/cyber/ - Cyberpunk & Science Fiction

>>36144

Do you have anything of value to say?

>implying Obama is in charge of his own pants

>implying the elitists don't do whatever the fuck they want

Of course crypto will become illegal eventually, the rich are winning the class war. If you want to achieve something, throw off your oppressors, don't just ask them nicely for things.

"please sir, may i have some crypto"

>>36187

That doesn't change the fact that it's wrong. In fact, it's plain silly to built-in backdoors in crypto. Security through obscurity doesn't work and it's dangerous.

You can't rely on hidden vulnerabilities known to only the authorities, because it can't distinguish between whoever is authorised to exploit it. Vulnerabilities are found all the time in all software and hardware we use on a daily basis. A hidden backdoor *will* be found and those who exploit it will always do so without our knowledge.

Mathematics can't discriminate between a LEO and a criminal. A crypto backdoor doesn't make *any* sense.

>>36184

What is the pupose of your post? I know but I'd like to see you try and explain it.

To force you to reply if you wish to retain any intellectual integrity, I'll answer your pathetic attempt to discredit. The post you referenced very simply called out a local UK spelling by the OP while pointing out again that using such a spelling would make it highly unlikely that "we elected… Obama". Then, quit trying to ruin this board with your leftist shill tactics and go back to your home.

>>36196

>What is the pupose of your post? I know but I'd like to see you try and explain it.

The purpose of my post was to shed a light on this subject. This topic was of much debate back in the nineties, aptly called the crypto wars. Politicians nowadays seem to be suffering from early onset dementia because we 'lefties' won the argument by proving beyond all doubt that a backdoor mathematically doesn't make any sense. Even the Clipper chip by the NSA backfired horribly, and for good reason.

>To force you to reply if you wish to retain any intellectual integrity, I'll answer your pathetic attempt to discredit. The post you referenced very simply called out a local UK spelling by the OP while pointing out again that using such a spelling would make it highly unlikely that "we elected… Obama".

So… all this because of a spelling issue? And besides, this is hardly the point or refuting the matter at hand. Argumentum ad hominem is not a valid debate tactic, anon.

>Then, quit trying to ruin this board

Not ruining, it's on topic.

>with your leftist shill tactics

I'm not being paid shit.

>and go back to your home.

Already home.

cyber stop be this retard. Even IF using democratic tools like petitions doesn't work, it is worth trying.

>>36203

Confirmed leftist. Spelling is a serious issue, in the USA we use "labor" and a leftist knows the spelling of "labor" very well because it is used a lot in their literature. Your mistake is confirmation that you are UK-based. As such you may have helped to elect Obama with your online shilling but you are certainly not a citizen of the USA.

>>36225

Your face is an ad hominem

You came here under false pretenses and everything you say now is tarnished. You did your argument a poor service by being dishonest. Now that you cannot possibly apply damage control you still want us to pay attention to your call for action. Sorry chummer, I don't support your arguments on the merits, regardless of your origins.

The EFF is working to ensure an end to online harrassment in cooperation with the usual suspects. They supported net neutrality, a back-door for establishing government control of the net. They cannot ban crypto if it is plausibly deniable. This is just trying to drum up support for an objectively corrupt organization by yourself, an objectively corrupt individual.

>>36228

>They supported net neutrality, a back-door for establishing government control of the net.

Hahaha, wait what? The EU just decided on Netneutrality with huge gaps for megacorps to exploit it. So it is a decision agains net neutrality. And this is not good. So why is it gov control if we have net neutrality?

>>36228

>You came here under false pretenses

Which, pray tell, would those be?

>and everything you say now is tarnished.

How come, lad?

>You did your argument a poor service by being dishonest.

How come I'm suddenly accused of being a lier? I have *not* been dishonest, mind you.

>Now that you cannot possibly apply damage control you still want us to pay attention to your call for action. Sorry chummer, I don't support your arguments on the merits, regardless of your origins.

That's an irrelevant (moreover, false) conclusion and not pertinent to the matter at hand, meaning an Ignoratio Elenchi, ergo yet another fallacy. Shall we see if we can cover them all?

>This is just trying to drum up support for an objectively corrupt organization by yourself, an objectively corrupt individual.

There is no one such corrupt organisation or individual behind this. Go to the savecrypto.org website and behold all the companies, other than just the EFF, supporting this. You can verify this on their websites as well, as well as many other plausible sources online (i.e. just Google that shit)

>>36232

>>36233

>hahaha

You are laughing but it isn't funny. You want to laugh when you have been nothing but a joke every step of the way? My initial reaction is that you are not worth my time BUT maybe if I type enough you can break out of your stupor and begin to comprehend what is beyond your grasp currently. Net Neutrality, you are told, is a classic underdog story of evil megacorps throttling the bits of the downtrodden proletariat. And should not all bits be treated EQUAL!? How could anybody be against this!?

>wait, what?

