Chronno S. Trigger 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (3157) comment rss

  • On the post: Hillary Clinton Wants A 'Manhattan Project' For Encryption… But Not A Back Door. That Makes No Sense

    Chronno S. Trigger ( profile ), 21 Dec, 2015 @ 11:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So you're saying that there should be one central database holding the passwords for each and every device out there? As much as there is wrong with what you're saying, there's one giant flaw that even those who don't understand encryption should be able to see:

    You're still making one central target to crack everything.

    The biggest advantage of encryption is it's decentralization. Crack one device and you don't crack everything. But with your idea, crack Google or Apple's database and you've got everything. And it wouldn't take a master hacker, all it would take is one lazy/malicious/mistaken employee.

    This, of course, assumes that the government would even allow a database like that to exist outside of their control.

    And why are we even bothering? Smart criminals will never be caught by this. ISIS has their own encryption now, drug dealers use burner phones (and they don't even bother with encryption), smart criminals would just use the not intentionally flawed software we already have. Stupid criminals already incriminate themselves. Why make everyone else less secure?

  • On the post: Hillary Clinton Wants A 'Manhattan Project' For Encryption… But Not A Back Door. That Makes No Sense

    Chronno S. Trigger ( profile ), 21 Dec, 2015 @ 10:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So, one key to unencrypt all phones of a specific manufacturer? One key that can be copied infinitely and can't be returned to the manufacturer? One key that becomes a vary large target for all hackers out there?

    Like the HDDVD encryption key? How long did that take to crack? How often does Blu-Ray have to change their encryption keys?

  • On the post: Hillary Clinton Wants A 'Manhattan Project' For Encryption… But Not A Back Door. That Makes No Sense

    Chronno S. Trigger ( profile ), 21 Dec, 2015 @ 10:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Enough strawmen to fill up a dozen fields.

    "My thoughts on this are the same as many others."

    Yeah, other trolls like Angry Dude and Avarage Joe. You're just another in a long line of people intentionally antagonizing other commenters by false accusations, insults, and dragging the discussion off topic.

    The truth has outlived those trolls, it'll outlive you.

  • On the post: Hillary Clinton Wants A 'Manhattan Project' For Encryption… But Not A Back Door. That Makes No Sense

    Chronno S. Trigger ( profile ), 21 Dec, 2015 @ 10:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Enough strawmen to fill up a dozen fields.

    "your mom, for example."

    "It's just that most commenters on Techdirt, yourself for example, are torrent addicts"

    OK, at this point this guy is most definitely a troll. He knows everything he's saying is a lie, he's just doing it to get under everyone's skin.

  • On the post: Hillary Clinton Wants A 'Manhattan Project' For Encryption… But Not A Back Door. That Makes No Sense

    Chronno S. Trigger ( profile ), 21 Dec, 2015 @ 09:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Enough strawmen to fill up a dozen fields.

    You have a bank account, right? You're an upstanding citizen (OK, I'm making an assumption there), so I'm sure you do. You are aware that if encryption is broken, you don't even have to be on the Internet to have your account information stolen? Banks use VPN encryption to transfer data between offices and other banks. Break encryption, that information is no longer secure. You suddenly find your account balance $0.

    Do you telecommute to work? Go to the doctor's office? Use a credit card? All of that stuff and far, far more rely on secure communication. Break that and everything you know falls apart around you.

    Constantly hiding under the "Copyright Infringement" banner just shows you have absolutely no idea of the horrors you're calling for.

  • On the post: Hillary Clinton Wants A 'Manhattan Project' For Encryption… But Not A Back Door. That Makes No Sense

    Chronno S. Trigger ( profile ), 21 Dec, 2015 @ 08:58am

    Re: Re: Enough strawmen to fill up a dozen fields.

    "he just doesn't want to get busted for his torrenting addiction."

    Or, you know, have his bank accounts stolen or his work passwords stolen, or any number of other things backdoors in encryption will cause.

