you were so nice to leave the websites open or give out your username and password for all to see,
is not any different from them scouring your physical financial papers.

Do you open your doors to any policeman who decides to barge into your house for shits and giggles, or do you ask for a warrant?
Oh you don't like random police officers coming in without a reason? What are your trying to hide?

>>59427728
Would you like people watching you while you shower naked?

>>59427728
Because it's inevitable all this shit will be leaked eventually.

>>59428178
Becasu its about you. Information about your habits and your safety. In both cases, having poor security put you at risk

>>59428198
>Leave websites open
>give out usernames and passwords

These are not things that average users do though

Because they make money from it.
If got paid for everything they collect about me i would have no complains.

>>59428306
But you get to use services for free

File: 1224000462371.jpg (39KB, 600x440px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x440px

>>59428263
The average users also don't give out their financial papers and make sure that nobody can get their hands on them through various means.

Because their houses are closed and secure.
Because you use a wallet to hold your documents and papers of value instead of keeping them in an open pocket that can be accessed by anyone around you.

Why? So unwanted people don't access it.
Same with a computer.

If you have no problem with the police having unwarranted access to all your computer information, including your bank accounts and financial accounts online;
then you shouldn't have a problem with allowing any random policeman into your house and scouring your wallets any time they please without your consent.

If you don't realize it's the same thing by this point, you are one dumb motherfucker.

>>59428314

No you don't.

File: 1224260497640.jpg (31KB, 500x360px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x360px

If you own nothing that can be stolen, you have no fears and no problem!

>>59428333
Show me the proof that the police has interest or is reading my financial activities

>>59428116
While I 100% support privacy and FOSS, this is a shitty argument.
Doors are required for entering an leaving a household while being closable so it's less affected by outside temperature, and windows are useful too. The "remove locks" argument makes more sense.

>>59428346
Google drive is goat

>>59428314
is windows free?

File: 1478309890319.jpg (355KB, 1673x431px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1673x431px

>>59427728

>>59428390
Police is made up of humans. Humans have ambitions, circumstances that force them to do things they usually wouldn't, and they vary.
Humans induce inherent corruption into every system, which is why Internal Affairs exists, yet it is also not infallible.
Where corruption exists, interest in using people exists.
If people make it easy to use them, a corrupt individual will use them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2289722/Police-officer-stole-400-house-search-faces-return-prison-stealing-suspects-iPhone.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-20414000

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/retired-police-officer-who-stole-22000-from-church-funds-is-jailed-35170686.html

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/retired-police-officer-who-stole-22000-from-church-funds-is-jailed-35170686.html

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article138194138.html

>>59428390
You are fine with these kinds of people having access to your finance and accounts?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/19/police-officer-found-700000-of-drugs-at-his-home-court-told-bradford-keith-boots

>>59427954
This pretty much.

Privacy allows for free exploration of ideas and opinions. The moment you know or even feel that someone might be watching you, you limit yourself, you censor yourself. Without privacy there is no true freedom of thought.

>>59427728
> their privacy
Black people should not have privacy?? What kind of racist shit is this?

>>59428525
But I'm reading your statement right now.

>>59428620
Do you have a point?

>>59428234
>Becasu its about you. Information about your habits and your safety. In both cases, having poor security put you at risk

at risk for what?

>>59428659
Your ideas are clearly against what you're criticizing and yet you weren't scared to post them

>>59428696
Not punishable at all, and in our society it's also an easily explained and generally accepted point of view. Not controversial in the slightest.

There are plenty of other thoughts and ideas I wouldn't feel so comfortable posting here.

My point was also more about exploration of new ideas, not so much stating the ones you already have.

>>59428745
Blaming imaginary CIA agents for your lack of imagination, got it

File: lolwat.jpg (6KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 300x168px

>>59428758
>CIA
>imagination

>>59428802
nobody's watching you manchild

>>59428817
You're the one acting like a manchild here lad. We were talking about privacy, and then you come in with your uninformed cretinous thoughts.

>>59428439
>using homosexuality in argumentation

>>59429107
Why not? Are you saying that homophobes don't exist?

