Faust, this one's for you

[Cain]

Just a FYI for everyone, even talking about how to evade criminal detection techniques can be used against you as proof of intentional deception in a court of law.

[The Johnny]

I'm just messing with you, I get what you meant with a lot of what you said, you just have a terrible way of phrasing some of it.

When I get into my fan-girl/enthusiast rants, I tend to leave out the info and phrasing that sells it. Or maybe that's my problem. Maybe I'm trying to sell it too much.

I know that I'm verbose with what I say, so I try to tone it down when I can. But sometimes, that just leads to me leaving out necessary information. When you, yourself, know what you're talking about, sometimes it's hard to prioritize information correctly. It makes it even harder when you're trying to be flashy and entertaining at the same time. I just gotta work on it.

At the same time, I don't wanna just throw out the fact that you might have some good points against what I said. Or that anyone has some good points, for that matter.

Idk man you just sounded like those arm-chair gun experts... who was that guy? The resident nazi we had? That waxed on about rifles, the models and calibers which also sounds like those guys with break-in fantasies about luring the intruder then killing them in some intricate manner and getting off legally clean.

Sort of a try-hard amateur expert-non-expert.

That's all there is to it.

I always feel like that. No matter how much time I spend looking into a subject, I always feel like I've just barely scratched the surface.

On top of that, I have to worry about getting too in-depth, which can cause some readers to zone out, as well as making sure I get precise enough for those who do know what I'm talking about.

No, the verbosity and detail are fine, most of us take an interest at breaking things down and seeing how they work, but we're all civilians here that aren't experts at such things, so its just ends up being reading about crime-fiction... and im sure we're capable of  outputting our creativity to better things.

[POFP]

I'm just messing with you, I get what you meant with a lot of what you said, you just have a terrible way of phrasing some of it.

When I get into my fan-girl/enthusiast rants, I tend to leave out the info and phrasing that sells it. Or maybe that's my problem. Maybe I'm trying to sell it too much.

I know that I'm verbose with what I say, so I try to tone it down when I can. But sometimes, that just leads to me leaving out necessary information. When you, yourself, know what you're talking about, sometimes it's hard to prioritize information correctly. It makes it even harder when you're trying to be flashy and entertaining at the same time. I just gotta work on it.

At the same time, I don't wanna just throw out the fact that you might have some good points against what I said. Or that anyone has some good points, for that matter.

Idk man you just sounded like those arm-chair gun experts... who was that guy? The resident nazi we had? That waxed on about rifles, the models and calibers which also sounds like those guys with break-in fantasies about luring the intruder then killing them in some intricate manner and getting off legally clean.

Sort of a try-hard amateur expert-non-expert.

That's all there is to it.

I always feel like that. No matter how much time I spend looking into a subject, I always feel like I've just barely scratched the surface.

On top of that, I have to worry about getting too in-depth, which can cause some readers to zone out, as well as making sure I get precise enough for those who do know what I'm talking about.

No, the verbosity and detail are fine, most of us take an interest at breaking things down and seeing how they work, but we're all civilians here that aren't experts at such things, so its just ends up being reading about crime-fiction... and im sure we're capable of  outputting our creativity to better things.

Point taken. Kinda silly to point your creative effort into a field that you don't plan on working in. I never really thought of it that way.

Now I'm trying to think of a way to put the information into a format that reads like a security article. Security is what I'm interested in, mainly. I like breaking things down and seeing how things work. But sometimes, I get a little more of a rise out of the "breaking things down" part than I do the "seeing how things work" part.

I wanna be in a line of work that deals with security. Whether or not it will be about building it up (By analyzing it as it breaks down), or breaking it down for personal gain, is what I can't decide on.

Just a FYI for everyone, even talking about how to evade criminal detection techniques can be used against you as proof of intentional deception in a court of law.

I would totally be a defense lawyer if it didn't require amazing memory. Then I could get paid to use bullshit, fallacious precedents and arguments, instead of trying to be precise and accurate in debates on here for free.

[Reginald Ret]

a) Continue the debate through clarification of methodology for committing crimes - Something that appears to be morally objectionable to people on this board,

I have no moral objections against most crimes, murder is another matter though.
Wait, you meant clarification = morally objectionable. In that case my position shifts:
Clarifying methodology of doing murder I would be fine with, but teaching people how to get away with it lowers the social cost of murder thereby making it more common.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

#LIFEHACKING TIP 42069 -Murdering someone

If you want to murder someone, don't just rush out and do it. Get a job as a Crime Scene Investigator or something in Crime Lab.

With a lucrative new career as a forensic investigator you can enjoy the spoils of new found wealth and job fulfillment, this will make your initial gripe with that person seem insignificant and the need to murder redundant.

I know that for  myself, when I think I might get a hankerin' for murder, the first thing I do is spend six years working on a Master's Degree in Forensic Genetics so that I can be qualified to work in a crime lab.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm just messing with you, I get what you meant with a lot of what you said, you just have a terrible way of phrasing some of it.

