What's so bad about inserting secure asymmetric law-enforcement-only backdoors in our everyday encryption, Cred Forums?

What's so bad about inserting secure asymmetric law-enforcement-only backdoors in our everyday encryption, Cred Forums?

You get to keep your privacy and the police can hunt pedophiles and terrorists. They can only decrypt and look into your stuff if you give them enough cause for a warrant, so it doesn't hurt your 4th amendment rights. Nothing changes for you unless you're a criminal.

There's literally no downside!

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=V9_PjdU3Mpo
cryptovirology.com/cryptovfiles/newbook/Chapter10.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=xhYJS80MgYA
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>backdoors
>law enforcement only
Implying

Fuck off americuck.
I value privacy. Instead of wasting money on lawsuits against facebook, put more money in counter-terrorism.

>letting others use your computer for their purposes

You want others to be able to use your computer however they wish? You're basically a software cuckold.

But we have established that your privacy won't be affected, user.

>implying asymmetric backdoors are impossible

Massive strawman.

Nothing. As long as companies are ready to fail as soon as word gets out they intentionally compromised their product, they can do whatever they want.

Good luck convincing anyone that adding a backdoor is a feature.

Eat a dick NSA volunteer shill.

>he doesn't know how NSA spied on nude pics just because they can

>But we have established that your privacy won't be affected, user.
huehue

>4th amendment
>just scream patriot act

>Massive strawman.

Well fedora'd, meme man.

>abuhurr.tumblr.com

Tumblr confirmed for supporting the Islamic State

>y-you're an NSA shill!!!1
Is that how the Muslim Brotherhood instructs their paid online agents to respond?

Fuck off, muslim commie!

Because I want encryption to not only protect my privacy from others but also from the governments. And government agencies almost never care about warrants, and they could name anything as a "cause" for one if they need it. Adding backdoors also prevents people from rebelling if the government ever becomes corrupt. There's literally no benefit to users, unless we all start living in a communism society. Stop shilling totalitarianism you cuck.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=V9_PjdU3Mpo

Nice conspiracy theories, you filthy anarchist.

ITT: encryptards run out of arguments, so they start appealing to namecalling everyone who disagrees with them an "NSA shill"

ITT: The NSA shills start with namecalling because they didn't have an argument to begin with

Why lie if anyone can just read the thread?

Well meme'd nsa

The problem with adding backdoors is that, regardless of who the backdoor is designed to let through, an unauthorized visitor will get through eventually.

Of course, this has been said already and ignored by the shills of this thread.

>What's so bad about inserting secure asymmetric law-enforcement-only backdoors in our everyday encryption, Cred Forums?
You will never manage to keep them law-enforcement-only.
Right now police officers are doing real police work to catch and convict pedophiles and terrorists. The encryption argument is a scare mongering tactic that, in reality, will not speed up the process because right now, even when encryption isn't an issue, it takes far too long for information to get sorted and sent to the right agencies.

>What's so bad about inserting secure asymmetric law-enforcement-only backdoors in our everyday encryption, Cred Forums?
1. It won't be secure. Security is a process, not a state - you have to update it constantly. Besides, it's hard enough to do encryption correctly nowdays, without putting in deliberate backdoors.
2. It won't be law-enforcement-only. See point 1 - sooner or later somebody will crack this. If it gives crooks access to your banking transactions count on it being sooner.
3. How do you expect to limit this to your own law enforcement? How do you prevent spies/corrupt officials from [insert strawman "evil" country] exploiting this?
4. How do you expect to force people to switch to broken encryption rather than keep using proper encryption? Especially since internet is global and they'll have access to software written in countries not subject to your regulation.

kys

If the backdoor exists, someone for whom it's not intended will find a way to use it.

>I know jack shit about cryptography: The Post

That's not how asymmetric backdoors work, famalam.

>I have a clinical degree in retardation
OK Timmy. Why don't you go play with the other kids over at >>>/reddit/?

>i know jack shit about cryptography: the post

...

>ad hominem
Pathetic, get fucked you NAMBLA shill.

Describe how it will work. NOW. Or at least give a link.
I know this is huge bait, but I'm bored.

Completely secure asymettric backdoors can't be 100% secure if manufacturing gets compromised, ever heard of a system attack, I'll just cipy and paste my replies to the last thread. Also, nice try, terrortard.
Just don't let then in in the first place, if we can encryption, do you really think they're going to abide by those rules? They send each other plans over the internet yu kno? We just won't be able to see them. I'm just not seeing how a ban on encryption would be effective. Nice try terrortard. You just want to leave us civilians unsecured.

