"resetting the net" tomorrow. will BLF be affected?

[Clear Glass]

They have the infrastructure needed to break individual lines of encryption given small amounts of time. We already know that if they want to watch someone in particular, they will get to. However, they do not have the infrastructure needed to go about breaking the encryption on every single little communication. The point of this movement to to stop mass surveillance, they're not expecting to completely shut out the NSA.

Oh, okay. I thought they meant completely, was going to say "u srs?".

[Ad Bot]

[The Brighter Dark]

I like how they don't give any reasons why survalence is bad, they just expect everyone to agree with them without backing up their claims.

[Candy Apple]

you don't get it, we're doing this to stop the government from watching us on the internet so much.

Read into it before you post like an idiot.

How the forget is this even supposed to get the government to stop? "Oh man, they closed the websites for 24 hours. I guess we can't spy on them anymore."

[ResonKinetic]

I like how they don't give any reasons why survalence is bad, they just expect everyone to agree with them without backing up their claims.

Because people don't like it when other people know what research they look at.

[Pecon]

How the forget is this even supposed to get the government to stop? "Oh man, they closed the websites for 24 hours. I guess we can't spy on them anymore."

The idea behind resetthenet is not to shut down websites. The idea is for many websites, companies, and services to all collectively adopt new crypto technologies at the same time in order to 'seize back' privacy.

Here is the actual link to the software tools pack.

http://pack.resetthenet.org/

Unfortunately OP was kinda stupid and now everyone in the thread that doesn't know what is going on is using the same stupid assumption.

[Ipquarx]

Oh, okay. I thought they meant completely, was going to say "u srs?".

I really don't think you understand how encryption even works. You can't just "break" encryption, you need to get the key for the encryption and the key is so difficult to find that it would take miltrillions of years to crack open your average TrueCrypt volume.

[Clear Glass]

I like how they don't give any reasons why survalence is bad, they just expect everyone to agree with them without backing up their claims.

I really don't care if they do or not, people blew the whole NSA surveillance thing out of proportion.

I really don't think you understand how encryption even works. You can't just "break" encryption, you need to get the key for the encryption and the key is so difficult to find that it would take miltrillions of years to crack open your average TrueCrypt volume.

Sure about that..?
http://boingboing.net/2014/05/29/mysterious-announcement-from-t.html

[Frankie²]

I really don't care if they do or not, people blew the whole NSA surveillance thing out of proportion.

How?

[Nal]

And this was a failure

[Axo-Tak]

I don't get it.

If you get caught because you talked to your friends online about how you wanted to blow up buildings, then that's your problem. If officials stare at you suspiciously because your online activities show you are suspicious, then that's your problem. The government probably doesn't care about you and your partner(s) vividly roleplaying.

These mass surveillance measures, if used correctly, can identify people who are malicious.

What I am sort of worried about is if the US uses the wiretapped private records to pull off a purge of intelligent people, like the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

[Ipquarx]

Sure about that..?
http://boingboing.net/2014/05/29/mysterious-announcement-from-t.html

I'm absolutely certain. If you'd like to show me some proof of it actually being insecure or any case at all of a truecrypt volume from the latest version of truecrypt being broken then go right ahead. The project was declared insecure because it's not being developed anymore, so if there are any security breaking bugs then they're not going to be fixed. But the thing is that if there are, nobody knows about them. If there were any that were actually usable then they would've been brought to light already.

[Mr.Noßody]

So, nothing happened?

Because I haven't heard anything about this till just now.

[hodot]

Unfortunately OP was kinda stupid and now everyone in the thread that doesn't know what is going on is using the same stupid assumption.

...how was the original post stupid? I was asking whether badspot was going to participate or not.

[Comatose]

This was the first I heard about this.

[Gum]

I was away when this happened.