Do we really need end-to-end encryption?

>>61684410
Because I have the right to privacy.

Yes we do.

>>61684410
Because having something to hide doesn't mean you are


To continue reading this 4chan post
Start a 30-day free trial for unlimited access to Premium articles

Subscriber-only events and experiences
Access Premium articles on the 4chan mobile app

Free for 30 days

then only £2 per week
Try Premium
Unlock all Premium articles for 24 hours. Only £1.
Start Premium Day Pass
Register for free and access one Premium article per week
Register
Free £50 gift card when you subscribe
Enjoy a free £50 gift card* for one of your favourite brands when you take out an annual subscription
Find out more
*Gift cards will be sent out by email within 21 days of the subscription start date. Available in the UK Only.
Login

Print subscriber? Click here

Follow Anonymous 4chan poster

Follow on Facebook Follow on Twitter Follow on Instagram

>.uk

You tell me.

>>61684410
Gotta prevent the truth from spreading, anon. If you're not distracted with bullshit, you're dangerous.

>>61684410
Because I can, and you can't stop me.

I agree. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

>>61684410
>UK

If there's 1 country on this planet in which encryption will be banned it's the UK.

The level of nanny state that country operates on is borderline indescribable.

>>61684410
>.co.uk
They didn't revolt against the crown; we did. Let them kiss the feet of their overlords while we do the best to protect our own interests.

>>61684586
france had actual encryption bans up into the late 90s iirc

That's some nice financial security you have there...

Shame if something were to... happen to it.

>>61684410
The day we finally have an advantage against terrorists and are able to limit the amount of terrorists to the most physically possible minimum is the day we stop having a democratic society wherein people have rights. It is the day that all citizens are treated as potential terrorists, regardless of cause.

>>61684586
Crypto is already banned in Russia.

>encryption ban goes into place
>all online retailers stop supporting UK
>tanked economy in record time
Time for the sun to set on the UK.

>mfw wireshark

>>61684682

Why do you idiots always fall back to this argument? It undercuts your point and does nothing to defend encryption. There would obviously be a ban on personal encryption, not websites and banks you dumb fuck. Is your military banned from owning rocket launchers because you can't?

>>61684691
That's why the concept of a terrorist was invented.

>>61684734
See
>>61684743

Find new arguments.

Nothing to hide nothing to fear...

Until they retroactively change what you should fear and hide.

Governments and laws change.

Imagine if a really nice guy from an organisation asked you to give him the right to search through your house in case of emergencies. But not to him specifically, but the greater organisation.

If you accept and an enemy of yours joins the organisation, you're fucked.

>>61684750
And before that it was Hussein, Gadahfi, and Communism. None of this is protection for us. It's to protect "them" from us.

File: 82cfbafa23ac2defa1f284f4783fbfc15ab0e8a3804e4e3fc1cfa12a9034757b.png (378KB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 1280x1280px

>>61684410
Jews can't end HTTPS and SSL because then, people will get their shit creds stolen and they'll constantly have to reissue cards and process chargebacks.

Bad business...

So.., how do we protect PII if encryption is banned? Do we just let government and businesses encrypt while the people are left unsecured?

File: f5e3a9fcd2f1a1170d748c6fb4b27f2982a32421d635bb45590a36afe93c250f.png (822KB, 559x577px) Image search: [Google]

822KB, 559x577px

oh yes "THE THREAT OF TERRORISM", "Think of the children!" etc.

those who propagate shit like mentioned above as a reason to curb on my rights while bringing in rapefugees deserve death.

stay away from me and deport the minorities from European soil you leftist kike schlong sucking cocksuckers.

>>61684756
>Banning math to the vast majority of people is okay, only corporations and the government need to be protected
Fuck off, Mohammed Goldsteinburg

>We don't want to ban encryption, but our inability to see what terrorists are plotting undermines our security

Not my security, your security. the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters is a matter of opinion.

>>61684619
shit that's true, didn't know that
t.frog

>>61684410
Agreed. Military grade encryption shouldn't be in the public hands.

>>61685022
What is military grade? The size of the prime numbers used? If it's not secure against someone with the ability and know how it's not secure against anyone with the ability and the know how.

>>61685022
>military-grade encryption
I don't want to live in this world anymore.

