Author Topic: Internet privacy  (Read 3336 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The Big Train

  • Guest
Internet privacy
« on: November 07, 2015, 12:30:44 PM »
who is reading your emails? are you really keeping your information safe with that little 's' after http?  questions that need to be asked about our privacy on the world wide web.  many players are affected by having a free, easy to use, end to end encrypted email service.  those that oppose that type of a system are trying to deny us our privacy, what will happen?

http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/07/protonmail-on-battling-a-sustained-ddos-attack/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/06/protonmail_pays_attack_ransom/

https://protonmail.com/


(Want to get rid of the ad? Register now for free!)

Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63776
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Internet privacy
« Reply #1 on: November 07, 2015, 12:58:11 PM »
:jeffy:
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

The Big Train

  • Guest
Re: Internet privacy
« Reply #2 on: November 08, 2015, 05:42:23 PM »
VERY related, this is why it is so important

http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/08/tor-wars/

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52980
    • View Profile
Re: Internet privacy
« Reply #3 on: November 08, 2015, 08:12:45 PM »
Wow, I think someone was talking about the massive data centers our military-industrial-intelligence complex was building several years ago.

All with the full faith support of the administration of Hope and Change and the most Transparent Administration in History. 

The Big Train

  • Guest

The Big Train

  • Guest

Offline POD Lasalle Edition

  • Sons of the Soil
  • Combo-Fan
  • *
  • Posts: 475
  • the poster formerly known as pig of destiny
    • View Profile
Re: Internet privacy
« Reply #6 on: December 19, 2015, 11:28:52 PM »
You tried Tutanota? Its decidely german in design, which if you've ever dealt with german web designers its a bit cartoonish. but the service works pretty well. just don't forget your password.  https://tutanota.com/
your mother is so fat, the recursive function computing her mass still hasn't returned.

The Big Train

  • Guest

Offline POD Lasalle Edition

  • Sons of the Soil
  • Combo-Fan
  • *
  • Posts: 475
  • the poster formerly known as pig of destiny
    • View Profile
Re: Internet privacy
« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2015, 10:09:58 PM »
well said

http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/20/hey-hey-my-my-strong-encryption-will-never-die/

I'm not sure i can agree with that article at all. the argument at facevalue is that we should be encrypting every post, which is absurd. What actually needs to be encrypted:

email (check)
financial transactions (check)

unless you're doing something illegal, proprietary, or a sysadmin/whistleblower/etc , you probably don't need to encrypt much else.
your mother is so fat, the recursive function computing her mass still hasn't returned.

The Big Train

  • Guest
Re: Internet privacy
« Reply #9 on: December 20, 2015, 10:21:14 PM »
well said

http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/20/hey-hey-my-my-strong-encryption-will-never-die/

I'm not sure i can agree with that article at all. the argument at facevalue is that we should be encrypting every post, which is absurd. What actually needs to be encrypted:

email (check)
financial transactions (check)

unless you're doing something illegal, proprietary, or a sysadmin/whistleblower/etc , you probably don't need to encrypt much else.

The point the author is trying to make is that electronic communications should, and can be help privately.  They are no different than a face to face conversation, except for it being transferred in a very suceptiable environment.  The same first amendment right should be afforded in this form, within the continental US at least.

So in a sense, I agree that everything doesn't need to be encrypted.  Everyone is also not a terrorist, so just because you aren't physically in the same room doesn't mean you can't hold a private conversation.  You should still have the same first amendment rights as face to face participants.

Offline POD Lasalle Edition

  • Sons of the Soil
  • Combo-Fan
  • *
  • Posts: 475
  • the poster formerly known as pig of destiny
    • View Profile
Re: Internet privacy
« Reply #10 on: December 20, 2015, 11:21:43 PM »
well said

http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/20/hey-hey-my-my-strong-encryption-will-never-die/

I'm not sure i can agree with that article at all. the argument at facevalue is that we should be encrypting every post, which is absurd. What actually needs to be encrypted:

email (check)
financial transactions (check)

unless you're doing something illegal, proprietary, or a sysadmin/whistleblower/etc , you probably don't need to encrypt much else.

The point the author is trying to make is that electronic communications should, and can be help privately.  They are no different than a face to face conversation, except for it being transferred in a very suceptiable environment.  The same first amendment right should be afforded in this form, within the continental US at least.

So in a sense, I agree that everything doesn't need to be encrypted.  Everyone is also not a terrorist, so just because you aren't physically in the same room doesn't mean you can't hold a private conversation.  You should still have the same first amendment rights as face to face participants.
one final thing i'd like to address is that our hurdle for consumer facing "easy" encryption is because its a hard sell. demand is low, because its a niche market. i suspect that as the threat of censorship and spying increases, so will that demand and we will finally see easy to use mass marketed encryption programs in use. wouldn't you agree?
your mother is so fat, the recursive function computing her mass still hasn't returned.

The Big Train

  • Guest
Re: Internet privacy
« Reply #11 on: December 20, 2015, 11:33:18 PM »
well said

http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/20/hey-hey-my-my-strong-encryption-will-never-die/

I'm not sure i can agree with that article at all. the argument at facevalue is that we should be encrypting every post, which is absurd. What actually needs to be encrypted:

email (check)
financial transactions (check)

unless you're doing something illegal, proprietary, or a sysadmin/whistleblower/etc , you probably don't need to encrypt much else.

The point the author is trying to make is that electronic communications should, and can be help privately.  They are no different than a face to face conversation, except for it being transferred in a very suceptiable environment.  The same first amendment right should be afforded in this form, within the continental US at least.

So in a sense, I agree that everything doesn't need to be encrypted.  Everyone is also not a terrorist, so just because you aren't physically in the same room doesn't mean you can't hold a private conversation.  You should still have the same first amendment rights as face to face participants.
one final thing i'd like to address is that our hurdle for consumer facing "easy" encryption is because its a hard sell. demand is low, because its a niche market. i suspect that as the threat of censorship and spying increases, so will that demand and we will finally see easy to use mass marketed encryption programs in use. wouldn't you agree?

first off, you are agreeing what I said is right, which I knew already.

i dont think its a hard sell at all TBH, I mean with the frequent past information leaks, not only the government, but also the private sector, it has become an increasingly talked about issue.

2-factor authentication is becoming more common, just look at iphones app store password, combined with their fingerprint scanner.  they have laid the ground work.  passwords as a form of authentication are about the worst thing ever created, but they are based on an old system.  as encryption gets better, so will the authentication process, and it will become more users accepted the further it advances.

Offline POD Lasalle Edition

  • Sons of the Soil
  • Combo-Fan
  • *
  • Posts: 475
  • the poster formerly known as pig of destiny
    • View Profile
Re: Internet privacy
« Reply #12 on: December 21, 2015, 12:08:35 AM »
well said

http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/20/hey-hey-my-my-strong-encryption-will-never-die/

I'm not sure i can agree with that article at all. the argument at facevalue is that we should be encrypting every post, which is absurd. What actually needs to be encrypted:

email (check)
financial transactions (check)

unless you're doing something illegal, proprietary, or a sysadmin/whistleblower/etc , you probably don't need to encrypt much else.

The point the author is trying to make is that electronic communications should, and can be help privately.  They are no different than a face to face conversation, except for it being transferred in a very suceptiable environment.  The same first amendment right should be afforded in this form, within the continental US at least.

So in a sense, I agree that everything doesn't need to be encrypted.  Everyone is also not a terrorist, so just because you aren't physically in the same room doesn't mean you can't hold a private conversation.  You should still have the same first amendment rights as face to face participants.
one final thing i'd like to address is that our hurdle for consumer facing "easy" encryption is because its a hard sell. demand is low, because its a niche market. i suspect that as the threat of censorship and spying increases, so will that demand and we will finally see easy to use mass marketed encryption programs in use. wouldn't you agree?

first off, you are agreeing what I said is right, which I knew already.

i dont think its a hard sell at all TBH, I mean with the frequent past information leaks, not only the government, but also the private sector, it has become an increasingly talked about issue.

2-factor authentication is becoming more common, just look at iphones app store password, combined with their fingerprint scanner.  they have laid the ground work.  passwords as a form of authentication are about the worst thing ever created, but they are based on an old system.  as encryption gets better, so will the authentication process, and it will become more users accepted the further it advances.

re encryption:

it is a hardsell. the breaches you speak of are not due to a lack of encryption, but encryption with backdoors, or in some cases just human error in code. which is a very real and very serious threat. it will remain a hardsell until asymmetric encryption algorithms reach greater consensus.  9 of every 10 DH keys are weak and can be reversed with a different key.

re: 2fa
bandaid on a gunshot wound. does nothing to stop the type of Actors that are a current threat. im not sure if you would have ever heard of a concept such as "depersonalized identity". the basic idea is the password / username pair generates a public/private key pair. the public key of course goes to the server, and the private key lives on the client. the password is the secret that generates the signed hash.

a friend of mine claims to have a proof of concept, written in python. it uses sha256cbc and instead of exposing the private key to the server, it uses the keypair to generate an oauth2 token for usage with the website/app etc. so its identity-less authentication, where public key + token replaces the need for username/password to be sent to a server.
your mother is so fat, the recursive function computing her mass still hasn't returned.

The Big Train

  • Guest

Offline renocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5971
    • View Profile
Re: Internet privacy
« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2016, 07:57:51 AM »
Nothing is really private over the phone or in the mail. For the internet it shouldn't be.any different. 

The Big Train

  • Guest
Re: Internet privacy
« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2016, 08:56:31 AM »
A 70 year old that lives in Reno county talking about the Internet :lol:


Offline renocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5971
    • View Profile
Re: Internet privacy
« Reply #17 on: April 29, 2016, 06:15:37 PM »
The email privacy act is a stupid piece of legislation.  The internet is owned by the government.  So they should have the right to read any dang thing they want to especially if there is a crime.  Trying to get a warrant from some old senile judge or a militant gay judge takes foe ever.  This could cause a delay the allows the criminal to get away in a prius.

The Big Train

  • Guest
Re: Internet privacy
« Reply #18 on: April 29, 2016, 06:25:57 PM »
The email privacy act is a stupid piece of legislation.  The internet is owned by the government.  So they should have the right to read any dang thing they want to especially if there is a crime.  Trying to get a warrant from some old senile judge or a militant gay judge takes foe ever.  This could cause a delay the allows the criminal to get away in a prius.

So the government owns every computer in the world?  The internet isn't something a single entity owns or controls.  All it is are a billion devices all connected to each other in a monster spiderweb.  Dumbass

Offline renocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5971
    • View Profile
Re: Internet privacy
« Reply #19 on: April 29, 2016, 06:48:17 PM »
I think the government's ability to protect society from mayhem and havoc out weighs ultimate privacy.  They can ransack mail if needed so why is internet crap so sacrosanct.

Offline CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 36550
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Internet privacy
« Reply #20 on: April 29, 2016, 07:05:09 PM »
Classic big govt pub.  Sad

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk


Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63776
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Internet privacy
« Reply #21 on: April 29, 2016, 07:08:18 PM »
Probably time to put a telescreen in every room
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 19129
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: Internet privacy
« Reply #22 on: April 30, 2016, 08:05:58 AM »
I think the government's ability to protect society from mayhem and havoc out weighs ultimate privacy.  They can ransack mail if needed so why is internet crap so sacrosanct.
Why do you hate the bill of rights?
:adios:

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 85185
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Internet privacy
« Reply #23 on: April 30, 2016, 08:25:34 AM »
Big gov taking an enormous dump on the constitution as usual

Offline renocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5971
    • View Profile
Re: Internet privacy
« Reply #24 on: April 30, 2016, 02:43:11 PM »
A majority of.Americas don't give a pile of horse crap about internet privacy.  Done nothing wrong, don't worry. We are already are being monitored wherever we go.  Unless you are baseline amish,  big government likely knows all about you.  If you think laws paased by congress and executed by obama is protecting your emails, then I have some great farm ground in redjaw to sell to you.