1. Chris S Mellor's Avatar
    Why do you want your messages to be encrypted so nobody can read them?

    I'm just wanting people's honest opinions. I'm not asking how it works, just to the people who actually wants it, why they want it.

    I don't mean as in just anyone can read them, I mean like so Governments or Carriers can't read them.

    Q10 SQN100-3 on 10.3.1.1949
    01-13-15 12:44 AM
  2. Bla1ze's Avatar
    Simply because privacy is a right I am supposed to have. If I'm not supposed to have it or the government feels the rules need to be changed then it needs to be voted upon instead of just snuck in or done without my knowledge. That said, I'm not foolish either. These days I know they can tap into just about anything but I reserve my right to use the tools I feel may make it a little bit harder for them.
    David Tyler, gvs1341 and Alvin Loh like this.
    01-13-15 01:11 AM
  3. R3d13's Avatar
    It's more of a principle for me. Privacy should have been something we can take for granted and sleep knowing that we have it, but we really don't. It should have been baked into all forms of communication, but let's not kid ourselves; it's to the advantage of govs and other organizations to have plain-text communication by default. Encryption is the bandage-fix for outdated communication protocols that weren't built with security and privacy in mind.

    Imagine if your mailman and every post-office in-between gets to read your mail before it finally makes it to your house. Worse, imagine if copies of your delivery were routinely made and stored, archived, sold to the highest bidder, etc., on their way over to you before finally reaching your address. Well, that's basically what happens when we send messages to each other on our phones using conventional apps like Facebook or perform a simple search on Google, and so on.
    01-13-15 01:13 AM
  4. CrackberryQ's Avatar
    Well imagine sharing intimate thoughts, ideas, even pictures with someone, then find them the next day posted all over the Web and social media.

    Isn't exactly fun.

    So privacy is kinda important.

    Passport Powered
    01-13-15 01:16 AM
  5. Chris S Mellor's Avatar
    What if it was just encrypted so the public couldn't get hold of it but just so the people who are suppose to monitor messages can read them?

    Facebook via its messages (And Whatsapp unless the original company still actually works on it, but whatever), BlackBerry via BBM, Carriers via MMS & SMS.

    You get the idea, it's encrypted still so no one outside who controls those separate messaging services can see what is being sent.

    If it was done like this, providing the people who reads the messages have to sign something so they can't tell anyone what they have read unless it's to prevent something like murder or terrorism (which was actually why I started this thread), but only then can they report it to the correct people.

    No one actually finds out what you send, but also, everything is monitored to help prevent certain acts.

    Would you still feel that your right to privacy is breached? Or would you be happy, or rather, not really bothered if this happened?

    (I am aware some of those messaging services aren't encrypted, I was just giving examples)

    Q10 SQN100-3 on 10.3.1.1949
    01-13-15 01:31 AM
  6. R3d13's Avatar
    What if it was just encrypted so the public couldn't get hold of it but just so the people who are suppose to monitor messages can read them?
    Principle: No one is supposed to be "monitoring" our private communications. That's called mass surveillance. Where do we draw the line? Either way, the people who are "supposed to" monitor us are already doing so, and with ease. Look up Snowden. He has some interesting viewpoints on this.

    You get the idea, it's encrypted still so no one outside who controls those separate messaging services can see what is being sent.
    You mean the companies that provide the services? Like Facebook? Their core business is selling your data, which is why they offer their services for "free" to begin with. They need to be able to scan through your communications in plain-text.

    Anyways, though, I think certain organizations have enough tricks up their sleeves to bypass encryption if they really wanted to.

    As for us common folk, like the previous poster already said, wouldn't it suck if your intimate and private communications were leaked all over social media networks? No amount of "paper signing" can prevent that.
    01-13-15 02:09 AM
  7. Chris S Mellor's Avatar
    Principle: No one is supposed to be "monitoring" our private communications. That's called mass surveillance. Where do we draw the line? Either way, the people who are "supposed to" monitor us are already doing so, and with ease. Look up Snowden. He has some interesting viewpoints on this.

    You mean the companies that provide the services? Like Facebook? Their core business is selling your data, which is why they offer their services for "free" to begin with. They need to be able to scan through your communications in plain-text.

    Anyways, though, I think certain organizations have enough tricks up their sleeves to bypass encryption if they really wanted to.

    As for us common folk, like the previous poster already said, wouldn't it suck if your intimate and private communications were leaked all over social media networks? No amount of "paper signing" can prevent that.
    Just briefly looked at him on Wikipedia, I will find out more about him soon, he certainly is quite interesting. I suppose the line would be at where only the providers of the service can look and it can't be shared with anyone.

    I know pretty much whatever you upload to Facebook is sold to other people, but just a hypothetical scenario where Facebook (Or other providers) won't share your conversations and is able to monitor for crime prevention etc, so no loss of privacy since it won't be shared with anyone.

    I do understand that if what your conversations were shared, it would suck. I wouldn't want anyone looking at mine, but I honestly wouldn't mind if was doing it to prevent crime and didn't share anything that happened.