File: 1477706096689.jpg (90KB, 563x675px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 563x675px

>>61684466
Nice.

>>61684583
Would you let me in your house? Just let me look up whatever you put online or do on your phone. Why can't I look? After all, you have nothing to hide, right?

>>61685128
B-but you're not law enforcement!!!!!! So it doesn't count!!!! Why do you have things to hide from those whom I deem worthy of being trusted!!???

>>61685139
This but unironically.

>>61684436
Right to privacy isn't a right to obstruct justice.

>>61685421
You are not an authority on who can be trusted. Why do you assume people who work as public servants are somehow more trustworthy?

>>61685434
And the pursuit of justice has no right to infringe on the privacy of citizens who are not the targets for said justice. Get a warrant, and do not compromise everyone else's ability to be secure in their privacy

>>61685440
Because public servants have a history or doing the right thing most of the time and you don't.

File: 1499236813969.gif (358KB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 300x169px

>>61685503

>>61685503
you have no proof of either of those claims, at all. What if I'm a public servant? what about all of those leaks saying that NSA employees were known to share pictures of underage girls they got from their programs? or the political personalities that bribe their way into and out of situations? or corrupt lawyers, police officers, etc. no one is 100% perfect, 100% trustworthy, and for you (or other anons like you) to make the claim that everyone else should give up their privacy and security because YOU trust them is absolutely selfish and stupid.

(((Amber Rudd)))

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9tauLV_MgA

>>61685503
I wonder what causes someone to lick boot this hard.

The government is in a constant state of struggle between those who want stability, freedom, justice, etc, and those who want money and power, but pretend to want those other things so people vote for them. It's very hard to determine who is who, so you can't implicitly trust anyone. If you do, you'll find the noose is so very slowly put over your head that you don't even realize what's happened until you're hanging.

>>61685517
enlightenment.gif

>>61685550
My evidence is the impressions I've gotten from interacting with people and absorbing the media all my life. I can't prove I'm right the same way I can't prove that I exist because that would be infeasible. Additionally, I never said I believe anyone is 100% perfect or trustworthy; I said public servants usually do the right thing. Since most respectable people I've met have faith in public servants, I have a reasonable amount of faith in them too.

>make drugs illegal
people still do drugs
>restrict the age you can buy alcohol
teenagers still drink
>make it illegal to speed
people still drive over the speed limit
>graffiti is illegal
people still graffiti
>ban particular books
people still manage to read it

>plan to ban encryption
hmm, I wonder what will happen...

>>61685717
I have a reasonable amount of faith that public servants will usually do the right thing because of my discussions with a variety of knowledgeable people.

>>61685773
>Getting metaphysical
anyways, I've met people that I respect and that I believe are good people who believe one shouldn't just trust public servants. So who is right when all evidence is anecdotal at best?
>>61685822
Also, faith implies you don't know. I refuse to give up privacy/security for an "I don't know, but I assume so".

>>61684466
Alright, that was funny I'll admit.

File: feel guy wojak wtf to computer 29a268a3.jpg (48KB, 546x550px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 546x550px

>>61685804
Encryption software is also easy as shit to code, pretty fucking hard to enforce.

File: Control.jpg (412KB, 1600x1451px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 1600x1451px

>>61684410

>>61685773

>absorbing the media all my life

And you're proud of being such a brainless idiot?

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

355KB, 1673x431px

>>61684583

>>61685846
I've talked to public servants, cyberpunks, poor people, minorities, professors, etc about this topic. The most respectable, i.e. smart and knowledgeable, people I've met say they have a level headed trust in the government.

>>61685921
4chan is media and I listen to your ideas.

>>61685979
Okay, and I've done the same and they say they have a healthy respect for personal privacy and not trusting entities blindly in all cases. At least my belief makes the use of strong encryption optional, whereas yours makes it outright useless and benefiting the elite only

>>61686004
Useless to average people* obviously

>>61684410
>ban end-to-end in commercial software
>law abiding citizen now is exposed to all kind of exploitation by corporations, man in the middle, etc.
>meanwhile cyber criminal uses underground software that is programmed to be end-to-end and there's no way to stop it just because "muh law" since they don't give a shit
>criminal keeps their privacy
>law abiding citizen loses theirs

>>61684410
British people are such Cucks, look at that bitches teeth too, fucking Britcucks.