Kek

But they're not going to fucking obey that, what makes you think they're going to follow the rules, the only thing you'll be doing is making the civilians unsecured, while the enemy still has encryption and the civilians will be at their mercy once the key is leaked. Nice try terrortard, I know you just want to steal my money.

Do you not understand my argument? The internet exusts, you can't stip them from using a p2p network or a wan to share encrypted plans which we can't see, they can smuggle encrypted flash drives which contain plans. They can try again and again until they successfully smuggle it, and well be helpless to do anything against said planned terror attack because guess what, they encrypted it. And meanwhile us law abiding citizens will suffer because if the key gets leaked, were assfucktd.
(You)
Also, if encryption is banned, how will we penalize them? We don't even know what they're smuggling, are we just going to give them the death penalty for encryption? Terror and child pornography charges vary. Im not seeing how a ban on non backdoored encryption will be effective, firstly. Your objective, to "stop terror" wouldn't be achieved, or anything even close.
What about tor+vpn?
How does it work? Also
NOT
AN
ARGUMENT.
It's not about quitting, but by making the entire civilian populace suffer, you're giving the terrorists what they want, a ban

Literally 2 seconds on Google:

cryptovirology.com/cryptovfiles/newbook/Chapter10.pdf

on encryption, is simply put, innefective at best, and at worst, detrimental. Also, have you Ever heard of a SYSTEM attack?

Thanks for confirming you are dumber than the average 5 years old.

Nice argument.

>implying all the apps you listed aren't already backdoored.

Is posting on Cred Forums grounds for a warrant?

After all it's proof of hate speech

...

The problem, of course, is that you end up with all these backdoor private keys you have to keep secure.

So just keep them secure, you fucking moron. That's a problem in every kind of encryption.

>this is the level of encryptard shills

>what are memes?
exactly how new are you, nsafag?

>So just keep them secure, you fucking moron. That's a problem in every kind of encryption.
Which is why we never have problems with people breaking into encrypted networks.

When you realize the government aren't full of people who only want to help you as a law abiding citizen, then you'll understand why that's a terrible idea.

youtube.com/watch?v=xhYJS80MgYA

WTF!? I hate government now!

encryption is math, publicly available math

you're increasing the risk of citizens being harmed by compromised systems while doing nothing to prevent terrorists from using more secure encryption methods of their own

>secure backdoors
found your problem

The government is already spying on you without a warrant.

Also back doors get found and exploited. Ask companies who are losing hundreds of billions now from overseas business.

>encryption is math, publicly available math
So is financial fraud, you jackass.

>The government is already spying on you without a warrant.
Sure thing, Snowden.

>Also back doors get found and exploited.
Asymmetric backdoors by definition can't.

How much are you being paid to spread this crap?

By encryptard shills' logic, if there's an opening in encryption, someone who's not supposed to will find a way to use it.

But by definition every form of encryption always has at least one opening, namely for the one who encrypted everything. If it's just a matter of time 'till attackers break this, then they'll find a way.

So by this logic why even use any encryption at all then?

Needless to say it's a fallacy, and while I do agree that two openings might be less secure than one, I don't think the risk is big enough to justify risking serious threats like pedophilia or terrorism instead.

This. Fucking this. /thread. This is exactly why putting backdoors in for any purpose is a bad idea. Even under the assumption (and this is a pretty big assumption) that a backdoor won't be found or used by anyone else (say, by being a successfully implemented asymmetrical one), it'd still make it possible for the authorities to misuse it.
>b-but muh rights!
>Implying that your rights won't be thrown into the as soon as some corrupt government guy somewhere finds a way to profit from it, "legal" and public or otherwise.

>muh terrorists and pedophiles use encryption, huyrr durr
>implying that anyone who uses encryption for any purpose is a criminal or evildoer
Association fallacy.
>Hitler ate sugar. Timmy likes sugary candy. Therefore, Timmy wants to gas the jews.

>This is exactly why putting backdoors in for any purpose is a bad idea.
Refuted here .

>it'd still make it possible for the authorities to misuse it
Abusus non tollit usum. Misuse doesn't justify taking away use.

>as soon as some corrupt government guy somewhere finds a way to profit from it
So basically you're trading a very concrete, actual and physical threat for a conjectured, abstract problem, i. e., you'll surely get bombed vs. you might lose some privacy.

Why are we even still discussing this?

>association fallacy
So it's only a fallacy when we do it? When you associate those who are not defending terrorism and child pornography with the NSA, it's not a fallacy?

Die, you fucking sophist.

Because it makes the entire idea of encrypting anything at all fucking useless you dumb cunt.

>I only encrypt to hide from the gov't in case they get a warrant against me
Wow, you are stupid.

