Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.computer.security > #5468 > unrolled thread

The Paris Attacks Were Tragic, but Cryptography Isn't to Blame

Back to article view | Back to alt.computer.security

Contents

  The Paris Attacks Were Tragic, but Cryptography Isn't to Blame Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> - 2015-11-25 02:50 -0500
    Re: The Paris Attacks Were Tragic, but Cryptography Isn't to Blame Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-25 01:03 -0800
      Re: The Paris Attacks Were Tragic, but Cryptography Isn't to Blame Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-25 08:47 -0500
    Re: The Paris Attacks Were Tragic, but Cryptography Isn't to Blame Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-25 08:44 -0500
      Re: The Paris Attacks Were Tragic, but Cryptography Isn't to Blame Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2015-11-26 13:48 +0100
        Re: The Paris Attacks Were Tragic, but Cryptography Isn't to Blame Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-26 09:31 -0500
          Re: The Paris Attacks Were Tragic, but Cryptography Isn't to Blame Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-11-26 21:07 +0000
            Re: The Paris Attacks Were Tragic, but Cryptography Isn't to Blame Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-26 17:09 -0500
              Re: The Paris Attacks Were Tragic, but Cryptography Isn't to Blame Euclides Zoto <euclides_zoto@optimum.net> - 2015-11-26 06:24 -0800
                Re: The Paris Attacks Were Tragic, but Cryptography Isn't to Blame Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-27 08:42 -0500
                  Re: The Paris Attacks Were Tragic, but Cryptography Isn't to Blame Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-11-28 00:55 +0100

#5468 — The Paris Attacks Were Tragic, but Cryptography Isn't to Blame

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/the-paris-attacks-were-tragic-but-
cryptography-183648302.html

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#5469

In article <90fdcae85b38e5cb9cf0e98b3c74b39a@remailer.cpunk.us>,
 Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> wrote:

> https://www.yahoo.com/tech/the-paris-attacks-were-tragic-but-
> cryptography-183648302.html

I heard one of the gray men talking about how dare companies make communications 
they can't crack. A search warrant meant they were supposed to be able to get 
the plaintext.

What the hell??

If I type out an encoded message and put it in mailbox, yes, with the proper 
paperwork they can intercept the letter. But they still can't force me to decode 
it for them. I can use a bank vault door for a front door they can't batter 
open. I can put in an unpickable lock. Just because they get a warrant doesn't 
mean I have to cooperate and show them where any evidence is. A search warrant 
doesn't mean the police get a master key to everyone's house.

-- 
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
God exists since mathematics is consistent, and the devil exists since we
cannot prove the consistency.  ~~ Morris Kline

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5471

On 2015-11-25 4:03 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <90fdcae85b38e5cb9cf0e98b3c74b39a@remailer.cpunk.us>,
>  Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> wrote:
> 
>> https://www.yahoo.com/tech/the-paris-attacks-were-tragic-but-
>> cryptography-183648302.html
> 
> I heard one of the gray men talking about how dare companies make communications 
> they can't crack. A search warrant meant they were supposed to be able to get 
> the plaintext.
> 
> What the hell??
> 
> If I type out an encoded message and put it in mailbox, yes, with the proper 
> paperwork they can intercept the letter. But they still can't force me to decode 
> it for them. I can use a bank vault door for a front door they can't batter 
> open. I can put in an unpickable lock. Just because they get a warrant doesn't 
> mean I have to cooperate and show them where any evidence is. A search warrant 
> doesn't mean the police get a master key to everyone's house.

Well stated. I still feel that there is no excuse for people refusing to
use any kind of encryption. My e-mail has been set up to use it for a
long time but anyone I address still believes that Hotmail and other
services are "safe enough" and that encryption is not necessary. They
believe that because they haven't YET been arrested or charged with
anything, it means that they never will.

Encryption should be a DEFAULT state for ALL communications on the
Internet except those, like Usenet, which are meant to be public.


-- 
Slimer
EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW & PETA supporter

"I am clearly quite ethical / moral." - Snit, lying shamelessly,
November 24th, 2015
<D27A422F.6521B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5470

On 2015-11-25 2:50 AM, Jack Ryan wrote:
> https://www.yahoo.com/tech/the-paris-attacks-were-tragic-but-
> cryptography-183648302.html

In reality, the Paris attackers had used Facebook and SMS messages.
Considering how people like Hillary Clinton were ready to propose a ban
on encryption as a result of it supposedly being used to set up the
Paris attacks, the same logic should be applied to SMS and Facebook and
THEY should be banned. In fact, I have a rather unpopular petition going
around in Canada calling for both technologies to be outright banned.