>>59429167
It's counterproductive if you make this argument for people (normies) who (mostly) dislike homosexuals and their parades.
Within "The rules may change" you can make up any rule (like outlawing atheism), within the third reason, I'd like to see another community.

>>59429224
>normies who (mostly) dislike homosexuals
Most people are not insecure closet homos like yourself and are therefor fine with fags. You're projecting again.

Letting observation impede your performance is a weakness and needs to be purged.

>>59429306
You probably thought this sounded really smart when you said it in your head.

>>59429354
Not an argument.

>>59429378
Likewise.

>>59429382
Woosh

>>59429395
I rest my case.

>>59429419
There was never one to begin with.

>>59429430
My point exactly.

>>59427728
Why do you need to see my dick though?

File: IMG_7511.gif (3MB, 697x458px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 697x458px

>>59429453

>>59429472
Not that guy, but you're making even less sense than before with that irrelevant gif.

>>59429306
Depends on what you have set up as your motivation.

>>59429466
You might be developing a new improvised explosive to use exclusively against unfortunate women.

>>59429497
Sure thing buddy

>>59429251
How about showing me a community that done something actually useful for society?

>>59428462
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0PuqSMB8uU

File: when in doubt ignore.gif (879KB, 245x230px) Image search: [Google]

879KB, 245x230px

>>59429536

>>59429522
Oh, I would implant the device with my dick in her vagiaiker .I seen now, I guess you should watch my dick and count my strokes and watch my anus contract when I cum and all that.

>>59429553
>How about showing me
What makes you think anybody is interested in convincing a mouthbreathing illiterate like yourself of anything? Illusions of grandeur again?

>>59427728
privacy prevents people from taking advantage of you

File: IMG_7529.gif (524KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

524KB, 320x240px

>>59429588

>>59429601
How about making your argument grounded, not theoretical?
>Society laws and norms must be broken, we don't lynch negros and homos today

>>59429651
Illusions of grandeur confirmed.

>>59429613
Keep counting!
Estimate the volume of my cum load, and how much liquid was lost in the cum steam.
Plot the height of my balls from watching the first porn flick to the end. Make a nice graph.
Keep doing it and pile up the percentages.

>>59427728
because you're a twisted sicko, otherwise you're fine

File: IMG_7381.jpg (40KB, 411x419px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 411x419px

>>59429705

>>59429740
Who needs privacy, right?!

>>59427750
Saying = good
Hiding = bad

That's the difference.

>>59429674
>helping him to come up with something
>lol, you're entitled
I still consider homo argument as a bad one because those activists only fractured our society. Writing about negro slaves escaping from south america would be better.

File: IMG_7562.png (475KB, 679x843px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 679x843px

>>59429770
No continue, I'm enjoying the show.

>>59427728
I'll tell you why

Because browsing this shithole exposes you to statistically coming up to some faggot posting an image he shouldn't in a random thread. That image is then cached so the browser doesn't have to re-download it.

How is that bad? It usually isn't, unless stuff like this exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhotoDNA , in which case your innocent and accidental mouseover of the image now results into your statistical chance of being imprisoned within your lifetime multiplying. Nothing was prevented, no children saved, no criminals imprisoned - just you, an innocent random guy who forgot to block telemetry. And that's just pictures, don't forget all the other stuff like clicking that one google link or having shit like this https://www.wired.com/2017/02/googles-troll-fighting-ai-now-belongs-world/ crawl your forum and associate your IP with the stuff you ironically shatposted. Good luck explaining what ironic shitposting is in court.

Agreeing to something like that which puts you to a potential harm because "lol idc haha?" is the most retarded thing one can do. Yes, it's highly unlikely *now*, but 1) it will exponentially become more and more likely with every next surveillance stunt and 2) it wasn't even likely in the past, why the fuck do you agree with it being "unlikely" in the first place?

And again, that's just the infancy of it with the slow computers we currently have, imagine what a fucking hell it can become when deep learning improves.

