Should hardware manufacturers be banned from supplying governments with processing power? Governments are using this power to work towards undermining every form of digital security that exists.
It's in the hands of manufacturers to cease selling to people trying to destroy the worlds privacy.
Other urls found in this thread:
betanews.com
schneier.com
twitter.com
No, there is a thing called money but I wouldn't except a basement dwelling NEET shitstain to understand.
not an argument
And if the government didn't protect you and the country from other nation state attackers, your countries national infrastructure from power, gas, telecoms to road lights are all at risk.
NSA and such are necessary.
Just because you live in a peaceful western country does not mean at any point a enemy will not attack you and send the country into turmoil, the government is ready ever since the cold war began.
Working to break encryption and backdoor everything isn't protecting anyone.
This may be the most profoundly stupid thing I've read on Sup Forums in some time. Not because I disagree with your general gist (I think that Utah Data Center, for instance, is absolutely atrocious), but because the idea of a ban is idiotic.
First, as says, the government pays hardware manufacturers for the equipment they buy. Take away the government as a purchaser, and that's an enormous hit to the manufacturers, and prices for everyone else are going to go up as a result.
Second, and more importantly, who is going to impose the ban? Certainly not the manufacturers themselves who benefit from government contracts. *Governments* are the entities that impose bans. So the idea that the government would ban itself from being able to buy hardware is idiotic.
You, OP, are an idiot, and have no idea how the world works, how government works, how manufacturers work, or how bans work. Everyone who has read your post has lost a few IQ points as a result of your stupidity. I hope you're happy, because the rest of us that read your drivel are not.
Processing power is not a problem
Installing backdoors is a gigantic problem for long-term security though.
Then the governments would simply pay third parties to buy from the manufacturers. If you ban that, then you get two middle men, and so on. If you ban any government of a first world country from using computers, then the whole fucking system collapses. Your money would be worthless and you would either starve or be killed by anarchists that are the result of not having police to control the animals known as people. You are so stupid that I'm surprised you know the alphabet. You typing is a fucking a miracle.
I suggest suicide.
Working to break encryption is a very good thing. This exposes flaws and allows them to be fixed. Also, there are no backdoors in computers that can't be removed. If you want to go full tinfoil, you can disable the Intel management engine, use Coreboot as the BIOS, and use a GNU/Linux distro with FDE using LUKS that never connects to the internet. But you would never do this because you're a tech illiterate child talking from their asshole on an anonymous image board, and cutting yourself off from the internet would take you away from Snapshit Facetrash, the very services that violate the privacy you bitch about. Fuck right off.
epic post
>governments and companies protect you at all cost
Digital security is only relevant for a preapproved purpose. Digital security doesn't exist to uphold its function in itself as some ubiquituous omnipotent measure, beauty lies in the eye of the beholder
>Working to break encryption is a very good thing. This exposes flaws and allows them to be fixed.
Except they don't work to fix flaws publicly. They fix them privately, on their own systems, then they sit on them so they can abuse them everywhere else.
>who do we trust more?
>giant search engine or one bearded hippie
>the bearded hippie is fuckin right!
(You)
Who's going to ban them? the government?
What does Google releasing the results of an SHA1 collision exploit have to do with governments working privately to discover and then hoard exploits without notifying the developers?
And that bearded hippie is one of the most experienced cryptographers in the world.
>What does Google releasing the results of an SHA1 collision exploit have to do with governments working privately to discover and then hoard exploits without notifying the developers?
You must be new.
>And that bearded hippie is one of the most experienced cryptographers in the world.
Lmao.
The US government is not hoarding exploits. If they try, they'd have a bunch of exploits that are useless because they patched by the time they've bought them. You're still a tard for what you wrote in the OP.
The guards themselves.
Who watches the watchmen.
>Lmao.
The fuck does this even mean? Do you know who he is? Did you read a single sentence of his article or did you dismiss him immediately because he has a beard?
>The US government is not hoarding exploits. If they try, they'd have a bunch of exploits that are useless because they patched by the time they've bought them.
Stuxnet used four zero days that went unnoticed and unpatched until Stuxnet was discovered in 2010. Development on Stuxnet started as early 2005.
>tfw you have to go to work an hour early just so you can walk across the parking lot without being late
Who's gonna ban them ? The government ?
FAGGOT PEDO GET UR BALLS RIPPED OFF AND UR EYES CUT WITH A RAZOR
what's in the box?
...