>implying that anyone who uses encryption for any purpose is a criminal or evildoer

Why would you even be opposed to something that won't affect you at all unless you're a criminal IF YOU ARE NOT A CRIMINAL?!?

but user, thats exactly the reason i DO encrypt files. Having your electronics siezed by federal agents fucking sucks, dude.

the op has a suspicous number of alqaeda operatives on twitter. consider yourself detained.

>everyone is American
Why would other countries or their citizens use encryption if a single government has a backdoor to it?

Following that line of thought, you should be fine with the government having cameras in your shower. What do you have to hide?

What are you trying to hide?

I don't encrypt to hide from the authorities because I have nothing to hide from them. I encrypt to protect my credit card number from thieves.

... if they have a warrant.

What's the point of warrant in the first place? Why hide behind one if you're not doing anything wrong?

Hiding potential evidence because i dont want to go back to jail on charges based 100% off of electronic evidence

It's the 4th amendment, I ain't gotta explain shit.

>ISIS is great and the NSA is bad

Look, I'm not saying the NSA is fucking awesome, but given the choice between siding with ISIS or the NSA, I'd say no to ISIS any day.

Oh youngling... you lol us long time!

It's really a no-brainer, but Cred Forums is chock full of shills paid by the René Guyon Society to defend encryption.

...same reason you don't change your underwear in the street or use a toilet with clear glass walls.

Nothing to hide? Show everyone?
Problem?

But you do get naked in front of the TSA, retard.

>What's so bad about inserting secure asymmetric law-enforcement-only backdoors in our everyday encryption, Cred Forums?

Everything

>You get to keep your privacy

No, you don't. Key escrow is the equivalent of giving your house key to the cops, for them to look in your computer any time they want.

> and the police can hunt pedophiles and terrorists.

The only way they've ever found any terrorists and pedophiles is through old-fashioned police work - tips and witnesses. That and FBI sting operations targeting the stupids.

>They can only decrypt and look into your stuff if you give them enough cause for a warrant,

FISA courts are a fucking rubber-stamp. They *never* turn down warrant requests. Also, National Security Letters - these are the "I'll write a warrant myself and approve it myself, and you can't tell anyone or you go to jail for *spins wheel* resisting mah authority.

>so it doesn't hurt your 4th amendment rights.

Your 4th amendment rights have already been confiscated.

>Nothing changes for you unless you're a criminal.

I would be OK with this if we could equally spy on the cops themselves. But they don't like that. They don't like /any/ accountability.

>There's literally no downside!

Only if you're a boot licker with the memory of a gnat.

The founding fathers would be considered anarchists then.
Filthy serv

which is 100% OK because i dont have anything to hide from them and i dont have a small dick

>defending encryption is being cuck
Well meme'd fag

>What's so bad about inserting secure asymmetric law-enforcement-only backdoors in our everyday encryption, Cred Forums?
1. It insures nobody serious will rely on such encryption and your service will be rapidly abandoned by anyone with a brain.

2. These backdoors would not long remain "law enforcement only."

3. It will not even hinder the truly dangerous criminals because they will not rely on common encryption. This like all government bans will ultimately only affect law-abiding citizens who have no reason to be restricted. It is "feel good" legislation designed to make the ignorant feel safer and that their government is accomplishing something, when in reality they are actually considerably less safe in addition to being less free.

False dichotomy.

>get dubdubs
>waste them on this bollocks

Because it won't accomplish as much as it promises, see drugs, they are banned so nobody uses them anymore, right/? Or guns, if you forbid them only your average civilian won't have access to them, it won't change a thing for the real bad guys who can just contraband them.
Doing this may help getting one or two small fish more than before, the big fish of course won't use the non compromised alternatives.
Also, do you really think on a big association of humans, none will be corrupt? It isn't just an hypothesis, it's just how humans work

Both drugs and guns have been banned successfully, just not where you live. Just because your country is incompetent doesn't mean every one is.

>They can only decrypt and look into your stuff if you give them enough cause for a warrant
no, they can decrypt whatever they want, as long as they keep it a secret. The NSA spying is certainly not legal, yet it's done.

>it's allegedly done
FTFY

>banning guns and drugs

>Asymmetric backdoors by definition can't.
lol.

> mass shootings

>governments will never change
>governments would never lose the keys to these backdoors
>governments will never misuse their power

Go away, the judge forbade you to go back online after you predated on those kids.

So, you are saying that the NSA definitely didn't look at data outside the scope of their mandate because they were bored? You are saying that a key that let you invade any machine in the nation wouldn't be worth multiple zeros and tempt a coder making 45k in a contractor's coding pit? Because they were so good at stopping the last guy with a flash drive to walk right out of a government building... But hey, you will have the false sense of security (as Paris attackers actually used plain text burner cellphones to plan the attack) and live in your fantasy world where this is used against terrorists and not the people of the nation. Fool.

