After Endless Demonization Of Encryption, Police Find Paris Attackers Coordinated Via Unencrypted SM
37 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Banned?;49143425]
Giving people shit for not [B][U][I]encrypting everything hiding everything[/I][/U][/B] is stupid and unfeasible for the average person because it's actually a pain in the ass.[/QUOTE]
At no point did I do this. Naturally everyone is free to do as they please and not everyone needs encryption.
My entire argument is people with anti-encryption opinions or people with no opinions on the matter endanger everyone's privacy simply because they vote, and one of the only ways to ensure you keep your privacy is to be pro-active about it, especially when you can do it without inconveniencing yourself.
The rest of your argument is nothing more than a 'You have nothing to hide!' argument, and those have been destroyed countless times before. I won't even bother touching it.
[QUOTE=1/4 Life;49143441]At no point did I do this. Naturally everyone is free to do as they please and not everyone needs encryption.
My entire argument is people with anti-encryption opinions or people with no opinions on the matter endanger everyone's privacy simply because they vote, and one of the only ways to ensure you keep your privacy is to be pro-active about it, especially when you can do it without inconveniencing yourself.
The rest of your argument is nothing more than a 'You have nothing to hide!' argument, and those have been destroyed countless times before. I won't even bother touching it.[/QUOTE]
I believe in encryption for sensitive information like PII or Health Records but the average layperson does not need the picture of their dog encrypted and hidden behind 7 proxies because well, no one cares.
[editline]19th November 2015[/editline]
Just to clarify I'm not anti encryption, I'm more of the "Why would you need uncrackable encryption for your personal shit" type of guy.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49143480]
Just to clarify I'm not anti encryption, I'm more of the "Why would you need uncrackable encryption for your personal shit" type of guy.[/QUOTE]
Right, and I hold no negative opinions or ill-will toward you because of that.
I'm simply in the camp that feels you should want it, and that de-legitimizing encryption because you personally don't see the need for it is dangerous.
Naturally if you don't feel you need it then you don't need it. Just don't de-legitimize others desire for it. It's a bit like freedom of speech in that regard.
[QUOTE=1/4 Life;49143526]Right, and I hold no negative opinions or ill-will toward you because of that.
I'm simply in the camp that feels you should want it, and that legitimizing encryption because you personally don't see the need for it is dangerous.
Naturally if you don't feel you need it then you don't need it. Just don't de-legitimize others desire for it. It's a bit like freedom of speech in that regard.[/QUOTE]
I can agree with this, just don't think it's necessary but I respect your right to do whatever you like.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49143480]I believe in encryption for sensitive information like PII or Health Records but the average layperson does not need the picture of their dog encrypted and hidden behind 7 proxies because well, no one cares.
[editline]19th November 2015[/editline]
Just to clarify I'm not anti encryption, I'm more of the "Why would you need uncrackable encryption for your personal shit" type of guy.[/QUOTE]
I'm in the same boat.
Anti-crypto arguements make absolutely no sense to me. Modern "strong" crypto algorithms like RSA and DH are so easy to easy to understand it's not even funny. Banning the use of mainstream encryption or requiring stuff like key escrow or using a backdoored algorithm won't stop ISIS or related organizations from using modern cryptographic algorithms, they will just further degrade the security of ordinary people like you and me. Even if every single internet provider in the world simultaneously removed every single implementation of a cryptographic algorithm from the face of the earth AND from all offline computers, terrorist group's use of cryptographic algorithms would not stop.
[editline]20th November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=catbarf;49142471]One dumbass jihadist with a history of dumbassery gets caught using unencrypted SMS, and people talk like that discounts the warnings of the entire multinational intelligence community that encryption represents a problem for surveillance.[/QUOTE]
Encryption does represent a problem for surveillance, but it's a problem that won't be solved by banning encryption or forcing key escrow or the use of backdoored algorithms. The Intelligence community will just have to learn to conduct their operations without the ability to universally peer into all communications (like, you know, using the "metadata" they supposedly only collect or targeting specific individuals instead of presuming that everyone is a suspect).
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49143480]I believe in encryption for sensitive information like PII or Health Records but the average layperson does not need the picture of their dog encrypted and hidden behind 7 proxies because well, no one cares.
[editline]19th November 2015[/editline]
Just to clarify I'm not anti encryption, I'm more of the "Why would you need uncrackable encryption for your personal shit" type of guy.[/QUOTE]
Nobody needs it, but computational power is so cheap that it costs zero effort or resources to encrypt your boring personal crap with the exact same type of encryption necessary for government communication and e-commerce.
And since you can't ban encryption based on the importance of what's being encrypted (it's subjective, plus having to reveal what you want to encrypt before being allowed to encrypt it defeats the purpose) there's really no practical argument against it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.