>>59427728
because if you disagree with national policy, you can be arrested for it vs organizing a counter movement.
see: everyone that's gotten in legal trouble for islamaphobia on social media.

it's not about your laotian animated pictures, it's about disagreeing with the people that watch you.

>>59429826
Here's your tin-foil hat sir, oh and don't forget your pills, the schizophrenia kicks in every once in a while hehe.

>>59427728
Americans don't like being told they can't.
>>59427770
Just dual boot if your into AAA titles.
Every game I want to play works with wine.

>>59429834
Nobody has gotten in legal trouble over expressing non-violent ideas toward certain people and if they do that definitely flies under the "got something to hide" category.

>>59429808
The fact that you can't see the similarities between the two and decide to reject one because you're a closetfag homophobe even though the example is perfectly fine in the context of the argument just shows what a moron you are, and why anyone should be unwilling to waste time convincing you.

>>59429880
>decide to reject one because you're a closetfag homophobe
Thats exactly what I told in the first place. You're going to refer to people who unironically believe in "You have nothing to hide argument", why you can't come up with something that doesn't make you look like SJW?

>>59429849
>people literally risk their lives to leak the fact that you're actually actively getting datamined
>look how smart I am by not considering anything at all and having the flattest thought process possible hehe at least I'm not a schizo lol rekt :^P

>>59429824
Yea, check see If I was careful when shaving my balls and count the ugly nappy long hairs that got unshaven. Get an odor sensor in there and check see how my cock smells(feel free to do a graph with the progression of my cocks smells over time) and if beneath my phimosis it might be hiding some cheese and when I try to become mayor of my shitty small town bring all that issue in the local paper.
Get a fruit fly sized drone with a chemical sensor to check the salinity of my balls b4 and after I beat my meat. Get another drone to hover around the wasted life juice and do a sperm count to see if watching too many anime makes one infertile.
Check the power thrust of my farts by interpreting sound patterns.(feel free to keep track and do a report + graph over the years)
Who needs privacy, right?!

>>59429951
>why you can't come up with something
I can, but there's no point, why should I adjust anything in order to try convince the bottom of the barrel? People like you are mindless morons, I could convince you today, but if tomorrow someone shows you something shiny you'll be convinced of something else, like the drooling retard you are. It would be a waste of time and energy to convince you of literally anything. Nobody cares about opinions of idiots. I'm already getting tired of explaining why it's pointless explaining anything to people like you! Have your silly opinion, boo homo's! boo SJW! good for you lad, ignorance is bliss, have fun.

>>59429880
Both arguments are fine in the context. But you have to take a guess which one people will like more - about homos who try to get more rights for themselves because of "equality" or history approved escape of slaves to their freedom?

>>59429224
I'm the one who posted that picture and I would like to respond. Whenever I post that picture, the discussion goes to the topic of homophobia and homosexuality, while other arguments for caring about privacy as a human don't get discussed or get ignored altogether. I would also have to agree with Glenn Greenwald on the topic of surveillance and his opinion that it creates a prison in the mind of an individual.
https://youtu.be/pcSlowAhvUk

>>59430031
As a human need*

>>59430030
>which one people will like more
If someone rejects a perfectly logical argument because he doesn't "like" an example used, that person should be ignored.

If you're going to try to please everybody by using examples they like (in other words, doesn't trigger them, who's the SJW again?) you might as well stop now. Ignore the snowflakes and their petty opinions.

>>59430082
I'd have to ignore most of people then. How could I make a change without most people supporting me?
>>59430031
Because other arguments are easily understandable. And not controvercial. Thats why I suggested using something else. Everybody gets it that you lock door for a reason or something may suddenly be outlawed (reverse engineering made illegal because reasons will lead to people losing their interesting hobbies and slow progress).

>>59427728
Because I don't trust the government. They could lock me up on the basis of things that have nothing to do with ethics. Just because something is illegal does not make it unethical. Just because the law grants the government certain powers (like indefinite detention of US citizens without a trial) does not mean it is ethical for them to use those powers.

Now fuck off you piece of shit federal agent.

>>59430166
>controvercial
controversial*

>>59427728
It's like all books and films with utopian on the outside but dystopian on the inside regimes passed over your head.

