Encrypt all the things!

The internet was set up by DARPA, the primary reason being to spy and predict movements of the worlds population more easily.They gave you the porn, the chance of being a Facebook star and the funny pictures of cats so you would use it as 'entertainment'
There is no such thing as encryption, only the perception of it.

You think so? Perhaps you'd like this other font of knowledge: http://www.timecube.com/

Tl,dr
Though I know someone with 3 nipples which contradicts everything

I highly recommend this documentary on the subject.
The Net: The Unabomber, LSD and the Internet [HQ FULL] - YouTube

OK, but it's pretty easy to show, with an understanding of maths, and computer science, that encryption does exist.

So given that you have that rather glaring error in your statement, you'll forgive us if we don't take the rest so seriously.

You think so? Perhaps you'd like this other font of knowledge: http://www.timecube.com/

My, how clever of you. Ha Ha

OK, but it's pretty easy to show, with an understanding of maths, and computer science, that encryption does exist.

So given that you have that rather glaring error in your statement, you'll forgive us if we don't take the rest so seriously.

'Only the perception of' Dumbass.

The internet was set up by DARPA, the primary reason being to spy and predict movements of the worlds population more easily.They gave you the porn, the chance of being a Facebook star and the funny pictures of cats so you would use it as 'entertainment'
There is no such thing as encryption, only the perception of it.

See one too many black cats today eh Neo?

'Only the perception of' Dumbass.

Obvious troll gets obviouser.

See one too many black cats today eh Neo?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

It's not my problem most people on this forum are ignorant. That's your problem. It is comical to me that people are even surprised the internet is not private.

I'm not surprised by that, but that's not what you said

Obvious troll gets obviouser.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I'm not surprised by that, but that's not what you said

It's right there 'only the perception of it.' You need to work on your grammar.

http://en.wikipediyoua.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

It's not my problem most people on this forum are ignorant. That's your problem. It is comical to me that people are even surprised the internet is not private.

Generalisations? Where?

It's comical to me you think it's my problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Adamantium.

Obvious troll gets obviouser.
.

It's right there 'only the perception of it.' You need to work on your grammar.

But you are confusing two things, the internet not being private isn't related only to encryption.

What is your point about encryption? That no method of encryption is uncrackable (probably true)? That the NSA and other agencies were envolved in the design of many of the common encryption algorithms, and as such it's a reasonable expectation that they are aware of, or design weaknesses into it (also likely). That doesn't mean that encryption doesn't exist (do you want me to encrypt a file for you, to prove that what comes out is not what comes in), or that no form of encryption is fairly secure, given a realistic amount of resources.

Unfortunately all your responses are those of a classic troll (attacking people, trying to distract the debate through pedantry, for example), and I don't believe you are actually trying to make a serious point here, and as such any attempt at serious response from me is futile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

"It's not my problem most people on this forum are ignorant. That's your problem. It is comical to me that people are even surprised the internet is not private."

I find it comical that you speak of faulty generalisation, and then carry on calling most people on this forum ignorant. Comical, but still nerg worthy.

... There is no such thing as encryption, only the perception of it.

I really enjoyed Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson, the subject of cryptography and encryption in general is a strong theme in the book.

One of his characters looked at the length of the encryption key that another was asking him to use, and then tried to calculate the others planning horizon- essentially asking "how long, given Moore's law and so forth, will it be before a 4,096 bit encryption key could be brute forced by computational means?" and came up with roughly a century before the message would be able to be decrypted by a government agency.

You think so? Perhaps you'd like this other font of knowledge: http://www.timecube.com/

What did I just read... Wtf?

An awful lot, if you read all of it... tl:dr

The internet was set up by DARPA, the primary reason being to spy and predict movements of the worlds population more easily.They gave you the porn, the chance of being a Facebook star and the funny pictures of cats so you would use it as 'entertainment'
There is no such thing as encryption, only the perception of it.

They envisioned the wide-spread use of the internet on personal computers (which hadn't been invented at the time)? If only they had capitalised on that prediction.
Movement of the population? Really, given computers were the size of rooms/cupboards at the time they didn't think that through did they?

The US government produces porn and Facebook too yeah? Why didn't they just stick with TV then which far more people have access to?

Anyway, infowars >>>

/feeding

I was a little late to this bit of news so soz if it is already discussed somewhere but http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-americans-personal-data-israel-documents http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/sep/11/nsa-israel-intelligence-memorandum-understanding-document

I was pretty uncomfortable before but now... My tinfoil hat just got a little bit tighter.

The feds pay for 60 percent of Tor’s development. Can users trust it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/06/the-feds-pays-for-60-percent-of-tors-development-can-users-trust-it/