When I get into my fan-girl/enthusiast rants, I tend to leave out the info and phrasing that sells it. Or maybe that's my problem. Maybe I'm trying to sell it too much.

I know that I'm verbose with what I say, so I try to tone it down when I can. But sometimes, that just leads to me leaving out necessary information. When you, yourself, know what you're talking about, sometimes it's hard to prioritize information correctly. It makes it even harder when you're trying to be flashy and entertaining at the same time. I just gotta work on it.

At the same time, I don't wanna just throw out the fact that you might have some good points against what I said. Or that anyone has some good points, for that matter.

Idk man you just sounded like those arm-chair gun experts... who was that guy? The resident nazi we had? That waxed on about rifles, the models and calibers which also sounds like those guys with break-in fantasies about luring the intruder then killing them in some intricate manner and getting off legally clean.

Sort of a try-hard amateur expert-non-expert.

That's all there is to it.

I always feel like that. No matter how much time I spend looking into a subject, I always feel like I've just barely scratched the surface.

On top of that, I have to worry about getting too in-depth, which can cause some readers to zone out, as well as making sure I get precise enough for those who do know what I'm talking about.

You can be a  murder fanboi all you want, that doesn't mean you could get away with one, or advise someone else on how to. Keep in mind that people are getting convicted (and exonerated) all the time on the basis of evidence uncovered with technologies that didn't even exist when the crime was committed.

People get away with murder all the time, it's true. Not necessarily because they planned it perfectly, though. Planning is methodical, and method is predictable.

And that's not even delving into the psychology behind being a murder fanboi, which I can only speculate might arise from a very sad sense of disempowerment and helplessness. Most people don't feel that way, and hence may tend to find your hobby creepy, juvenile, and distasteful.

[POFP]

Literally everything in there is bad advice, even the AES thing is contentious, with most people saying don't use standards the three letter agencies were involved with, the one I see that seems to be the most popular at the moment is PGP.

As far as I know, AES is still an algorithm that still gives the NSA trouble. However, I forgot to specify that AES was the best for stored data, and that communications would be more effectively hidden by some other form of encryption system. I was thinking more in the realm of efficiency and bandwidth control, though. Until I just looked it up recently, I had no idea of the flaws AES creates when dealing with communications. Also, I was not aware of PGP's popularity at the time of writing this. Admittedly, I had no idea PGP even existed. Obviously this was poor research on my part.

#LIFEHACKING TIP 42069 -Murdering someone

If you want to murder someone, don't just rush out and do it. Get a job as a Crime Scene Investigator or something in Crime Lab.

With a lucrative new career as a forensic investigator you can enjoy the spoils of new found wealth and job fulfillment, this will make your initial gripe with that person seem insignificant and the need to murder redundant.

I feel like it would be fallacious to try and say that I intended to specify that CSI would be a good official career path if you wanted to make a career out of crime and murder, not if you just wanted to get rid of one person. It would probably sound like an ass-covering through hindsight. So I'll just let you have this one.

I'm just messing with you, I get what you meant with a lot of what you said, you just have a terrible way of phrasing some of it.

When I get into my fan-girl/enthusiast rants, I tend to leave out the info and phrasing that sells it. Or maybe that's my problem. Maybe I'm trying to sell it too much.

I know that I'm verbose with what I say, so I try to tone it down when I can. But sometimes, that just leads to me leaving out necessary information. When you, yourself, know what you're talking about, sometimes it's hard to prioritize information correctly. It makes it even harder when you're trying to be flashy and entertaining at the same time. I just gotta work on it.

At the same time, I don't wanna just throw out the fact that you might have some good points against what I said. Or that anyone has some good points, for that matter.

Idk man you just sounded like those arm-chair gun experts... who was that guy? The resident nazi we had? That waxed on about rifles, the models and calibers which also sounds like those guys with break-in fantasies about luring the intruder then killing them in some intricate manner and getting off legally clean.

Sort of a try-hard amateur expert-non-expert.

That's all there is to it.

I always feel like that. No matter how much time I spend looking into a subject, I always feel like I've just barely scratched the surface.

On top of that, I have to worry about getting too in-depth, which can cause some readers to zone out, as well as making sure I get precise enough for those who do know what I'm talking about.

You can be a  murder fanboi all you want, that doesn't mean you could get away with one, or advise someone else on how to. Keep in mind that people are getting convicted (and exonerated) all the time on the basis of evidence uncovered with technologies that didn't even exist when the crime was committed.

People get away with murder all the time, it's true. Not necessarily because they planned it perfectly, though. Planning is methodical, and method is predictable.

And that's not even delving into the psychology behind being a murder fanboi, which I can only speculate might arise from a very sad sense of disempowerment and helplessness. Most people don't feel that way, and hence may tend to find your hobby creepy, juvenile, and distasteful.

I think you misunderstood where my interests and obsessions lie. It's not about killing, with me. It's about figuring out how to bypass a system that's supposed to catch you doing it or keep you from doing it. Again, my hobby is security.