>>59430166
>I'd have to ignore most of people then.
Exactly.

>How could I make a change without most people supporting me?
You don't. Or you throw away your credibility among literate people and turn populist. It all depends, do you want to be right, or do you want to be popular? You have to pick, unfortunately.

>>59429988
>getting triggered over data mining
You should go to a psych ward

99% of the "I've got nothing to hide" people would be calling the police within 5 minutes of a stranger following them around in the real world recording everything they did and said.

Other way around. Why should I trust strangers?

>>59429807
>nothing to hide meme
It's so hilarious breaking your argument, because you can say the same thing over and over:

If you have nothing to hide, give me your credit card, social insurance number, and passport scans, along with your last five addresses and credit score history. Oh wait, you don't feel like handing that over to me? What does that mean? You have something to hide.

>yeah but im talking about hiding it from the government not you
As they say "by the people, for the people", so yes that includes me too. Do you honestly think all your data is safe with the government? During the Snowden leaks, we figured NSA virgins created their own database to spy on their loves and intrude into their daily life.

>i dont have a lover that works at the nsa
The point is the the government isn't the friendly man next door that your childhood painted it to be, it can be incredibly corrupt and untrustworthy.

>>59430308
They can potentially save your life.

>>59427728
They shouldn't. If you do, then you're either a kiddy-fiddler, a terrorist or a weeb.

>>59430237
Alright, I'll bite your shit bait

Give me the benefits of me being data mined

>>59430321
Or much more likely fuck me over. Yeah, no thanks.

>>59430179
this (and of course it went ignored by the shill who started this thread)

>>59430335
You asked why you should trust them, I answered. Fuck off.

>>59430335
When has the CIA, FBI, or NSA fucked you over?

>>59430318
Show me your warrant and I'll give you all that.

>>59430346
OK so what are the chances of a random stranger on the street randomly giving me the cure for cancer vs the chances of them mugging me? Not caring about your privacy means trusting strangers, and since most people only want to screw others over, I'd rather not do it.

>>59430356
>CIA
You do realize that there is extensive documentation of them doing all sorts of shady things from MKULTRA to fueling civil wars right?

>>59430372
You're hiding it from me unless I have a warrant. You do have something to hide. Why keep trying to parrot your factually wrong ideas?

>>59430372
oh look its the guy who didn't read

>>59430379
We're not talking about some random stranger on a fucking street, we're talking about national security. Different people/entities are given different privileges/responsibilities, privacy inclusive.

>fueling civil wars
How did this fuck you over again? Also what does this have to do with privacy?

>>59430424
>How did this fuck you over again?
Yes because if someone is willing to go halfway across the globe to make some faggots kill each other then it means that they are 100% trustworthy. And nice skipping on MKULTRA there dudeguy.

>>59430448
I never said there wasn't a trade off. But that still doesn't explain how this fucks >you over

>>59430424
>How did this fuck you over again?
Does it count if half my family overseas was killed by them? I think so?

>t. nicaraguan

Anyone who thinks that they can gain an advantage over another will use available information if they can access it. Especially if they think they won't get caught doing so. It's human nature to do so. By protecting your privacy you are not only protecting your freedom but also protecting against those few bad apples in society. Malware exists for a reason.

>>59427728
>Why should people care about their privacy ?
Why do we need to hide our things and privacy from gov and rest of corporations? Are you ready for anal probing every flight you fuckin twat?

I have a sneaking suspicion that we're going to enter an era where people have their emails and internet history exposed in mass, with your identity appended to this dump, and even if you have so much as jokingly watched some type of non-vanilla fetish porn one time, then people are going to publicly humiliate you for it.

>>59430485
>t. niggeraguan
No that was completely justified

>>59430397
That's the point, you're attacking a strawman. No one here's defending the end of privacy. But the police HAS the right to investigate crimes too. That's a fact, and they already have the power to look into your things if they can get a warrant. It's ALREADY like that.