>>61685822
I've been working for the federal government for 23 some odd years, and generally everyone in a position of power I've met has had some minor dirt or otherwise unscrupulous behavior going on simply because they have no one to rein them in (Or rather, the people who could are willing to scratch their backs because they scratch theirs.). The behavior may vary from small perks like not counting their vacation time or using a company vehicle for personal matters, or it could be something like nepotism or outright theft, but I haven't seen a single clean civil servant above the rank of office drone yet.

>>61684410
>hurr hurr middle-school mathematics should be illegal
still salty about failing pre-algebra, timmy?

>>61686004
You can have strong encryption and have it not be end to end. Access to it doesn't have to be a weapon if enough reasonably trustworthy people are in place to act as safeguards.

>>61686112
They don't need to be 100% clean. They just need to make the ethical choices enough times for their job to be meaningful.

>>61684743
HTTPS requires personnel encryption to work.

>>61686240
>Enough """"reasonably"""" trustworthy people are in place to safe guard your data
>Instead of just having end to end encryption
You're assuming that, from the moment end to end encryption becomes illegal, that we will always have """"enough"""" """"trustworthy"""" people to somehow protect users as well as ensuring they will always be without fault and never falter in their duty to be perfect.
Over fucking having strong end to end encryption.
Are you mental? Where do you get these beliefs? People are flawed. People are subject to dishonesty and corruption. And you're assuming some malicious entity wouldn't be able to bribe those people to look the other way, or whatever, so malicious things can be done. You know nothing about security. At all. I'm not even exaggerating in the slightest. Why would having more people as safeguards somehow be better for everyone than just strong encryption? You realize that, even with all of the data collected by the government, unencrypted and otherwise, most crimes are still solved by investigation and field work? You realize that if governments make EtE encryption illegal people who want to do harm to others will just not use the software affected, and will just make their own?
Fuck, they could just do it in plain text, it's not like the NSA has enough resources to go through all of that stuff along. You're actually, literally, ignorant of how security works. Fuck, I can't believe people like you vote

>>61685822
That's because you talk to people in an echo chamber. Corrupt governments happen. Nations fall under their own weight of "got mine" all the time. Tyrannical people exist in power all over the world right now. The US government is absolutely puppeteered by large corporations who have only their quarterly dividend in mind. Then you have the people who think they're doing the right thing, but end up fucking the future up because they lack insight. Government workers are just as incompetent as industry workers, except they have more job security and less oversight. I bet you think Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, were doing the right thing, huh? How about the cold war? Do you think the absolute fear mongering over basically nothing to the point where we almost destroyed western civilization was a good plan? Is the TSA a wise use of our money, or is it reactionary security theater? Do you think the prohibition was a good plan?

The government fucks up absolutely constantly, and we pay an absurd amount of money for the privilege of getting shit on by it.

Encryption is not a problem we need to be fighting. It's one of our only lifelines of privacy left.

File: 1497614315590.jpg (114KB, 1003x717px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1003x717px

>tfw xor will be illegal
>tfw most programming languages have an xor operator
>mfw certain AND and OR gates are illegal

>sacrificing a bit of my privacy to make it easier to catch terrorists and pedos

It would be worth if I knew the gov wouldn't just keep taking more and more.

>>61684410
Not the terrorists card again.

>>61685434
>hurr durr break rules to apply rules

>>61686565
And the kicker is crimes happen all the time in plaintext, and LE does nothing. So even with full knowledge and ability to act, they don't. Why the fuck would I give up my security for people who don't even act on the knowledge they do have?

>>61684436
No, you don't.

You have the negative right to life. You have a negative right to liberty, and any extension, a negative right to property.

As such, nobody else has the right to interfere with your liberty to communicate with end to end encryption. However, you have no positive right to privacy.

File: 1501635676167s.jpg (7KB, 250x170px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x170px

>>61684410

>>61686643
Huh, you learn something new every day. That anons post really doesn't change, but you definitely clarified the stance on why we have rights to those various things. Thanks anon

What happened with IANA?

It seems apparently you're only as secure as what you know to exploit.

Or you only as safe as how well you know vulnerabilities.

Hmph. That seems natural.


Richard
fbfounderNative

Thus spake the Patriot Act...


"Welcome to the reservation."