You haven't even considered that you were lied to, that your trusted sources of information would have ulterior motives to enslave you. You are incredulous at the very notion. But it is so! By claiming that ISPs are abusing you, the government comes in to regulate them, to ensure "fairness". But wait! The government has to exert control to ensure this fairness, it has to regulate. Even if the concept of bits being equal is as pure as the wind-driven snow, and it isn't, just by allowing the government the regulatory authority is what we mean by "regulatory capture". Once they have this power does it stop there? No! It is the camel's head in the tent. There will be some other abuse, so-called, and the government will need to step in to protect us. In the UK if you make a post in a comment section of a news article that is considered offensive the police will come and arrest you. In Germany it is the same, for simply saying ANYTHING that could be percieved as being negative against immigration. The government has unbelievable power and when you give them regulatory control over the internet and ISPs you see sites being blacklisted not because they didn't pay their server bill, but because the content they served was considered offensive to somebody, somewhere. No more anonymous posts on 8chan for you! You will have to use an ID tied to your real-life verified identity. You see, you let the camel's head in the tent, a foot in the door, you give an inch, and it is over! You want to keep the internet free!? You keep the government out! There is no end to the Reign of Terror of the SJW crowd. All will be consumed in their sheer madness until we have no civilization left! The evidence is everywhere if you only look. To preserve our frredom, to preserve some level of civilization and dignity we must rebuff the invader, stop intrusions of the government into domains where it had no influence previously. Now the government controls our heathcare, our retirement, our education… but it isn't enough! They need to control the press, the entertainment, to complete their stranglehold on power. There can be no "alternative" news outlets, no articles not previoudly approved by the Politiburo. The concept of net neutrality is used as the cover for advancing the government's sphere of influence into the internet. You may applaud my suppression but one day right wing sentiments will rule again in America and Europe. What will you do then, in the hell of your own making?

>>36233

> There is no one such corrupt organisation or individual behind this.

No, there are several. Some are useful idiots, others are nefarious. Perhaps I have given you too much credit.

>>36234

Focus, anon. You went way, waaaay off topic blathering on about net neutrality while we were arguing about backdoors in cryptography, which is what this topic is about.

>>36235

I cannot vouch for all organisations on the list, but neither can you unless you post some proof. I merely pointed out this was not a *single* organisation or individual with nefarious intent.

However, not a single explanation regarding my alleged false pretences, dishonest remarks or justification regarding your (recurring) fallacies.

>>36239

> However, not a single explanation regarding my alleged false pretences, dishonest remarks or justification regarding your (recurring) fallacies.

I disagree, read the thread again

>>36234

While I see your point and have to agree these things are in the wishlist of many politicans and the german part is true by my own experience, a law itself is if done right helpful.

Like this:

>ficitonal net neutrality law says "all packets have to be handled the same. No exception."

>ISPs: "Okay!"

-some time later-

>Government: "here ban the packets from this pedo site!"

>ISP: "no, see net neutrality law."

>Government: "uh okay but then stop this guy from accessing the web, he is a criminal!"

>ISP: "no, see the net neutrality law."

>"Then do deep packet inspection to find evul terrurisms"

>"do I have to say it again?"

The problem is it is VERY complex how packet handling works and there are like thousand ways to exploit it.

>>36234

While I see your point and have to agree these things are in the wishlist of many politicans and the german part is true by my own experience, a law itself is if done right helpful.

Like this:

>ficitonal net neutrality law says "all packets have to be handled the same. No exception."

>ISPs: "Okay!"

-some time later-

>Government: "here ban the packets from this pedo site!"

>ISP: "no, see net neutrality law."

>Government: "uh okay but then stop this guy from accessing the web, he is a criminal!"

>ISP: "no, see the net neutrality law."

>"Then do deep packet inspection to find evul terrurisms"

>"do I have to say it again?"

The problem is it is VERY complex how packet handling works and there are like thousand ways to exploit it…

>>36238

Cite your sources, this picture is useless without knowing where it came from or how they came to their statistics. Furthermore, I'm not manipulating anyone here, I'm simply bringing this topic for discussion, yet most of all the comment here are either personally attacking me, my origin, or other irrelevant conclusions whilst not staying on topic and trying to refute or disprove what's being discussed. Your wall of text about net neutrality being the epitome.

>>36240

You did not explain any of them even though I asked you to, but if you keep beating around the bush there's not much point discussing this, now is there? Stay on topic, stop being personal.

>>36244

Your technique is not to acknowledge previous statements and to "debate" you further is pointless. You are a shill, pure and simple.

>>36245

Let me make one thing clear, I'm not shilling for anyone or anything. You don't even believe so yourself, so what the point? You knuckle heads keep throwing nonsensical buzz words everyone's way you disagree with.

Stay on topic, damn it. Let me help you, why would anyone here be in favour backdoors in cryptography? Obviously you disagree with me, but can how can you objectively deny the mathematical essence of cryptography, which is indiscriminate of the actor.