/tech/ - /fucko/ - They were right edition

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Flag
Oekaki	Show oekaki applet (replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Password	(For file and post deletion.)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf Max filesize is 8 MB. Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000. You may upload 3 per post.

File: 1457859696101.png (210.57 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, scr.png)

/fucko/ - They were right edition Anonymous 03/13/16 (Sun) 09:01:35 No.542218

"Get on the ground, fucko! Squad, take his computer and all other electronics! You have the right to encrypt your data. By not encrypting your data, you have waived your fourth amendment rights. Any data not encrypted that can be linked to you will be used against you in a court of law."

Let's talk about how we can protect our frames, datagrams, and our very important bytes. Especially now that we have effectively waived our fourth amendment rights by not doing so.

Anonymous 03/13/16 (Sun) 09:05:55 No.542221

FIX YOUR FONT RENDERING.

Isn't this unconstitutional?

Anonymous 03/13/16 (Sun) 09:14:17 No.542223

>>542221

Tell that to archive.is, I just took that image from the screenshot they provide

>Isn't this unconstitutional?

In theory it should be unconstitutional. But I think that the argument is that if your data is out in the open (read: not encrypted), that it's reasonable to search it.

Anonymous 03/13/16 (Sun) 09:41:43 No.542227

File: 1457862103550.png (267.03 KB, 402x486, 67:81, pol was raaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAA….png)

>Obama at SXSW: ‘Absolutist view’ on digital privacy cannot prevail

>"The question we now have to ask is, if technologically it is possible to make an impenetrable device or system, or the encryption is so strong that there is no key, there is no door at all, then how do we apprehend the child pornographer? How do we solve or disrupt a terrorist plot? What mechanism do we have available even to do simple things like tax enforcement? ... There has to be some concession to the need to be able to get into that information somehow."

https://archive.is/LTiWf

>>542221

The NSA getting it in the first place is unconstitutional. This is just the feds twisting the knife.

Anonymous 03/13/16 (Sun) 09:46:17 No.542229

File: 1457862377685.jpg (46.75 KB, 620x400, 31:20, obamashootings.jpg)

>>542221

>Isn't this unconstitutional?

Yes, obviously, but the government has not followed the constitution for at least 100 years.

They're abusing the ability to appoint federal judges, who permit anything as evidence in court and keep the Jury if there even is a jury in the dark.

Of course the supreme court is packed with activists, who think the constitution means whatever they want it to mean. Their "interpretation" of the constitution becomes in effect in effect law. The government can also do things that are illegal and then drop cases that draw too much attention or are in danger of being ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court.

I am sure there are more ways the government works its way around the constitution, but i am not a lawyer.

Anonymous 03/13/16 (Sun) 10:16:49 No.542245

>>542221

That horrid font rendering? Definitely.

Anonymous 03/13/16 (Sun) 15:32:23 No.542326

>>542223

That argument is probably correct, for example cops can't search your car 'just cuz' but if they do stop you for perfectly legal reasons, and you have a pound of weed out in the open on the seat next to you, they can bust you for that weed.

really, people who bitch about how the NSA is taking over the internet don't realize that the info they archive was already public. you have no privacy when posting on public forums.

tl;dr what op said. if it's sensitive data, encrypt it. you don't post fliers with your credit card number all around town do you? then stop doing the same thing on the web you fucking idiot. Do your anonymous browsing/posting on its own box with a private VPS proxy or what have you.

Anonymous 03/13/16 (Sun) 18:17:09 No.542401

>>542326

Saying it's okay for all your HTTP to be sniffed and archived is like saying you consent to Stingray analysis by turning on your phone, or it's okay to make a record of license plates every day and analyzing the frequency of travel through an area just in case a terrorist rolls through.

Anonymous 03/13/16 (Sun) 19:12:44 No.542425

>>542401

I'm not arguing the morality of data collection, it is obviously immoral and overreaching, what i'm arguing is people's ignorance on the subject. People who bitch about privacy without taking steps to mask their own traffic are fools who don't understand the system they're using. It's required there be a certain amount of identifiers to your traffic, your traffic needs to be managed, how else could your requests be served? The data was always there, all that's changed now is that they keep logs for whatever their self-interested ends are. Expecting your ISP, or anyone for that matter, to look after your ass for you is a mindless, self-entitled stance to take. The practice of anonymity is wholly the responsibility of the person wishing to stay anonymous.

Data-collection is a moot issue when you understand that your data needs to be processed in order for the internet to function, if you don't want people reading it then fucking encrypt it.

Anonymous 03/13/16 (Sun) 23:09:02 No.542579

>>542425

Don't tell me to hide my bits! Tell g-men to stop raping (my data)!

Anonymous 03/14/16 (Mon) 04:17:48 No.542743

>>542218

The right answer is to always use full disk encryption and this memory wipe hook: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=136283 . When the FBI knocks on your door, start a proper shutdown.

Anonymous 03/14/16 (Mon) 04:19:35 No.542744

>>542221

I live in Mexico, where the only law is the one from whoever has a million pesos. By the 23 years, every single Mexican learns that if someone with power wants you dead or behind bars, you *will* be dead or behind bars.

Anonymous 03/14/16 (Mon) 05:13:52 No.542757

>>542218

>>542221

Its a Washington Post article

I appreciate OP for using archive, but I would seriously take that headline with a grain of salt

In fact; this thread shouldn't exist

Anonymous 03/16/16 (Wed) 01:36:57 No.544073

File: 1458092218407.jpeg (431.85 KB, 1180x666, 590:333, 1457572746472-4.jpeg)

>>542757

bumping the thread