Richard
fbfounderNative

>number of terrorist plots orchestrated online
>0

>>61686387
>>61686387
>>>61686240 (You)
>>Enough """"reasonably"""" trustworthy people are in place to safe guard your data
>>Instead of just having end to end encryption
>You're assuming that, from the moment end to end encryption becomes illegal, that we will always have """"enough"""" """"trustworthy"""" people to somehow protect users as well as ensuring they will always be without fault and never falter in their duty to be perfect.
>Over fucking having strong end to end encryption.
>Are you mental? Where do you get these beliefs? People are flawed. People are subject to dishonesty and corruption. And you're assuming some malicious entity wouldn't be able to bribe those people to look the other way, or whatever, so malicious things can be done.
The US hasn't nuked itself yet so yes, it's possible to have multiple trustworthy people act as safeguards against one another.
>You know nothing about security. At all. I'm not even exaggerating in the slightest. Why would having more people as safeguards somehow be better for everyone than just strong encryption?
Yes, to catch terrorists and pedos.
>You realize that, even with all of the data collected by the government, unencrypted and otherwise, most crimes are still solved by investigation and field work?
What does this have to do with anything?
>You realize that if governments make EtE encryption illegal people who want to do harm to others will just not use the software affected, and will just make their own?
Better than doing nothing.
>Fuck, they could just do it in plain text, it's not like the NSA has enough resources to go through all of that stuff along.
You're actually, literally, ignorant of how security works. Fuck, I can't believe people like you vote
Fluff

>>61684906
they are right wing thought

>>61684410
GTFO lazy NSA employee.

Let's also ban guns while we're at it.

>>61686904
True I guess, but it's an oversimplification. They are neo-con globalist trash most likely. It's like when I looked at the American two party system and thought how absolutely stupid it was, but then realized how many factions in each party there are.

>terrorists and pedos
They get their stuff done even without encryption.
>US hasn't nuked itself yet
You're implying that people want to do that and be malicious, and good thing we have those checks otherwise it would have happened. And you want those same people full access to encrypted connections? In addition, the number of people who work with nuke codes is small. They all have their own checks they need to go through, but even so the number of people who can, right now, access and activate the codes is probably 10 or so, likely less. This isn't comparable with needing to weaken encryption access all sectors in all communication channels. In such a setup, for every person needed to check to make sure their software and methods aren't being used as a "weapon", you need another person to ensure that person is being 100% honest and trustworthy. For every one of those people, you need another person to check on them, so on and so forth. If you have no one checking, then there is no oversight at all.
>Better than doing nothing
No, what's better than doing nothing is not punishing everyone but those who feel they see above the law. Encryption is crucial, and people have a right to not have their communications compromised. Get a warrant, get off my lawn, and stop using "terrorists and pedos" as an argument, because they are such a very small fraction of criminals, which are in turn such a small fraction of law abiding citizens, that punishing everyone to MAYBE stop them is insanity.

>>61686988
who feel they are above the law*

>>61684410
>Do we really need end-to-end encryption?
What's the point in encryption if it relies on a middle man?

If the service I am using is going to store all the messages unencrypted then why even bother using encryption for messages to and from their servers? They just become a target for government hackers wanting information.

Even then, even if the service changes to not encrypt end-to-end there are plenty of services that you could make a plugin for that would use PGP or something to encrypt the messages before sending over the service, all you will do is make them go from one service to another, from one system of encryption to another. Even if you ban encryption you can't ban math, so they will still find ways to encrypt their messages.

It's a path that will just increase vulnerabilities for all countries while having no appreciable effect on the ability to track what terrorists are talking about online.

>>61684410
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40788180
>When pressed on what kind of metadata she wanted, she replied: “I’m having those conversations in private.”
LMAO

>It seems pretty useless
How so?

>>61684466
100% agree

>>61684583
I would have something to hide if I lived in the UK: anime porn. You can get 15 years in jail for that there.

>>61684619
So did the US. See the DJB case.

>>61684743
>giving companies special rights
oh boy

>>61684794
If you were not a dumb sheep you would have tons of things to hide in the UK.

>>61685022
>Military grade encryption
Lmao, what is this supposed to mean even.

>>61685434
>justice
Justice would be everything online to be legal.