You sound frustrated.

The best part is, if they're using Sneakernet, they don't even need encryption. The come up with a pre-determined picture code and use it as their language. No amount of computer fuckery will stop Sneakernet (as in the two strapped to your feet and your terrorist friend + a storage medium.) Hell, it could literally be stock photos they've agreed have a meaning and it would be two guys trading stock image photos in a cafe or in a park, chatting it up like anyone else. No stopping that with an encryption ban.

(you)

They make pills for paranoia, you know.

(you)(you)

>But by definition every form of encryption always has at least one opening, namely for the one who encrypted everything. If it's just a matter of time 'till attackers break this, then they'll find a way.
>So by this logic why even use any encryption at all then?
The difference is one key that opens all doors and will end up being everywhere, making it effectively become multiple openings, and any of them will do

VS

One opening, and you're the one tasked with protecting it.

Plus, as said many times in this thread, we're all a bunch of nobodies who are not doing anything important. So long as we hold the only key, no one will ever bother to look for it. But if they ALREADY had the key, maybe they'd look into our lives because they're bored or something.

How about you prove that having a backdoor in encryption would help against terrorism and pedophilia.
Only then can we start having a discussion about weakening encryption in the first place.

>>it'd still make it possible for the authorities to misuse it
>Abusus non tollit usum. Misuse doesn't justify taking away use.

You're right. Just because some terrorists misuse encryption doesn't mean we should get rid of encryption by allowing a government agency access through a back door.

There's nothing bad about it and it's perfectly reasonable, its just that some people have fallen for propaganda created by anarchists and criminals who fear it, saying it's impossible or at least not without downsides. Gladly, most people know the truth and agree with us, and most politicians and political candidates are promising action, including both presidential candidates, so it's just a matter of time until it happens, let the child rapists and mudslimes scream all they want.

>Fear propaganda
Not the result of observation of human behavior and other non successful bans

OK, here's your scenario:

- Congress passes the US SHILLS ACT Act (Using Software to Save Homeland Internet Lawfulness and Liberty through Aggressive Cryptography Tampering)

- As of Jan 1. 2017, all companies providing encrypted services must now implement RnSA-4096, the securely backdoored RSA cypher.

- January first comes and goes, and now because Russia and China have had all compute resources trained on cracking RnSA's root keys or leaf keys, they have total access to all US citizen's communication.

So you WANT Russia and China to have our communications? Because if general crypto becomes backdoored, you're now dealing with the top nation-states competing for that unlimited SIGINT stream.

Who defines what is a terrorist? The US governments definition of terrorist is getting more broad by the day.

Fuck off cia nigger

there are over 4 million laws in the United States, excluding case law and precedent. That's more than any single human could possibly know.

You are breaking a law, and enforcement is already selective along political lines. It will be used as a tool against political dissidents like it is in the VAST MAJORITY of nations on the earth and throughout history

if you think your condition as a free, prosperous people is permanent and not a tiny blip in the timeline of history, may your chains fucking chafe and dig into you, slave, and may prosperity remember you were never my countryman.

The US is a terrorist state. What they've done to the Middle East is criminal.

people who can do the most harm no longer need internet to do so

take my phone youll find nothing

>the police
>under Barrack HUSSEIN Obama
>hunting terrorists
why would the government be stopping their own agents?

white paper or gtfo

>prosperity
I believe you mean : ``posterity''.

Warrantless searches being allowed by congressional acts in certain, highly abuseable circumstances.

The fact that already individuals in otherwise first world governments abuse their powers to put pressure on dissidents and whistle blowers.

People abusing their access for personal purposes (cf, TSA agents making copies of nude scanner images and selling them; or FBI agents and police officers convicted of stalking).

Rogue agents selling access to foreign powers.

The fact that even software that doesn't have a gaping security hole as a design feature is often poorly implemented.

The impossibility of a back door that can be both fully secured and securely updated in the case of the master key falling into the wrong hands.

The fact that US government agencies on average have a computer security rating of D+.


You're falling prey (or maybe pretending to for easy bait) classic wishful thinking blunders of idealistic youths. That the government is generally good and correct and therefore there is no need for safe-checks or fault tolerance built into policy; and that just because you really really want something, it is both technically feasible and will inspire full compliance from an entire industry section.

>Drugs and guns don't get smuggled guys, I promise.

The entire world is infested with drugs and weapons. Just because you don't know how to get them doesn't mean they're not there.

True dichotomy.