Anyone who wants privacy in their communications is either a paedophile or a terrorist

t. pedo

It's basic protection. The less your enemies know about you the better.

>Send a pic of the sea from your phone
>Someone sees it, he knows you're at the sea because of all the metadata
>goes into your house, steal all your stuff and kill your pet goldfish

>nothing to fear, nothing to hide
it's a form of victim blaming common in human social groups.
in tyrannical regimes, when the state police takes in some random person, people will say (and possible even think)
>Im sure he/she did something bad to deserve that
the point is to not incur the anger of the powerful entity that is behind the police-action. you want to seperate yourself as much as possible from the victim (certainly not defend it, what are you, a pedophile yourself?), while aligning your worldview with the oppressor / party in power.
it also reminds me of reaction vids to 3guys1hammer. people often assumed the old guy must have done something horrible to deserve this kind of treatment. it all falls in the "guilty until proven innocent"-thinking category

this sort of behaviour might have worked well in evolutionary contexts of small-ish human groups, but in modern society it just gives the government a pretty much free hand to do whatever.

Attached: proof_why_linux_better_windows.png (755x518, 8K)

1.) If everything is protected, even the stuff that isn't particularly sensitive, then things that are sensitive don't stand out. Since encrypted traffic all looks pretty much alike, its much harder to target sensitive communications if thats buried in terabytes of random stuff thats also encrypted.
2.) Encryption isn't programatically or computationally burdensome these days. We have good algorithms, well-written and carefully-audited libraries implementing them, and protocols that we've spent years banging into shape and removing weaknesses from. Why not use them? Sure, maybe the risk is very small that the content of my communications might be used against me later. But it's no longer difficult to protect against that risk, so why take it?
3.) Yes, the principle of the thing is a big part of it. I don't think the government, or a big corporation, has any right to demand that I communicate in a way they can read. And considering that both government and big business aren't really to be trusted, since power corrupts, I think its a good idea to proactively stick a thumb in their eye and deny them the ability to see what you're doing.

>Love affairs, business moves, trade secrets, strategies, nudes
Yeah that shit is all 'sensitive material' like i mentioned in my fucking post. But if you're not pretending to be the guy from the blacklist and messaging big black hookers on backpage why do you need secret communications? Also, what is any entity with the capabilities to intercept your non-secret communications going to want to do with the data they acquire? NSA doesn't give a fuck about your midget boy-whores unless you're an enemy of the state, in which case you deserve to get fucked over anyway.

Normal people don't view the majority of the population as 'enemies' thats some paranoid schizo shit.

If you mean the metadata from the photo then i deserve to get robbed for not being smart enough to scrub it. If you mean the comms metadata I don't think Alfonso Washington and his homies are fucking smart enough or equipped enough to be intercepting my traffic.

These points are all fair I guess but my question was more 'What does a law abiding citizen who doesn't do fucked up shit and isn't schizophrenic care about privacy?'

in germany, if you open the mail (physical, made of paper) of another person, you can actually go to prison.

privacy used to be a thing before technology eroded it

1) But why does the average normy care if they dont have sensitive data to protect?
2) Because it assists terrorists, pedos, and hostile actors in being able to evade detection, capture, or destruction that they rightly deserve and, as I mentioned in 1, doesn't provide a whole lot to the average citizen who doesn't do shady shit
3) You're right they dont have the right to demand you communicate in a way they can read, but you also dont have a right to a cellphone or a computer or an email account. All of these things are human, capitalist constructs. You can push for change but your rights aren't being infringed upon with a lack of privacy any more than the governments would be with an implementation of privacy.

>the government is my friend
>the NSA is also my friend and anyone who disagrees is a schizo :^)
have you ever considered that governments can be/become evil/immoral?

there's a saying in my country, it goes something like "a thief believed everyone to be like him." It may not translate all that well into English, but it means that people assume everyone to think in similar ways to them.
Your life is boring, meaningless and you have no sensitive data to hide. Great. Most people are not like that. And yes, it is perfectly normal to care about protecting yourself from OTHER PEOPLE, not from the NSA or whatever alphabet soup agency you come up with.

And it's not paranoia. Most professionals I know, lawyers, accountants, engineers, take a lot of care to protect their sensitive data. Because unlike a boring NEET with nothing to hide like you, good people have a lot to hide from thieves and cunts.

imagine being this much of a tool. gb2pol pls

I have, but you're deliberately ignoring the fucking point. IF THE GOVERNMENT BECAME EVIL WHAT ARE THEY GONNA DO WITH PEOPLE SHOPPING LISTS AND NUDES. NOBODY CARES ABOUT THAT SHIT. THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE VULNERABLE TO INFORMATION LEAKAGE ARE PEOPLE WITH SHIT TO HIDE, THE ONLY PEOPLE WITH SHIT TO HIDE FROM THE GOVERNMENT ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE PROBABLY VIOLATING THE FUCKING LAW

projection

nice retort faggot

Just stay the fuck away from my shit you glow in the dark cunt.