-- 
Slimer
EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW & PETA supporter

"I am clearly quite ethical / moral." - Snit, lying shamelessly,
November 24th, 2015
<D27A422F.6521B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5472

In article <n34ds7$992$3@dont-email.me>
Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>
> On 2015-11-25 2:50 AM, Jack Ryan wrote:
> > https://www.yahoo.com/tech/the-paris-attacks-were-tragic-but-
> > cryptography-183648302.html
>
> In reality, the Paris attackers had used Facebook and SMS messages.
> Considering how people like Hillary Clinton were ready to propose a ban
> on encryption as a result of it supposedly being used to set up the
> Paris attacks, the same logic should be applied to SMS and Facebook and
> THEY should be banned. In fact, I have a rather unpopular petition going
> around in Canada calling for both technologies to be outright banned.

Facebook should be banned because it invites stupidity from 
people who are too dumb to realize it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5473

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2015-11-26 7:48 AM, Anonymous wrote:
> In article <n34ds7$992$3@dont-email.me>
> Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-11-25 2:50 AM, Jack Ryan wrote:
>>> https://www.yahoo.com/tech/the-paris-attacks-were-tragic-but-
>>> cryptography-183648302.html
>>
>> In reality, the Paris attackers had used Facebook and SMS messages.
>> Considering how people like Hillary Clinton were ready to propose a ban
>> on encryption as a result of it supposedly being used to set up the
>> Paris attacks, the same logic should be applied to SMS and Facebook and
>> THEY should be banned. In fact, I have a rather unpopular petition going
>> around in Canada calling for both technologies to be outright banned.
> 
> Facebook should be banned because it invites stupidity from 
> people who are too dumb to realize it.

Absolutely. My petition to ban Facebook and SMS messages was only a half
joke. Facebook should indeed be discouraged because it encourages
ignorance as well as a complete dissociation from one individual to his
peers (why meet up when you can chat on Facebook?) and SMS should also
be prohibited because it is unencrypted and therefore unsafe. Oh well...


-- 
Slimer
EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW & PETA supporter
Wretched Stallman says: "Only YOU can prevent Snit's leftist, atheist
propaganda machine."

"I am clearly quite ethical / moral." - Snit, lying shamelessly,
November 24th, 2015
<D27A422F.6521B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5474

In article <n374vj$nhm$3@dont-email.me>
Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>
> Absolutely. My petition to ban Facebook and SMS messages was only a half
> joke. Facebook should indeed be discouraged because it encourages
> ignorance as well as a complete dissociation from one individual to his
> peers (why meet up when you can chat on Facebook?)

And that's different from Usenet how?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5475

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2015-11-26 4:07 PM, Anonymous wrote:
> In article <n374vj$nhm$3@dont-email.me>
> Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>
>> Absolutely. My petition to ban Facebook and SMS messages was only a half
>> joke. Facebook should indeed be discouraged because it encourages
>> ignorance as well as a complete dissociation from one individual to his
>> peers (why meet up when you can chat on Facebook?)
> 
> And that's different from Usenet how?

Good point... except that Usenet is essentially dead anyway. Besides,
Usenet is useful in that it allows people to get together and speak of
topics which are otherwise taboo in society. While you might speak about
freeware, computer security and hacking quite freely on Usenet with
like-minded people, you'll have a lot of trouble finding people who are
willing to talk about those things in real life even amongst the people
in your Facebook friends lists. As such, it has a use.

-- 
Slimer
EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW & PETA supporter
Wretched Stallman says: "Only YOU can prevent Snit's leftist, atheist
propaganda machine."

"I am clearly quite ethical / moral." - Snit, lying shamelessly,
November 24th, 2015
<D27A422F.6521B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5476

SGood point... except that Usenet is essentially dead anyway. Besides,

> Usenet is useful in that it allows people to get together and speak of
> topics which are otherwise taboo in society.

Wow...I can wish everyone in here a Merry Christmas?  I can actually say that I
believe in Christ.
I love Usenet!!!

EZoto

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5477

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2015-11-26 9:24 AM, Euclides Zoto wrote:
> 
> 
> SGood point... except that Usenet is essentially dead anyway. Besides,
> 
>> Usenet is useful in that it allows people to get together and speak of
>> topics which are otherwise taboo in society.
> 
> Wow...I can wish everyone in here a Merry Christmas?  I can actually say that I
> believe in Christ.
> I love Usenet!!!

Whatever floats your boat.


-- 
Slimer
EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW & PETA supporter
Wretched Stallman says: "Only YOU can prevent Snit's leftist, atheist
propaganda machine."

"I am clearly quite ethical / moral." - Snit, lying shamelessly,
November 24th, 2015
<D27A422F.6521B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5478

In article <n39mg9$c9s$1@dont-email.me>
Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On 2015-11-26 9:24 AM, Euclides Zoto wrote:
> >
> >
> > SGood point... except that Usenet is essentially dead anyway. Besides,
> >
> >> Usenet is useful in that it allows people to get together and speak of
>
> >> topics which are otherwise taboo in society.
> >
> > Wow...I can wish everyone in here a Merry Christmas?  I can actually sa
> y that I
> > believe in Christ.
> > I love Usenet!!!
>
> Whatever floats your boat.

I like pussy, detest lesbians because they're all messed up in 
the head.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.computer.security

csiph-web