The problem is: encryption is a mechanism that breaks that pattern. Suddenly the police doesn't have the right to investigate crimes anymore. Why is it so bad to have secure asymmetric law-enforcement-only backdoors on our encryption? Nothing will change for you unless you're a criminal. Your private stuff won't suddenly be visible by everyone. Not even the authorities can see your stuff unless they have a good reason to do it.

If you're against this, then you must axiomatically be against the system we currently have, because the police can already break into your home if they have a warrant.

>b-but they can misuse their power
True. They can misuse their current power too. Should we take away all their power? Are you all basically anarchists?

Doesn't surprise me. Learn this: "Abusus non tollit usum."

>>59430505
Doubt

>>59430508
>cant come up with an argument so I have to resort to personal attacks
>>>/pol/

>>59430520
>They can misuse their current power too. Should we take away all their power?
No, but we should very specifically take away their power to invade privacy, glad we could clear that up.

>>59430505
I'd probably agree with everything except for the last part. They'll congratulate you for that one

>>59430529
You have to go back.

>>59430553
So you do want to ban search warrants? Glad we could clear that up.

>>59428672
Slander, defamation, phishing, identity theft/fraud and that is just the non physical stuff. If someone knows everything about you they can figure out when is the best time to rob you or break into your house for example

Wonder if all the pro-privacy hacks here would complain about a rise in domestic terrorism if the national security agencies just stopped doing anything.

>my house got blown up by terrorists but at least I have muh privacy.

>>59430554
It'll be your friends, family, and acquaintances who scan through the dump and find out that you'd been looking at weird stuff.

>>59430562
Search warrants require a full legal procedure, and can easily be countered by legal action in case they are misused. What you defend is their freedom to look at your data freely whenever they feel like, with no way to prevent it or receive any warning, and making it extremely difficult to take a matter of power abuse to court. It should be banned for the same reason that torture should be banned, because it can easily spiral out of control.

>>59430553
>encryptards are basically "AM I BEING DETAINED?!??!"-tier retards
You can't make this shit up!

>>59430596
>What you defend is their freedom to look at your data freely whenever they feel like, with no way to prevent it or receive any warning, and making it extremely difficult to take a matter of power abuse to court.
It's not, you're doubling down on your strawmanning. Re-read my previous post (>>59430520).

>>59430629
>Not even the authorities can see your stuff unless they have a good reason to do it
Except you're wrong as >>59430318 mentioned they can and will use it with malicious intent.

>>59430644
Abusus non tollit usum.

>>59430520
>That's the point, you're attacking a strawman. No one here's defending the end of privacy. But the police HAS the right to investigate crimes too. That's a fact, and they already have the power to look into your things if they can get a warrant. It's ALREADY like that.

The police can investigate individuals if a court of law believes there's reasonable grounds to, so they can get a warrant to do that. The police and other government agencies intruding the privacy of their population looking through illegally harvested data at random is completely by-passing the entire process of obtaining a warrant.

>Why is it so bad to have secure asymmetric law-enforcement-only backdoors on our encryption?

What are you trying to say, encryption isn't useful unless you're a person with bad intentions?

Law enforcement only backdoors into encryption is a very volatile topic. It's why Trump hates Apple. Tim Cook and the rest of Silicon Valley realized that "law enforcement only" backdoors breaks the integrity of their technology. What next, if this "law enforcement only" backdoor gets implemented, if hackers figure out how to access this backdoor? Millions upon millions of products and devices are now vulnerable to this little "peace keeping" backdoor.

>If you're against this, then you must axiomatically be against the system we currently have, because the police can already break into your home if they have a warrant.

>True. They can misuse their current power too. Should we take away all their power? Are you all basically anarchists?

I can be for our current form of a social democracy while being a privacy enthusiast. Nobody said that warrants are bad, as they must be justified in a court of law. What is bad, is government agents bypassing these procedures and invading the privacy of their population via means of illegally obtained databases.

>>59430520
What the fuck are you talking about you fucking retard

I can think or imagine "illegal" stuff, yet the police can't read my mind. Is this a problem? Or I can explain verbally in privacy to my friend how all jews should hang, which is an obvious "crime", and the police will never be able to retrieve information about it. Is this a problem as well?

