Obama Joins Cameron in Calling for the End of Privacy

[zxvo]

Considering some of the things on my hard drive the maximum jail time for obstruction would be FAR preferable.

That's fucking disturbing, dude.

For real, get some help.

"i got nothing to hide"
fuck off i swear

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument
http://www.wired.com/2013/06/why-i-h...-surveillance/

I have nothing to hide but would still decline search or investigation due to privacy.

[ringpriest]

I got nothing to hide really.

Says the poster with the anonymous account on the Internet.

[Barnabas]

there should be no communication that the government(s) should not be able to decrypt.

having said that, obviously the encryption mechanisms need to be changed as current encryption mechanisms in general are weak and easily broken into.

computers are getting to a point that can encrypt fast enough, so encrypting everything with multiple "small" keys should be no problem. As for the government, they ought to have 3 "large"... and by large i mean something over 4096 bit RSA since its already been made obsolete, default keys to provide them with backdoor access.

those 3 large keys should be changed by the vendors at regular intervals without letting any one party know all 3 keys in order to avoid leaked keys.



if someone needs to hide something that desperately, they most certainly should be investigated by the government... other than that, they dont have someone 24/7 trying to decrypt that one picture at church you sent your grandma, or my.. i mean your Hentai browsing history.

All in the name of playing games with people in other countries to have whatever retarded thought/plan in their head backfire when the person/group decides to be terrorist(s). Then we inevitably have to pay for war(s) and lose more of our rights? Government can stick it this time.

[ringpriest]

That's fucking disturbing, dude.

For real, get some help.

Maybe he has some illegal numbers on his hard drive.

[oxymoronic]

I'm sorry, but why is this? The government doesn't get to see inside my head, nor is it entitled to records of private communications I have with people face-to-face where they can't listen in. So why is it necessary that they be guaranteed access to my otherwise-private digital communications? Because fear? Because you're scared of the 0.0000001% chance that you could be killed in a terrorist attack?

Do you know how many terrorist attacks the NSA has thwarted with their snooping tactics so far, for all the mountains of our private data they've sifted through, and all the billions they've cost taxpayers? Zero. Know how many American lives they've saved? Zero. The whole program is a joke.

says who? you? even if they saved lives do you think they could verify it enough to make conspiracy nuts like you happy? no... so why bother? you either believe they are wasting tons of money and getting absolutely nothing for it or you dont. while i know our government does waste money i dont believe they would continue this unless something made it worthwhile. and i dont care what that is, not my business. nor yours. i like my government to be powerful and do anything to remain the number 1 world power. too much uncertainty in any other possible scenario

[Barnabas]

Maybe he has some illegal numbers on his hard drive.

Whatever it is I don't see the benefit of discussing it on a public forum.

[zxvo]

Maybe he has some illegal numbers on his hard drive.

Still disturbing as shit.

the guy probably has a ton of copy right stuff on his hard drive the jail time and fines for movies and stuff is crazy, you do have something to hide you just don't know what it is yet.

Read above. And not really. If enforcement showed up at my door, there would be no immediate need for me to "lock" anything up or put anything away. That doesn't mean I'm going to let them dig through my shit.

[prwraith]

That's fucking disturbing, dude.

For real, get some help.

Sigh everyone always jumps to the he must have kiddi porn on his hard drive. How about I don't feel like paying a hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for copyright infringement or having various pieces of information stored that I shouldn't have.

[Endus]

This just seems an odd argument to me since no one ever says a safe or lock has to be flawless to be of value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_gun

I mean, they have simple, easy-to-use means to breach normal tumbler locks, and yet pretty much everyone here still relies on them for their primary home security, I imagine.

I'm sorry, but why is this? The government doesn't get to see inside my head, nor is it entitled to records of private communications I have with people face-to-face where they can't listen in. So why is it necessary that they be guaranteed access to my otherwise-private digital communications? Because fear? Because you're scared of the 0.0000001% chance that you could be killed in a terrorist attack?

Do you know how many terrorist attacks the NSA has thwarted with their snooping tactics so far, for all the mountains of our private data they've sifted through, and all the billions they've cost taxpayers? Zero. Know how many American lives they've saved? Zero. The whole program is a joke.

If they get a warrant, you're obligated to un-encrypt the device/account/files for them. This means they need to have reasonable cause, like any other warrant, but what they were talking about here wasn't not needing a warrant. It was that certain new technologies, which create encryption that the parent company can't break, shouldn't be allowed.

It's like if a bank had a supervault that they couldn't access, even if the cops showed up with a warrant. Right now, if you've got stuff in a safety deposit box, and the cops have a proper warrant, the bank can open it for them. That's the kind of access they're talking about, in terms of electronic devices.