>>61685503
>Because public servants have a history or doing the right thing most of the time
TOPPEST KEKKEST LMAO

>>61686097
>>ban end-to-end in commercial software
That would be a good thing. Smart people would move to free software then.

>>61686549
>tfw certain mathematical functions are illegal

>>61686873
>and pedos.
The pedos did nothing wrong. Only an immoral monster would want to catch them.

>>61685434
>ya gotta wipe your ass with the constitution every now and then to make sure people who aren't actually the focus of an investigation. aren't actually getting away with something. because, like, you never know. right?
>actually, you know what? it's too risky. let's just throw the entire constitution out the window and keep tabs on everyone and everything, with absolutely no oversight at all. any information we don't have the technology/algorithms to disseminate right now we'll just retain until such time that we do.

Am I the only slightly bothered by this?

>>61690142
Nah, it's disgusting to me, too.

>>61684436
>privacy
>right
Whoops

>>61690217
It's a negative right, read the thread. So yes, he does have a right to privacy

>>61690142
>You don't need a right to privacy unless you have something to hide!
>You don't need a right to bear arms unless you want to shoot someone!
>You don't need a right to silence unless you have committed a crime!
I hate people who have mentalities like this.

>>61684410
Why dont you go outside naked ?
Why wear a pant ?
If everybody's (and your) pant is 0 opacity, will you wear that pant ?

"I have nothing to hide" is the most stupid austitic degerate thing in this world

>Do we really need freedom and mathematics?


Terrorism is not a threat. Massive powerful governments with the ability to spy on anyone at any time are the bigger threat.

File: why guns are banned.jpg (50KB, 632x175px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 632x175px

>we must censor the internet to protect the children
>but we'll not catch rapists that target children

>>61684610
This.

>posted from my NSA backdoor'd device

>>61686873
Actually the USA had nuked itself several times hence why there's water under Las Vegas but nobody can drink it so it's in a constant state of drought

>>61684410
>Do we really need end-to-end encryption?
Yes, for logging into my banking account and for working remotely so competing businesses can't snoop my traffic and steal intellectual property from my company.

>>61684682
>>61690784
Britain is going to lose their financial industry after Brexit anyway, so there isn't really any harm done by banning crypto.

>>61684583
I guess this means you support /pol/ anons getting arrested for hate speech since more and more countries are making that illegal. After all, nothing to hide like you said :^).

>>61691125
>Britain is going to lose their financial industry after Brexit anyway,
That still doesn't mean "no banks", anon. That only means that the financial sector will move their headquarters to Frankfurt instead of London.

>>61686872
>b-but it's all because of Telegram and encryption!!
You know what, I have a better idea: let's ban the internet. Terrorists use the internet and that makes them harder to spot. If only people communicated verbally or through text terrorists would be so much easier to catch!

So power hungry Theresa May is still Prime Minister despite losing the tories their majority, and Amber Rudd is still Home Secretary despite insulting her constituents and only winning by 300 votes *after a (((recount)))

Tories can fuck off.

>>61686873
>The US hasn't nuked itself yet so yes, it's possible to have multiple trustworthy people act as safeguards against one another
>Defending the nuclear arsenal is the same as defending a router lol

>Yes, to catch terrorists and pedos.
>What does this have to do with anything?
You jeopardize the security of hundreds of millions of people to catch like maybe 5-15 pedos? Hahaha.

>Better than doing nothing.
Actually it's better to do nothing than execute something so fucking retarded it makes matters worse.

>You're actually, literally, ignorant of how security works. Fuck, I can't believe people like you vote
This post is b8,

>Government has every conversation it could possibly want on tap
>Terrorists just swap out 'bomb' for 'teapot' and 'plane' for 'tea party'
>Privacy still violated, attempts to track them foiled
Communication can be obfuscated with things other than end-to-end encryption.

>>61690784
>intellectual property
No such thing.

>>61684410
Because privacy is like vaccination, it's a necessity because you are not alone in this world. If you don't do your part other people get hurt.

>>61685434
You could use this logic to justify anything. You could say that the police should be allowed to rummage through your house once a month or you'd be "obstructing justice", allowing people to look through everything you've said online is the digital equivalent of the police having cameras in your living room.

>>61685971
Not the anon you replied to but I've been looking for this for ages and could never find it. Thanks for posting this anon.