    In that idea, we would still have our privacy because no one knows we have said and everything is being monitored so various things can be prevented
    01-13-15 02:59 AM
  8. R3d13's Avatar
    Simply because privacy is a right I am supposed to have. If I'm not supposed to have it or the government feels the rules need to be changed then it needs to be voted upon instead of just snuck in or done without my knowledge. That said, I'm not foolish either. These days I know they can tap into just about anything but I reserve my right to use the tools I feel may make it a little bit harder for them.
    You mean like the way you snuck in that post edit? I saw that!!

    Anyway, just wanted to bring your post to the attention of the OP because you added some good points.
    01-13-15 03:06 AM
  9. TheBirdDog's Avatar
    ...everything is being monitored so various things can be prevented
    "Various" things can be prevented WITHOUT everything being monitored also. Just because they are monitoring it doesn't mean they will actually find what they are looking for. And it will be humans who are monitoring it, not robots. Humans like to be entertained. Humans are also slightly perverted and will inevitably abuse this ability to 'moniter' everyone's personal messages. If they happen to stumble across a naked photo of an attractive woman who was sending it to her significant other, do you really think they will quickly look away and onto the next message? Or do you think they might more realistically look at it for a few seconds to get the mental image of it saved in their mind, perhaps also sharing it with the buddy working next to them? It doesn't matter who you give the 'power' to monitor these messages, it will be abused. And not necessarily make us any safer.
    It's like taking your shoes off when you go through an airport. I highly doubt that this was ever a common place to hide explosives. It perhaps happened once. And, as far as I know they caught the guy. And this is when they weren't routinely checking people's shoes that they caught him! Since they have been checking, I don't think they have caught a single person trying to smuggle something in their shoe. The same principle applies to governing people's messages. It won't make us any safer. In fact, it will just open up other types of foul play only it won't be from the shadowy guy off the radar, it will be from the guy smiling and waving at the cameras. Who your mother thinks is such a good and honest man. They aren't looking out for the best interest of everyone, you can be sure of that. The more control they have, the less power the public has, and all the more they can keep playing the masses like sheep for benefit of their own corrupt agenda.
    Now that... was a rant. I apologize for not being sorry about it.

    Posted via my BlackBerry Passport
    01-13-15 03:19 AM
  10. muindor's Avatar
    Would you speak everything you type out loudly in a tube?

    I doubt it. I guess you want to keep your thoughts to yourself and the chat partner.

    As well as I don't want you and all others here to know what I'm thinking right now, ever thought in my life or ever will be thinking in the rest of my life, I don't want others in the world to know these thoughts. There is the border.

    My thoughts are mine, my feelings are mine. And I want to do what I want with them, which is the reason for a chat with my girlfriend for example. What I feel, what I tell her is ONLY Between us, ONLY OUR CONCERN and NOT OTHERS CONCERN. Doesn't matter if you, Obama, Merkel, or David Cameron.

    The ones who don't respect that (hint to Cameron right now) shouldn't be wondering when the world/people become more aggressive. A dog pushed into the corner against his will.....



    Z30 STA-2
    David Tyler likes this.
    01-14-15 08:10 PM
  11. David Tyler's Avatar
    I know pretty much whatever you upload to Facebook is sold to other people, but just a hypothetical scenario where Facebook (Or other providers) won't share your conversations and is able to monitor for crime prevention etc, so no loss of privacy since it won't be shared with anyone.
    Facebook does not have the legal authority to "monitor for crime." To understand the implications of your suggestion, consider this: After the 11 September attacks, people were pointing fingers at both the US CIA and FBI. Can you imagine Mark Zuckerberg being hauled before Congress to explain how he failed to warn of an imminent attack? He would rightly answer that he's in the business of selling our personal data to other corporations. If you want Facebook to "monitor for crime," Facebook would have to be a branch of the government. Please don't get any ideas...

    I do understand that if what your conversations were shared, it would suck. I wouldn't want anyone looking at mine, but I honestly wouldn't mind if was doing it to prevent crime and didn't share anything that happened.
    Back in the McCarthy era, the FBI would intercept and open mail without a warrant. Twenty years later, those actions were looked back on with horror. Instead of a letter, now it's an email; and instead of an envelope, it's encryption -- Since most people don't use encryption, anyone can read their notes, including the government; and the government is snooping around in the private communication not just of "suspicious" people, but of _everyone_. I'm NOT OK with this. I can only hope this time in US history will also be viewed with revulsion in the future. In the meanwhile, use as secure a messaging method as you can. That will _never_ mean Facebook.



    Thumb-flicked from my Z30 via CB10
    01-15-15 04:58 PM

Similar Threads

  1. Amazon inn-app purchases
    By tuxedo323 in forum Android Apps (Amazon Store & APK Files)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-13-15, 10:38 AM
  2. Charging habits for Blackberry Passport?
    By grungebetty in forum BlackBerry Passport
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-20-15, 09:47 PM
  3. QNX Logo .... the intangible that matters
    By kfh227 in forum Armchair CEO
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-13-15, 04:20 AM
  4. Display font size not apply to all apps?
    By KhalidAznawi in forum BlackBerry Passport
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-12-15, 11:46 PM
  5. You can now get a BlackBerry Passport in gold, platinum or rose gold
    By CrackBerry News in forum CrackBerry.com News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-12-15, 10:22 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD