Should encryption be legal...

Should encryption be legal? The french government recently came out and said encryption chatting apps was preventing them from acting on terorrists.

Honestly shoukd we keep encryption around in this day and age for public use?

Yes. Even if if were illegal, what would stop terrorists or other criminals from developing their own software for encrypted communication?

Fuck your fear mongering. Keep the Internet an unregulated wild west. Keep encryption strong, unbreakable, and completely unrestricted. If you want to stop terrorists, stop letting them into your country, and start bombing them in theirs.

They dont have the knowledge to.

Remove crypto libraries
Remove crypto papers from outside academics

And youre left with sand people who have no way to know how to code up AES, set up servers for secure end to end, etc

>if it were illegal, what would stop terrorists or other criminals from developing their own software for encrypted communication?
Law enforcement

That sure works.

You can't ban a subset of mathematics... that's just stupid. Besides, they'll just go back to using pen and paper or meeting up in a mosque.

>Remove crypto papers from outside academics
Are you a European? You sound so elitist/statist.

>should free speech be banned
I mean I guess Europe already did this but in America that wouldn't fly. Too many tech companies rely on it

Entire nations collectively fail to ban, control and track physical objects (i.e. guns). Now you want to ban public knowledge that is available everywhere and for free?
How delusional can one person get?

>Also: OTP

It works for all the other things that are illegal

Not sure if just stupid or troll

No, keep muslims out instead. The rule is simple: if your ilk is causing trouble, fix it yourself, or get the fuck out. All of you.

You know what else is illegal? Terrorism

This desu. I wonder who was the genius who let mohhamedans into europe, culture is not compatible at least to say.

Acting on terrorists or knowing about them?
There's a difference, encryption stops the latter but not the former.
And only if terrorists use it, which they don't.

Should trucks be legal?

What's worse is that it's not a case of 'regular muslims' not caring, it's a case of them actively supporting their terrorist brethren, thinking that what they are doing is justified.
Mudslimes are just horribly violent people.

It's literally too late to do anything now.
Encryption software is out there. They have it. We have it. Nothing is stopping them from using it. All making it illegal would do is make us stop using it.

Banning it solves nothing. All it does is give law enforcement more work to do because now they have to investigate and police any illegal usage of encryption.

>Mudslimes are just horribly violent people.
ALL RELIDGIONS IS BAD, ONLY ATHISM IS GUD BEGUZ SCIENSE AND REASON FREEDHINKING

t. DAWGINS

If you ban encryption then anything involving money online just disappears. No more online banking, shopping, remote working, ...

>Outlaw encryption
>All of your banking is sent through the tubes in plain text

:')

Should maths be legal? The french government recently came out and said maths was preventing them from acting on terorrists.

Honestly shoukd we keep maths around in this day and age for public use?

Tell telegram to turn their servers off and they would be able to use their app

French politician are uneducated fucks. Banning encryption is fucking retarded

That sentence is wrong. Remove the word "French" to correct it.

>beg for net neutrality
>get upset when they want more control
Give government an inch and they'll take a mile

hmmm if only there was a way to stop terrorists without banning encryption

like maybe... not importing millions of people from syria?

Most politicians are well educated

that's literally what Telegram is. I remember when Sup Forums was shilling it and at the same time the company was shamelessly advertising it to Muslims

You can't ban math.

Oh wait, you guys invented Common Core. Never mind then.

It's just expedient for them to use Telegram. If Telegram shut down they would move onto the next expedient option.
It's not like they suddenly wouldn't know what to do and give up.

>le fedora maymay XDDDDDDDDDDDDD
This is just as bad as those sjws who just call anyone who disagrees with them a racist.
Please go to Sup Forums if you want to post 6 year old memes and not actually contribute to the conversation in any meaningful way.

It is legal, it should be legal. It's freedom of speech and privacy. Fuck French and fuck NSA.

>just redact knowledge they'll probably forget
Nice plan.

>implying anyone intelligent believes in atheism
Every stance besides agnostic is putting your faith in something, even if your faith says there is nothing out there. Any athiest who says they have reached a logical conclusion can be assumed to be horribly bad at even simple logic puzzles.

It seems you're a bit confused as to the differences between atheism and agnosticism. One addresses knowledge and one addresses belief.

You either believe the claims of these cults or you do not. Agnosticism addresses something else.

I think sending data unencrypted should be illegal.like there should be a government enforcement agency that cracks encryption and persecutes companies whose products are not up to encryption standards in court.

No, only pedos and terrorists have something to hide

God doesn't exist
Because he doesn't exist in the Universe
And the Universe is defined as everything that exists

It's a sarcastic remark alluding to the typical reaction of some to claim that there isn't a problem with Islam (when there clearly is), which is followed by criticism of the concept of religion and a self-reassuring promotion of that person's irreligiousness, which is accompanied by unwarranted claims of some sort of ownership of the faculty of reasoning; which is ironic considering that what these people are essentially doing is criticizing even completely non-dogmatic spiritualist personal beliefs which not only have absolutely jack shit to do with science and critical thought, they are seeking to meet arbitrary criteria for being considered a reasonable person, and they do so in an entirely dogmatic way.

And the sad thing is it that it is an utterly futile exercise.

Does the Universe include the set of things that aren't in the Universe?

>atheism
>belief
Meanwhile, you've proven yourself to be horribly bad at understanding what atheism even is to begin with. I'm sorry those logic puzzles are so difficult for you.

Here's a hint to get you started:
You can't believe in atheism

user there is literally nothing outside of the universe.

So it does include the set of all things not in the Universe?

Fuck France.

Parting from the premise that "theos" is being used with its proper meaning, to describe a superior order of existence, you can't not believe in either theism or atheism.

We know that we exist, or that at least something exist. You either believe your existence is preceded by the comprehension of a superior order, or you believe it is not. There is no amount of pseudophilosophy sprinkled with quotations and unrelated scientific (material) observations that will in any way prove otherwise.

But if you mean "theos" as in "the one God in abrahamic religions", that garbage belongs in Reddit.

>I don't know where the limit of the Universe is
>I don't know what's beyond its limits
>I don't know what its limits could be
>I don't even know what it really is
There totally is nothing guise, I read it in a book so it must be true.

Not him, but can you blame him for having this impression when atheism is explained to people in the West as the educated alternative to religion, and not a philosophical methodology? I'm from a very pro-religious place and that's how "atheists" push this point of view. It does very little to convince anyone to change their mind.

To OP's point, as has already been said, you can't undo cryptography. It ain't that hard to use basic techniques if sophisticated ones are throttled, if such a thing is even practical to do.

If by "include a set" you mean "include the things that are in this set": No, the universe doesn't include things that it doesn't include.

Guess it doesn't include everything

I truly believe that encryption was a mistake. It's simmering nobody should have. But since we do it's only right that everyone has it.

Exactly, for example God

You're not getting it, clearly, so I made you a diagram.

Classically, atheism is concerned with dogmatic religions; not even dogmatism itself, but specifically religious dogmas. The aversion to spiritualism is a more recent thing, but current atheists get triggered by the term "neo-atheism".

Semantics aside, I am highly critical of the position that non-belief in spirituality is not a belief in itself. It's an arrogant statement, because it is painted as a more rational or reasonable position; again, because of the unwarranted atheist claim of ownership of "pure" reason and logical thought.

>Implying they'd be able to catch any terrorists if encryption was banned anyway

If it's arrogant to suggest that religion and spiritualism flies in the face of logical thought, then sure, it is. However, this is a demonstrable fact, in many respects.

Aside from that though, one need only look at the word atheism to understand that it is not a belief itself but the lack thereof. Rather, you could describe atheism as a system of trust, based on available information, rather than of belief or faith. Atheists look to what we know as facts, and trust that those are reasonably accurate, and as the information and thus the facts changed, so too did atheism.

Let's take the classical system of flat-Earth as an example: Atheists likely believed for a long time that the Earth was flat, because all the information available pointed to that being the case. Primitive science believed it to be true. However, once we had solid, verifiable evidence that the Earth was in fact round, people who "believed" in flat Earth kept on bucking the system, because that challenged their beliefs (hell, they still exist to this day, ignoring overwhelming evidence), but Atheists would have simply gone "Oh, so it's round after all? Interesting." and adjusted their view.

Which isn't to say that you can't be both atheist and skeptical of modern scientific establishments, but once sufficient proof is displayed, an atheist would generally adjust their understanding to include this new evidence.

this way they can catch the criminals who engage in hate speech

much worse than the ones blowing people up obviously

Wouldn't that be nihilism?

No, because Atheists still believe in morality, and believe that we must find our own purpose for existing. However they believe that morals are innate and are not tied to spirituality or religion.

Fun facts: If religion is the only thing keeping you from killing or harming or robbing the people around you, you're probably a sociopath.

STARS UNITE

Clashes between dogmas and scientific evidence are another subject, there's nothing to discuss about those, if it's wrong, it's wrong.

Now, to discredit the very concept of spirituality is arrogant, and no, there is not a shred of scientific evidence that supports the *belief* that none of it is real. Leaving aside the problem with relative skepticism and the never-ending degrees of skepticism that gets scoffed off as "the wrong kind of philosophy, the unreasonable skepticism", we are talking of some very different things here.

"Any form of sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Ever read that? Metaphysics is but the degree where our observational capabilities end, the limit of our instruments, as far as we can agree (nearly) unanimously.

The burden of proof is an inconvenient thing, but that's how it works. Proving a negative is hard. But you don't know until its proven.

It's only scientific reasonable up until a certain point. From there on out, it's all spiritual (as in a synonym for metaphysical) reasoning, meaning it's an entirely subjective, personal reasoning. With that said, saying "I believe there is no soul" is no more or less valid than "I believe there is a soul". If you don't believe, it's because you know. You either believe or know. Does anyone the answer to that question?

Ethics are for atheists, not morals. Morals are underpinned by theology. Ethics are underpinned by logic.

Personal use of encryption should be banned. What do you have to hide that requires encryption? Nothing legal at least.

Ethics and Morality often go hand-in-hand, but if you want to argue semantics then fine, Ethics. Though morality can also be derived from personal experience and not merely theological teaching.

This is another semantics argument on Spirituality vs. Metaphysics. A spiritualist says "I believe there is no soul." An atheist says "There is no evidence to suggest the existence of a soul." It is not a matter of belief for the atheist.

Tax returns, wouldn't want hackers or other nefarious ne'er-do-wells to get hold of them.

>Tax returns, wouldn't want hackers or other nefarious ne'er-do-wells to get hold of them.
They could set up a government-controlled server for storing sensitive data but that way they could decrypt it if they suspect a crime.

>Not keeping your own personal copies just in case
Naw bro, I want to make sure my data goes un-molested.

>/reddit/

>An atheist says "There is no evidence to suggest the existence of a soul."
So will a non-atheist. What makes you think *that* is what makes an atheist?

Why the government wants to look into all my devices and communications in a flagrant violation of my privacy looking and storing my personal files (work, messages, videos, photos, contacts), location (that can be used to know with whom you've been).

why treat everyone like a criminal?

PS. Banning encryption would make cyber attacks lot easier. With no password and network encryption you can just post theme on facebook.

PSS. What happened with transparency and corruption it seem most governments doesn't want to talk about it.

>why treat everyone like a criminal?
Because the alternative is to treat arabs and blacks like the criminals they are, and that's profiling, which is taboo.

Killing people is illegal, but does that stop terrorists?

>“In the wake of the revelations of mass surveillance the [US] president [Barack Obama] appointed two independent commissions to review the efficiency of these [surveillance] programs, what they really did and what effect they had in combating terrorism. [The commissions comprised] the highest priests of these programs, they found these programs had never stopped a single terrorist attack and never made a concrete difference in a terrorist investigation,”

fucking this so much

>why treat everyone like a criminal?
If you've got nothing to hide just show your stuff to the government and you're fine unless you actually are a criminal.

yeah, let me just log in to my bank account without any encryption, what a great idea

nope, mint on my t430s and my win 7 desktop are fully encrypted along with my phone.

>show your stuff to the government and you're fine

They'll keep treating you like a criminal spying on you 24/7.

The only way i can be "fine" with this is a 24/7 stream of every government worker out there, they need to be an example and show us that they have nothing to hide and this will prevent corruption too so everyone wins.

Atheism is a belief you moron.
You're mixing religion and belief.
Atheism is not a religion, does not have any dogmatic believes but fundamentally it is a belief that there's no god(s).

>He omitted the very next sentence that put it into context

Encryption is a munition. And it's a second ammendment right.

Shall not be infringed.

The American citizen shall have it for the same reason as a gun to defend against a tyrannical goverent.

France banned it before and there were viruses to switch your default country to france. All your passwords would switch to plain text.

Fuck retarded frogs.

encryption is legal, and crypto technology can't be outlawed since its out in the open.

a better question would be, should the government force tech companies to enforce encryption on consumer data and communication ? This might be coming in the EU. And should the state force companies to have backdoors in their encryption?

>Atheism is a belief
Wrong. Atheism is the lack of a belief in any god.
It is the default, natural state from which you shift into theism. Until you believe in a God or Gods, you are an atheist.

Arabic serves as an encryption layer in itself, given that the vast majority of the civilized world doesn't know/speak it.

Pretty much this. No criminal has ever given much shit at stuff he needs being illegal, that's pretty much the definition. If you construct a fence, a tiger will jump over it, a snake will sneak through, and it's only the common cattle that will keep being fenced in by it.

In the words of Duke Nukem, blow it out your ass

A perfectly encrypted message is indistiguishable form random data (it has maximum entropy). Will you outlaw (pseudo)random data (or generators of such) too?

it should only be legal if you are smart enough to manage the algorithm yourself

kind of like how guns are for cowards and you should only be allowed to defend yourself not rely on cheap jewish made firewarms

>if 1 person breaks a law we can have no laws. all laws must be perfect.


ladies and gentlemen, the nu right. now that the scary black man is president you cant make any laws ever again.

Believing there are no gods is a belief. You have faith but no mathematical proof that god is not real. If you knew he wasn't real it would then not be a belief.

Atheism is the firm belief that there surely isn't a God. If you are indifferent and/or believe there isn't enough evidence to prove neither the existence nor the non-existence of a God, you're an agnostic.

And apatheism - who cares

Youre not wrong youre just an asshole. Even the Catholic church is agnostic and you're being misleading. How can anyone know the existence of god?

That said religion is the opiate of the lower tier of human trash. Lower than people hooked on actual opiates.

How does an atheist, or anyone for that matter, prove the non-existance of a God?

>French Government
>acting on terrorists

>he doesn't follow the ways of the great teachers jesus, buddha, and confucious
Lmao @ your life kid

>Atheism is the firm belief that there surely isn't a God.

Wrong. That's Antitheism.
Anti = Against
A = None
Agnostic = Maybe there is, maybe there isn't we can't know for sure.

Do I really have to post the diagram again?

> Should encryption be legal?
> Implying it is illegal

There's nothing stopping these "sand people" from hiring a contractor to create a form of encrypted communication for them. Since many are backed by the fucking Saudis, it's not nearly as difficult as you are making it out to be. As many others are already posting, it would only prevent normal users from using it.

That diagram doesn't prove your point, besides, it's shit.