Internet has become a dangerous place a war zone Pentagon said

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: galien8

I saw a cloud that look like mickey mouse once.

So what!?

originally posted by: Kettu
The machine that goes over all the internet traffic doesn't have the same kind of "morality" as a human being.

I call that the predestination computer, controls the whole cyber economy

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Kettu


Due to government intervention in relation to vaccines humans live twice a long as otherwise.


Can you provide evidence of this "Machine" or in reality does your psychiatrist needs to up your meds?

This is now the second time I hear you advising people you do not agree with to take meds or take more meds, non face to face diagnosis, you amateur psychiatrist, admit it you are an experience expert

originally posted by: Maxatoria
a reply to: galien8

Its not 100% secure as someone could be watching and have seen the original un-encrypted text with lets say a hidden camera for example planted by some spooks. The data transmission system may be 100% secure but if someone else reads the message before hand then its useless.

3D-glasses :-D

a reply to: CoBaZ

There is no balance to be struck here.

Privacy is non-negotiable. If you do not have the maximum amount of that, then you have not even the beginnings of liberty.

a reply to: galien8

Do you trust the ability of the glasses to be absolutely unhackable? if they're watching you then realistically you're up the creek looking for a paddle if they've got cameras etc in your house.

some how you will have to enter the text of your message and if its via keyboard then that will do, even with some sort of virtual reality interface theres statistics that can work out most words.

originally posted by: Maxatoria
a reply to: galien8

Do you trust the ability of the glasses to be absolutely unhackable? if they're watching you then realistically you're up the creek looking for a paddle if they've got cameras etc in your house.

some how you will have to enter the text of your message and if its via keyboard then that will do, even with some sort of virtual reality interface theres statistics that can work out most words.

...Ok you got me...

PS: The nice women you are chatting with are really dudes

a reply to: galien8

The Women are men and the kids are pretending to be men and the kids well they're the FBI...basic internet rule since lord knows when.

originally posted by: galien8

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Kettu


Due to government intervention in relation to vaccines humans live twice a long as otherwise.


Can you provide evidence of this "Machine" or in reality does your psychiatrist needs to up your meds?

This is now the second time I hear you advising people you do not agree with to take meds or take more meds, non face to face diagnosis, you amateur psychiatrist, admit it you are an experience expert

LOL Actually did work with my degrees in Psychology with teens and adults at several facilities early in my carrier, from there I worked with law enforcement.

Glad your not taking it seriously.

Honestly I feel the real problem is with us the internet is just exposing those issues.

originally posted by: galien8

originally posted by: Maxatoria
a reply to: galien8

Its not 100% secure as someone could be watching and have seen the original un-encrypted text with lets say a hidden camera for example planted by some spooks. The data transmission system may be 100% secure but if someone else reads the message before hand then its useless.

3D-glasses :-D

This is a poor idea. No encryption system, with the exception of a properly used OTP can completely obscure information, some percent of information is going to be recoverable. To throw some numbers on this, lets say you can get 1% of information from a document after encryption. If your data is 1 dimensional such as a string of text, 1% of that text can be recovered, which doesn't do much.

However, if your data is 2 dimensional such as an image, a lot more data can be recovered. Again, to put numbers on this, a 1 page document contains about 3000 characters, each character is represented by a byte (so just under 3kb). Therefore, if I can recover 1% of the data, I can get 30 characters from a 1 dimensional piece of data. A 1 page pdf is closer to 65kb on average, which is about 22x the size. From that, it stands to reason that I can recover 22x the data. Most of the data recovered in this case tends to be white space because it repeats a lot. But, even white space is valuable because it provides message length, word count, and some words as common things appear next to each other. With big enough text (such as a title header) that can be recovered too.

A 3 dimensional image contains even more data than that because shapes are easily recovered. For example, take the letter J. If I recover some data that tells me there's a straight section on the right hand side, followed by a curved section below in this particular shape I can deduce that piece of data as being either the letters J or U, reducing uncertainty from 26 letters to 2.

If you want your data to be secure, it's a bad idea to add extra information to your documents.

originally posted by: Kettu
Anyway, cryptography is interesting. The problem is being compromised before the data is even encrypted. It doesn't do you any good if someone is already on your router or in your computer before you encrypt and transmit the data.

How does anyone know for 100% certainty that there aren't physical, hardware backdoors programmed into the very CPU and RAM on your mobo? I'm talking inside the cores or inside the RAM modules themselves.

I'm fairly certain there are. Intel CPU's for example actually come with the ability to do AES encryption through the hardware these days rather than doing it in software. The problem is, the NSA or other government agency, wanted hardware backdoors in these things so they could decrypt data if necessary. Then the chips themselves are manufactured in other countries, where those nations may have done the same thing.

That's why I think it's at times better to not use encryption. It all depends on the audience you're trying to hide your data from. If you're a random business and you want to keep your data secure against hackers encryption is great. If you're some random person and you like your banking information to be secure, again encryption is great. If you're a future terrorist and you want your plot to go undetected... encryption is a poor idea, because governments find encrypted data to be the most interesting.

Can any of us gather silicon, graphite, aluminum, plastics ect and make our own 14 or 30 nanometer processor?

It wasn't 14 nm, and it's been a long time but I have built a CPU before.