  • On the post: Hillary Clinton Wants A 'Manhattan Project' For Encryption… But Not A Back Door. That Makes No Sense

    Chronno S. Trigger ( profile ), 21 Dec, 2015 @ 08:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Despite what anyone thinks about the government and it's trustworthyness, you keep forgetting (probably intentionally)that it's physically impossible to give the good guys a way to monitor encrypted traffic without giving the bad guys the same ability.

    If anyone brings up that point, you tend to not ever respond.

  • On the post: Hillary Clinton Wants A 'Manhattan Project' For Encryption… But Not A Back Door. That Makes No Sense

    Chronno S. Trigger ( profile ), 21 Dec, 2015 @ 08:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I can't find it and I don't remember enough detail to search for it. Can someone link this asshole the article about the court case stating the Police don't have to stand between anyone and harm?

    The government is not required to protect your ass. You're on your own.

  • On the post: Hillary Clinton Wants A 'Manhattan Project' For Encryption… But Not A Back Door. That Makes No Sense

    Chronno S. Trigger ( profile ), 21 Dec, 2015 @ 07:50am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Care to actually elaborate on your oh so unclear response?

    All telephone communication goes through one of a few central hubs, so tapping the communication securely is relatively simple.

    Encrypted communication does not go through any central hubs thus cannot be tapped into in that way. The only possible way is to create a security flaw in the encryption and thus destroy everything because you're afraid.

    And don't get the wrong idea. If these assholes get what they want, it will be found by or leaked to the wrong people and you, along with everyone else, will be harmed by it.

  • On the post: $25 Million Jury Verdict In Rightscorp Case Raises Serious Questions About Copyright Law

    Chronno S. Trigger ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2015 @ 09:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Replies to killing access on accusations & copyright math

    1) Filing? No. Fighting the actual case? Yes.

    2) You do realize that most people still only have access to one, maybe two ISPs. It can take up to three fucking weeks (perhaps even longer) to switch (assuming the second ISP even provides service where they say they do). And that's assuming the second ISP will be willing to take on the liability. If this ruling goes without a fight, that's exactly what's going to happen. You get kicked off of one ISP and no others are going to be willing to risk $25,000,000 just to get one more customer.

    Do you even read what you right?

  • On the post: After Illegally Censoring Websites For Five Years On Bogus Copyright Charges, US Gov't Quietly 'Returns' Two Domains

    Chronno S. Trigger ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2015 @ 02:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: probable cause

    OK, going with that. You're perfectly fine with being arrested, held for 5 years (without charge) all because the police never bothered to even check if I owned the car in the first place?

    That's still not how due process works.

  • On the post: After Illegally Censoring Websites For Five Years On Bogus Copyright Charges, US Gov't Quietly 'Returns' Two Domains

    Chronno S. Trigger ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2015 @ 12:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: probable cause

    "The fact that the information turned out later to be untrue"

    It didn't turn out to be untrue, it turned out to be non-existent. It would be like me claiming you stole my car, the police taking your car (keeping it for 5 years), and then it turns out that they never even bothered to ask for the paperwork showing I owned the car.

    That's not how probable cause works.

  • On the post: Mother Blames Daughter's Suicide On WiFi Allergy

    Chronno S. Trigger ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2015 @ 09:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Actually there is harm in checking. It puts credibility behind the false claims that WiFi is dangerous.

    There is 0 evidence that anyone is actually affected by WiFi. Treating it as a brand new, dangerous thing after 20 years of use (not including the decades of other types of signals) is just fear mongering.

    But, hay, your an "electronic engineer versed in electronic medical devices." Do you have any idea how much money you could get, and how much good you could do if you prove your claims? I mean, everyone here thinks the claims are full of it and have no problems being around WiFi. Imagen what would change if you put your money where your mouth is and proved it.

  • On the post: Mother Blames Daughter's Suicide On WiFi Allergy

    Chronno S. Trigger ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2015 @ 09:05am

    Re: Re:

    "You're getting beamed by much more powerful AM/FM radio signals"

    Especially AM. There's enough power on an AM radio signal that you can power a physical radio.