The problem here is in your definition of what the police should be allowed to actively inspect, and (excluding for some major cases like bank fraud) information is not one of those. It's the equivalent of having all your citizens wiretapped. No, it's no the equivalent - it's literally that.

>>59430692
I bet you're against vigilante Justice too faggot.

>>59430707
>>59430685
Stop replying to literal shitposters. You're arguing with unironical anarchists. Just ignore and they'll go away, they're just edgy teens who crave attention.

File: 1489176162292.jpg (203KB, 802x854px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 802x854px

>>59430318
>NSA virgins created their own database to spy on their loves
link plz lol

>>59430723
>You're arguing with unironical anarchists
Since when is defending privacy on /g/ out of all places make you some anarchist? Can /pol/ just go back and jack off to their leader there?

>>59430725
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/08/24/loveint-when-nsa-officers-use-their-spying-power-on-love-interests/

>>59430694
>>59430692
http://scienceblogs.de/klausis-krypto-kolumne/when-encryption-baffles-the-police-a-collection-of-cases/

File: 3E0BA6B20BDB4BE5B14C46C69105798A.jpg (202KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1280x720px

>>59430742
#UnlockJustice

>>59430755
Your own link shows that most people on that list who used encryption, whether broken through or intact, still were sentenced to life sentences or a few years. Encryption isn't a boogeyman.

>>59430774
>most people who used encryption turned out to be guilty
GEE BILLY, WHAT A SURPRISE! WHO WOULD'VE THOUGHT THAT PEOPLE WHO HAD SOMETHING TO HIDE WERE ACTUALLY COMMITTING CRIMES! THAT'S INSANE!

>>59430804
lmao encryptards BTFO

>>59430755
Not only were all those people sentenced regardless of the supposed "lack of evidence", but they were also sentenced assuming that the encrypted contents are the only evidence. In other words - those people wouldn't get sentenced 30 years ago when PCs weren't as widely spread, which obviously wasn't a problem for those times, was it?

Not only is the supposed gain from the active surveillance so minor that it's irrelevant, but also should you actually grant the government the power you want it to have, most criminals would simply switch back to paper documents that can be burned within 30 seconds. But at the same time, the entire fucking nation would be wiretapped when back in the day it was hard (and controversial) to get an order for even one house

File: IMG_7373.jpg (88KB, 421x750px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 421x750px

ITT: People who are afraid of the state

File: nigga what.jpg (149KB, 683x835px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 683x835px

>>59430766
explain this nigger shit

>>59428405
You cannot live without Windows. Even a person fully supporting privacy and FOSS gets it! Linux BTFO!

>>59430804
>>59430821

This firstly, >>59430839

The point is that encryption isn't some scary thing that only helps criminals. If it were, your bank wouldn't be using encryption, your work login wouldn't be using encryption, and even basic services wouldn't be using encryption if it's sole purpose was helping criminals.

You can permanently disable or murder people with hammers. You can also build houses with hammers. You don't go out and make everyone with a hammer replace their tools with plastic rods. The same goes for encryption.

>>59430995
Abusus non tollit usum.

>>59431020
Just like how you say beat cops aren't an argument against good cops, misuse of encryption isn't an argument against beneficial encryption.

>>59430995
Yeah, but no one is talking of crippling encryption.

Why are all encryptard arguments basically just strawmen?

>>59431045
>misuse of encryption isn't an argument against beneficial encryption
No. It's just an argument for secure asymmetric law-enforcement-only backdoors.

>>59428439
Now I want to know why grandma is living among a bunch of prostitutes. Also, I think you forgot to mention that you would lose access to the reindeer meatballs if you get arrested. That of course should make anyone paranoid of losing their privacy.

Lesson, we also may rebel if not given the ability to lock the bathroom door after our stomach gets upset with the reindeer meatballs that grandma fails to make as good as the ones in the bar. It also makes it good to hide the fact that you are making out with another male, perhaps your grandfather. You must be allowed to have gay sex with your grandfather or the moral fabric of society will break down.

Wow, ISIS and NAMBLA shills out in full force tonight!