Claiming this means an end to privacy is more than a little hyperbolic.

[Nachturnal]

Not really But there is certainly enough on there to get me fined way worse than a year or two in prison would cost.

Very disturbed by this comment.

OT: Eh.. not sure what to think. Doesn't affect me much, but I see how it can be an issue. Whatever, live life.

[zxvo]

Sigh everyone always jumps to the he must have kiddi porn on his hard drive. How about I don't feel like paying a hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for copyright infringement or having various pieces of information stored that I shouldn't have.

Sigh. Too bad that's not even the conclusion i was jumping to. I would under no circumstance accuse someone of shit like that regardless of how weird the statement they just made was. Kind of shows what you're sensitive about.

[Barnabas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_gun

I mean, they have simple, easy-to-use means to breach normal tumbler locks, and yet pretty much everyone here still relies on them for their primary home security, I imagine.



If they get a warrant, you're obligated to un-encrypt the device/account/files for them. This means they need to have reasonable cause, like any other warrant, but what they were talking about here wasn't not needing a warrant. It was that certain new technologies, which create encryption that the parent company can't break, shouldn't be allowed.

It's like if a bank had a supervault that they couldn't access, even if the cops showed up with a warrant. Right now, if you've got stuff in a safety deposit box, and the cops have a proper warrant, the bank can open it for them. That's the kind of access they're talking about, in terms of electronic devices.

Claiming this means an end to privacy is more than a little hyperbolic.

Claiming they can't solve cases without needing to access your encrypted data is hyperbolic as well.

[prwraith]

Put it this way assume it's 5,000$ for each instance of copyright infringement now assume that I've violated this about 400-500 times on the low end that's roughly 2 Million in fines. Or I could just go to jail for a couple of years during which time i would have made roughly 300,000 before taxes. It's an easy choice to pick jail rather than turning myself in to the tune of 2 mil.

- - - Updated - - -

Sigh. Too bad that's not even the conclusion i was jumping to. I would under no circumstance accuse someone of shit like that regardless of how weird the statement they just made was. Kind of shows what you're sensitive about.

What else would actually be disturbing out of curiosity?

[Fugus]

I support the goverment being able to read in everything I do as long as whatever they see is only used to fight said terrorism.

I got nothing to hide really.

Actually you do.

I know they phrase "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear" but truth is actually the reverse "It is only when you have nothing to fear that you have nothing to hide".

To me for instance, I personally am an open book to pretty much anyone I deal with and if you ask me something, I will pretty much tell you point blank the truth, even if you don't want to hear it.

But, do I have something to hide? You're damn right I do. Depending on who is in power and who I am dealing with and the situation, I might have to hide my religious views, my political views, my sexual views, my sexual habits, my religious habits, my political activities, my online activities and countless other things.

Just because you have nothing to worry about NOW, doesn't mean you won't in the future and it doesn't mean what changes it has anything to do with you or anything you have done at all. History should have taught you that by now if you bothered to read it.

[zxvo]

Put it this way assume it's 5,000$ for each instance of copyright infringement now assume that I've violated this about 400-500 times on the low end that's roughly 2 Million in fines. Or I could just go to jail for a couple of years during which time i would have made roughly 300,000 before taxes. It's an easy choice to pick jail rather than turning myself in to the tune of 2 mil.

- - - Updated - - -



What else would actually be disturbing out of curiosity?

What i implied was the fact the you had illegal shit to hide, not the illegal shit you were hiding.

[Endus]

Claiming they can't solve cases without needing to access your encrypted data is hyperbolic as well.

So you oppose all search warrants on general principle?

Because that's what we're talking about here. That search warrants should oblige encryption providers to breach the encryption, to allow the search to be conducted. That's it.

It's no different in any way than expecting a landlord to be able to open an apartment door so that you can conduct your search.

[prwraith]

What i implied was the fact the you had illegal shit to hide, not the illegal shit you were hiding.

This is 2015 most internet savvy people have something illegal to hide.

[Masark]

So you oppose all search warrants on general principle?

I don't consider them to be worth a damn as a safeguard at present.

[Szazi]

That's why I don't use Facebook, smartphones. It is my privacy, people should not invade others privacy, president or not.

What a scumbag of a president. If this keeps up, U.S will be a continental prison, if it isn't already. When will people learn? When will the masses rise up and take down the government?

[Sunseeker]

That's kind of a weird position. Is the only worthwhile encryption flawless encryption?

A backdoor in the sense of "This product is designed to be completely secure except for this one special opening." makes it worthless, yes. Encryption will never be perfect of course, but if it is MADE with backdoors in it, then it is functionally not encryption at all.