1.) everyone has sensitive data to protect. You're telling me you've never once in your whole life ever done something or said something that you didn't want someone else to know about? I don't believe that for a second.
2.) It provides protection against criminals trying to get into your bank account, corporations trying to screw you, and government agencies who think the Stasi was a role model. Those things are all more common than terrorists and pedos - and most terrorists and pedos are caught through old-fashioned police work anyway, not through intercepting communications.
3.) This is again why encryption should be ubiquitous for everything. If everything is encrypted, then the options of someone trying to violate your right to communicate privately essentially boil down to "give up" and "block all communications, everywhere, for everything". You can't just arbitrarily censor communications when you can't read even the legitimate everyday communications.

Keep your hands off of real children and your jihad in the sandbox and we wont have a problem you degenerate

Right. Projection is the word I'm looking for. Thanks. A mediocre loser with no data to protect projects that nobody will have anything to protect either and so they must be criminals if they care about cryptography

>If you mean the metadata from the photo then i deserve to get robbed for not being smart enough to scrub it
Why do you hide or delete data, pedo? after all, only a pedo or a terrorist would deny someone to see some data.
>If you mean the comms metadata I don't think Alfonso Washington and his homies are fucking smart enough or equipped enough to be intercepting my traffic.
Today, malwares are mainly SaaS, people don't know the logic behind them, they just click on a fucking button
Also,
nationalpublicsafetypartnership.org/clearinghouse/Content/ResourceDocuments/Criminal Use of Social Media.pdf

Are we talking about widespread use of encryption or protection of data privacy because they're 2 different things. The distillation of my point is this: yes I have information or conversations I wouldn't want certain people (individuals like friends family and employers) to get their hands on. However, I can very easily protect that data from those people, as they lack the capacity to actually intercept it. Anybody that has the means to intercept protected data probably doesn't care about that data itself.

>THE ONLY PEOPLE WITH SHIT TO HIDE FROM THE GOVERNMENT ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE PROBABLY VIOLATING THE FUCKING LAW
So the law is perfectly just and fair, and is always applied in a perfectly just and fair way? And it has always been that way, yes? There have never been any times anywhere where people were subjected to unjust laws that desperately needed breaking?

It is a very good thing that governments have limits on their abilities to enforce laws. I'd rather live with some crime in society than be reduced to literal slavery by a government able to enforce any law it chooses perfectly.

Link your facebook so we can see all the parties you go to and the chicks you bang then you fucking cuck bullshit asshole.I guarantee youre a fat nerd lurking on Jow Forums for a sense of community. I fuck 10s with no effort. Play in traffic you waste of breath

Attached: flat,800x800,070,f.jpg (790x800, 66K)

Because the people you want protection from are also mediocre losers like you. Try being the owner of a lab making products that make you a lot of money. Do you think you don't need cryptography? Even my uncle who has an ice cream factory has all his recipes extremely well guarded. Which makes sense because he paid a chem eng good money for them.

Sure if you're Mr. Plain you have nothing to encrypt. But Mr. Plain should refrain from talking about certain topics.

you sound mad, did i hit a nerve?

>IF THE GOVERNMENT BECAME EVIL WHAT ARE THEY GONNA DO WITH PEOPLE SHOPPING LISTS AND NUDES.
just look at totalitarian regimes in the ME you fucking sperg. they bust ppl because of their social media posts all the time.

fucking kill yourself you miserable tool

Doxing exists.

Privacy from the government is a right that doesn't need to be defended. The US, at least, is founded on the principle that someone is innocent until proven guilty. If the government has no cause to believe that you may have committed a crime, then they have no reason to surveill you. At best, mass surveillance is a presumption of guilt, simply waiting for the evidence to be found. At worst, it's intentional collection of data for population control. Beyond that, intentional backdoors for the government/law enforcement are necessarily potential vectors for malicious actors.

Privacy from corporations doesn't need to be defended, either. If someone doesn't want to be surveilled by a company, they are of course free not to use that company's service. And of course a company is free to collect information that you've agreed to let them collect. However, a company intentionally attempting to collect data on people who do not use their service is tantamount to random strangers stalking you.

you are not a perfect human being
behavioral weaknesses can be identified by applying 'big data' technologies and be used against you via social engineering in a way you would never perceive.

If your a terrorist or whatever it's probably better to keep up a normie appearance on social media and other platforms. The NSA may purposely target those that are not showing up on the botnet, which is a pretty smart way to single people out. Maybe they want you to try and hide.

This is relevant.

Attached: 1524049357171.jpg (1673x431, 355K)

>government
>government
>government
Not only can governments change (while their power remains intact or increased), but governments aren't the only ones at play here.
Why should private companies be able to read all my communications, and collect my data ? Why should lobbies or political parties I don't support be able to collect and use my personal data ?