>>59431064
Is this a new pasta?

>>59430520
>"Law enforcement only back doors"
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

File: 1459358452294.jpg (918KB, 1600x1584px) Image search: [Google]

918KB, 1600x1584px

>>59427728
look up the panopticon and its psychological effects

knowing that you might be being watched makes you become more subservient and unconsciously forces you to limit your actions

>>59430318
>http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/b601bfabcf/tsa-monitoring-guy-south-park

The saddest thing is that this could be the government.

>>59431205
If you are prone to doing illegal things, isn't being more subservient and limiting your actions a good thing?

File: IMG_7429.jpg (89KB, 687x681px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 687x681px

God is watching all of us at all times. Privacy is an illusion.

File: pQo7e8E.jpg (43KB, 514x536px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 514x536px

>>59431251
>le might makes right maymay

>>59431276
yeah but god probably has pretty baller opsec and does not leave vulns lying around dumping the entire db to any random scriptural kiddie

>>59427728
>Why should people care about their privacy ?
Because privacy is a right, vert closely linked to freedom of movement, freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

>>59431372
No right is absolute though, anon.

I couldn't care either way. All I do is stay at home and hang out with girlfriend, go to the gym and go to work.

As long as nothing interrupts that routine and my buying power then I couldn't care.

>>59431404
That wasn't my argument either. My argument is that people should care about their rights and engage in any discussion regarding their rights.

I mean, there are people that are more worried about not being able to buy pointy shooty pew pews without a waiting period of 2 days than that care about government spying on them and corporations selling their personal data and personality profiles to other companies. You don't think that is alarming in any way?

>>59428855
>Needs proof of privacy of thought
>Posts arguments on 4chan

>>59431251
If you're not prone to doing illegal things, isn't being more subservient and limiting your actions a manipulative and exploitative thing?
The vast majority of people aren't criminals, however constant invasions to their privacy cull them in other ways.

Why take a risk on self-employment when you've been conditioned to be subservient your whole life? Why not just pick the safe option and work for someone else and make them rich off your labor?

You shouldnt if you plan on staying a fuck for your life. You should if you plan against competing with big names out there as they would be able to send you to prison for bullshit things. Look at what they did to Kim dotcom.

>>59427750
Degenerates use Linux because they're trying to hide their child porn. You'll all soon be beheaded for your degeneracy.

If (((they))) want to know about me, they should pay.

>>59432135
>>>/pol/

>>59432106
how about just not doing illegal shit, then

>>59432090
Oh so following the law is MANIPULATIVE AND EXPLOITATIVE?? Spoken like a true psychologist.

>>59432176
You're on a /pol/ website you degenerate cuck. Linux will be shut down and you'll be thrown into an oven. Blow your brains out if you're too scared to face justice you subhuman.

>>59432196
>>59432358
>"All laws are right and just!"
Surely you aren't naive enough to believe this.

>>59432703
Hitler did nothing wrong and his laws were perfectly just. Soon, degenerates will be executed and there will be a perfect world.

>>59432703
That's not what I was talking about, quit trying to bend my words.

>>59432743
Funny, there's a lot of that going around. Because
>>59432358
That's not what I was talking about, why are you posting on /g/ when your capacity for logic is capped at basic java applets. Filthy fucking nigger.

>>59434022
Fuck you, I am white. You are a roach.

>>59432196
>how about just not doing illegal shit, then
Officialy killing jews by the germanistan law was "legal". You retard. If they push bill that allows them to shoot you in the back of the head for no reason then it would be ok according to you?

>>59434155
>Officialy killing jews by the germanistan law was "legal".
You say that as if it was a bad thing.

>>59427728
Why should people care about their property ?
It's the (((goverment's))) right to use it as they see fit.

>>59434177
>>Officialy killing jews by the germanistan law was "legal".
>You say that as if it was a bad thing.
But thats not the point

>>59434518
>trying to discuss the merits of privacy with cia niggers and shillfag advertisers
there's like 5 people who aren't pedophiles/cianiggers trying to have you arrested by spamming with cp/advertising shillfags, on this board.
don't waste your time.