  • On the post: Mother Blames Daughter's Suicide On WiFi Allergy

    Chronno S. Trigger ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2015 @ 09:01am

    I get a headache every time I come to this article. I'm not kidding, I actually get a headache. But I'm smart enough to know that it's psychosomatic.

    802.11 (not all WiFi, just 802.11) was released in 1997. Does that really count as new any more?

  • On the post: FCC Makes It Clear It Thinks Some Net Neutrality Abuses Are 'Innovative' And 'Pro Competition'

    Chronno S. Trigger ( profile ), 25 Nov, 2015 @ 12:21pm

    Re: I don't see the problem with Binge On

    There is no way that T-Mobile is going to automatically down-convert any video that goes over it's network. They wouldn't pay for the hardware and bandwidth to do that. So, that means that the video provider will be forced to use T-Mobile's API (and follow their terms of use) to tell what videos need limited.

    You don't see a problem with this?

    T-Mobile isn't going to pay for the development time to add their API to the streaming service. T-Mobile isn't going to pay for testing of each and every streaming service to make sure they comply with the terms of use. And, T-Mobile is going to insist on being able to change their API at any time.

    You still don't see a problem with this?

  • On the post: German Publisher Axel Springer Just Can't Stop Suing Ad Blockers, And Attacking Its Own Readers

    Chronno S. Trigger ( profile ), 25 Nov, 2015 @ 08:41am

    Re: Adblocking

    Lots and lots of people block ads on Youtube. Somewhere between 50-90%. The only thing Google ever did in response to that was create Youtube Red.

  • On the post: Campus Police Chief Says Former Faculty Member A Threat To Public Safety Because Of A Game He Made 10 Years Ago

    Chronno S. Trigger ( profile ), 25 Nov, 2015 @ 08:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't understand your type of sarcasm

    "Although, Mr. Ledonne's behavior has not yet breached the realm of violation of our laws..."

    I really don't think anything more needs to be said. If he did in fact threaten them, then that would have "breached the realm of violation of our laws".

  • On the post: German Publisher Axel Springer Just Can't Stop Suing Ad Blockers, And Attacking Its Own Readers

    Chronno S. Trigger ( profile ), 25 Nov, 2015 @ 08:12am

    Re: Ads

    This whole "get everything for free" mentality is what caused this problem in the first place. Websites wanted more money, so they put in more ads. Advertisers wanted more money, so they made more annoying ads. Hackers wanted free money, so they made malicious ads.

    People didn't have a problem with ads at the beginning. We've been trained by TV and radio... And in magazines and movies and at ball games, on buses and milk cartons and T-shirts and bananas and written on the sky (but not in dreams) that advertisements are a thing that we should accept. It's not until they got bad that people started fighting back.

    This entitlement mentality (that's the word you're looking for) goes both ways.

  • On the post: Judge Does Mental Gymnastics To Deem Left Nut Brewing Trademark To Be Non-Offensive

    Chronno S. Trigger ( profile ), 25 Nov, 2015 @ 07:54am

    Re:

    There are two uses for "Left Nut" that I have heard. The first being the one referenced here "I would give up my left nut for..." and the second has the words "Left Nut" preceded by "Suck my". Both are in reference to one vary particular part of the male anatomy.

    Is it offensive? It's definitely vulgar, so yes, to a lot of people it is offensive. Especially the "Suck my" usage.

    But you're going to focus on the first usage, the one that's less vulgar and slightly less offensive to some. Well, it's been said that the name "Redskins" is not in reference to the ethnic slur, but to the bravery and strength of the Native Americans. So if we're still fighting against "Redskins" because of it's one offensive meaning, then we have to fight this one because of it's one offensive meaning.

    Now, to be perfectly clear, I don't think the US government should have any say on what is offensive and what isn't. For the same reason we have the First Amendment.

Next >>