>Open up government backdoors in pedo sites.
>Open up government backdoors on snuff sites
>Open up government backdoors on all the Tor downloads

Hope you've updated your browser since mid 2015.
That's when they patched a problem with the government's attempt to backdoor SSL in the 90s. You could MITM and force the browser to receive a weaker form of encryption without the browser or server knowing, then crack the weak 90s crypto.

This security hole has been around for decades, and I need to tell you exactly what it means:
It meant that any HTTPS connection in the last 10 years could be MITM'd by anyone.

This is what government backdoors do.

It's a pity from the way the government behaves that the only trustworthy people are on Facebook or Twitter. Everyone else on the internet is either a terrorist or pedophile.

What a weak fist, good luck punching a pedo with that

>>52415243
He's just seeing pedos everywhere in order to shield himself from his necro beastiality.

>>52414952
Yeah, govenment backdoors are essentially a built-in vulnerability.

And why should the government be trusted with this shit by default?

I wish this anti-encryption movement would die already. David Cameron is talking out of his tech-illiterate arse, nobody is going to outlaw encryption to save "muh children" or backdoor popular encryption because it's a fucking stupid thing to do.

He's simply using it to gain political momentum that appeals to the older, more tech-illiterate masses, because that's the Tory's target demographic; Old, scared, middle class filth that doesn't understand how technology works.

>>52415497
I get the impression that this anti-encryption thing is global.
We're entering the second encryption war.

>>52414856
>pay/threat microsoft to include a backdoor in Windows Update
>it installs together with some security fix
>Use backdoor for updated computers, use security hole for non-updated ones

>>52415529
Fear-mongering is a global tactic used by politicians. It's all hot air because governments won't want to further piss off big business. Imagine if they simply started legally requiring data collection? Imagine the implications that will have for large businesses that deal with lots of user data, they'd have to spend millions to push agenda that they don't want to enforce, and alienate their customers doing it, it will never happen.

Look at the attitudes that big businesses have towards this "issue":

http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/02/apples-tim-cook-delivers-blistering-speech-on-encryption-privacy/
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/nov/23/apple-google-microsoft-weakening-encryption-back-doors

What do these "protectors" do with the content they obtain?

>>52415808
Yeah those companies never sold out to the NSA.

Anyone trusting American information technology is a retard.

>>52415826
mostly they just lose it on the train or in a taxi.

>>52415850
>Yeah those companies never sold out to the NSA.
You don't understand how the NSA works. You either give data to the NSA, or they take it.
Apple is going the "let's make it so they can't take it" route, and google is saying the same thing.
Whether they do or not is another issue.
Google seemed to be annoyed that the NSA was taking their data, my theory is that they were annoyed because they were taking the data 'without paying'.

>>52414856
>What is the Clipper chip and why did it fail?
No, RTFM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip

blabla crypto bla tinfoil blabla 90s blalba rsa fucking snowed in dank nsa memes breh

It is and will remain a bad idea, but one crypto guy took a look at "well, lets pretend it wasn't a bad idea, how would we then do it?"

http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2015/04/how-do-we-build-encryption-backdors.html

In the event the draft bill passes, I shall not be moved. The internet is for all humanity. I will continue to develop and ship strong end-to-end encryption as if it hadn't passed, and Cameron and May can shove it up their pig-fucking, horse-faced arses if they don't like it. I have taken legal advice: if they ever served me with a warrant under the current IP Bill draft, it would be invalid and I would therefore openly publish it and mock it.

Backdoors are technologically infeasible to operate safely, utterly indefensible, and seek to undermine our freedom of opinion and the trust underpinning our modern digital world. I have said as much in the PMQs and in evidence before the committee, and I stand by that conviction.