Sure, we can trace our our circuit boards...but can anyone make a complete computer themselves from scratch? I'm not talking about plugging pieces together, I'm taking about from raw metals and materials.

Yes, but it won't be all that fast or useful compared to what you're used to.

a reply to: Aazadan

A while back someone posted how to flip an AMD chip into its developer debug sort of thing, its not unusual as if you have to remove the debug mode how do you debug the stuff, it was a rather shall we say bit of effort but you basically could do what you wanted and i'd imagine it would only work for that particular chip.

a reply to: Maxatoria

That goes well beyond my hardware skills, the last time I actually physically altered a CPU was drawing lines between various pins on a pentium using a pencil in order to overclock it (you can no longer do this). Then there's the CPU I built. They're pretty interesting devices but it's not for me. I have a lot of respect for hardware engineers though.

What I do know though, or at least am pretty certain about is that all CPU's sold in the US have backdoors. Sometimes, if hardware is going to a person of interest some extra hardware might be installed, Snowden went into those programs a little bit. But for the most part, we don't have to worry about that.

If you properly encrypt something, I would consider that communication to be secure unless you're a serious player trying to take down a government. A few years ago I used to hang out on the darkweb. What I learned in those markets is that basic encryption is enough to keep people pretty safe. CC#'s, SSN's, drugs, guns, all of that stuff was available to buy and the buyers/sellers would communicate mostly using PGP encrypted messages they would then PM back and forth to each other.

If it's good enough to keep drug and arms dealers out of prison, it's probably going to be good enough to protect your data too.

Basically it comes down to this: The NSA can probably break most encryption these days, and what they can't they store until they can. It is extremely resource intensive though and while they can break anything, they cannot break everything. They can only break a small amount of files. If they're not looking at you, your information is secure. If they are looking at you, you're probably better off transmitting information in plaintext, and a bunch of gibberish encrypted so they don't look at the interesting data.

a reply to: galien8

The internet is fine the way it is and offers humanity the ability to communicate and share information in ways we could never previously have imagined.

Any attempt by TPTB to police our limit the free flow of information throughout our interwebs in an overtly draconian manner will only serve to delay the paradigm shift this type of technology will ultimately bring about.

a reply to: andy06shake

Indeed, in fact it may even accelerate the shift you mention.

The reason I say this is as follows. Going back, before the Snowden revelations, the only people concerned with data security in any serious way, were national security and military/intelligence groups, banks, internet companies and hackers of various persuasions, people of that sort, involved in rarefied business and working environments, requiring these technical aspects as a matter of course. Encrypted communications worth calling such, were things indulged in by people in specific professions.

But when Snowden revealed to the world that their entire communications history could potentially be lifted from the noise of the global communications grid, and observed at the click of a mouse, or the stroke of a key, things got serious all around the world, for many, many people. Folks realised that having up to date anti-virus software on their PC's was not even half the battle. If they wanted their communications to be secure, they would have to contend with forces that they could not have necessarily comprehended before. Many people, remember, were not aware, as we were many years before the revelations themselves, that governments had this kind of reach. People who speculated that they did were considered loonies, or worse. But now, even the man in the street is aware that, yes, his government, or the government of some other place, is infringing upon his liberties and rights as an individual, by collecting data in staggering volume, about everyone, including private communications.

So now, these matters are in everyones eyes and ears, and even companies catering to the public, are providing encryption services for things like text messaging, for example, things which, although far from penetration proof, at least offer a measure of, a semblance of data security to people who used to be utterly unaware that their liberties were being eroded in such an enormous manner.

If it had not have been for Snowden's revealing the information that he did, it might have been a decently long time before this sort of publicly available, end to end encryption that is available now, came on the market. As it is, the situation as it stands has made this a commodity, a thing considered not merely useful, but for some liberty and freedom loving individuals an absolute must.

With rumours going around a couple of years ago, about the potential for the internet to be shut down in certain areas, to prevent civil unrest from being organised, and to allow police units to stifle legitimate protest without effective response from protestors, mesh networks became far more interesting and desirable to people in the "first world", whereas before they had been only considered very useful to those in nations where connections could prove spotty at best, extending the reach of a connection to devices in proximity to one another. There have been so many little advances which might not have become interesting or desirable for years, if it were not for the fact that our governments are abusing their power. As it is, these things are becoming ever more commonplace. There has even been rumour that some internet billionaires are seeking to create a second internet, one which is not controlled or controllable, which is constructed to prevent the sort of data collection and mass surveillance we see from what we know to be the global communications net.

These things, had Snowden never made a single utterance to the press, might have either never come about, or more likely, not been seriously put into motion for years, perhaps a decade, but have had interest and therefore funding from private individuals, companies, and organisations, that have seen them come about much faster than would have otherwise been the case. Your point about TPTB messing around with our freedom in the net may hold, but it is far more likely that the current trend will hold out, and that systems and methodologies which utterly baffle the system as it stands will come about FASTER as a result of their machinations, rather than slower.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: galien8

The internet is fine the way it is

Wollt ihr den denn totalen Security?

a reply to: galien8

Nope im secure enough thank you very much.

Fact is there is no total security any longer, anonymity in any meaningful context is simply a thing of the past.