Some may ask themselves, "Why be on the offensive side of security?" And others may answer "Well, without the offensive side of security, we could never build security up." And then, the natural response is, "But if it weren't for offensive security enthusiasts, or people who are on the offensive, we wouldn't need security in the first place. You're contributing to the wrong side. You're adding more soldiers to the army that's destroying what we care about."

So, why do I like it? Because I see security as a set, or system of walls and enclosures. A maze, full of dead ends and loops. It feels pretty good to break things like walls. If you haven't done it before, I suggest you try it.

You see, I can't stand limitations. I like to think there are little vulnerabilities and holes in the walls of my reality, and in the walls of the world in my reality. If I'm gonna see what's outside of my reality, I gotta break through to the outside first, or at least take a peek through the holes. When making additions to a house, do we not have to put a door or opening in to make the sure the addition is functional?

To improve, or extend life, we must first understand death. If your goal is to survive, you must be familiar with the failure to survive. Maintenance of life is achieved through security. If you don't see the flaws in the security, or understand them, then your life will be limited. I see every death as a failure in security - A sign of a vulnerability. The end-goal, of course, is to make sure every person's security is 100% voluntary. Well, actually, my goal is to make sure that my security is voluntary. Note that I don't mean 100% infallible. You can't have life without death. They are two sides of the same coin. I just want my death to be my choice. Well, mostly.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

OK, that's fair. Still a little mall-cop or wannabe-ninja from my perspective, but I will try to rein myself in.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I mean, one of my longtime close friends is a former hacker turned white hat. Security is totally a legitimate line of work. It's the armchair part that's hard to take seriously, honestly.

[POFP]

As we decided when I first came to this board, I am preachy. It has its perks. But it also has its drawbacks. One of them is that I sound like an armchair enthusiast when I've still got lots to learn. I also romanticize things that can be upsetting to the average Joe/Jane. I know that that will cause some issues in understanding, sometimes. I'm still workin on it.

Just under a year until I've been on this Earth two decades. So I feel like I've got some time to be weird as fuck. At least for a little while.

[Cain]

I think the reason many of us are eye-rolling is because we've mostly all had some practical experience of security work, or know someone who has.

Roger: cop, hired muscle.
Me: terrorism expert, occasional private security contractor
Junkenstein: works with explosives all day every day
ECH: experience on the "other side of the fence", so to speak
Faust: enough tech and programming knowledge to know about net security
NET: I think did some network maintenance style job, a while back?  not sure.
Paes: showed security flaws on some major politicians site in his country

And I'm sure I'm forgetting a few.

[Doktor Howl]

I think the reason many of us are eye-rolling is because we've mostly all had some practical experience of security work, or know someone who has.

Roger: cop, hired muscle.
Me: terrorism expert, occasional private security contractor
Junkenstein: works with explosives all day every day
ECH: experience on the "other side of the fence", so to speak
Faust: enough tech and programming knowledge to know about net security
NET: I think did some network maintenance style job, a while back?  not sure.
Paes: showed security flaws on some major politicians site in his country

And I'm sure I'm forgetting a few.

The Science Gestapo was more experience in a much smaller can.  But yeah.

[POFP]

I think the reason many of us are eye-rolling is because we've mostly all had some practical experience of security work, or know someone who has.

Roger: cop, hired muscle.
Me: terrorism expert, occasional private security contractor
Junkenstein: works with explosives all day every day
ECH: experience on the "other side of the fence", so to speak
Faust: enough tech and programming knowledge to know about net security
NET: I think did some network maintenance style job, a while back?  not sure.
Paes: showed security flaws on some major politicians site in his country

And I'm sure I'm forgetting a few.

Plenty of real-world experience that I don't have would make my views a bit far-fetched. I kinda only have an observer's perspective, if that wasn't obvious. It's all completely understandable.

[Faust]

Literally everything in there is bad advice, even the AES thing is contentious, with most people saying don't use standards the three letter agencies were involved with, the one I see that seems to be the most popular at the moment is PGP.

As far as I know, AES is still an algorithm that still gives the NSA trouble. However, I forgot to specify that AES was the best for stored data, and that communications would be more effectively hidden by some other form of encryption system. I was thinking more in the realm of efficiency and bandwidth control, though. Until I just looked it up recently, I had no idea of the flaws AES creates when dealing with communications. Also, I was not aware of PGP's popularity at the time of writing this. Admittedly, I had no idea PGP even existed. Obviously this was poor research on my part.

DES begot 3des begot AES or something like that. It is believed to still be secure, there are those who believe the believe the standard was tampered with leading to stuff like this:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2048510/nist-denies-nsa-tampering-with-encryption-standards.html

You may be correct: pgp might be more suited to email and aes for general use or something I'd have to read more on it.

[Cain]

I think the reason many of us are eye-rolling is because we've mostly all had some practical experience of security work, or know someone who has.

Roger: cop, hired muscle.
Me: terrorism expert, occasional private security contractor
Junkenstein: works with explosives all day every day
ECH: experience on the "other side of the fence", so to speak
Faust: enough tech and programming knowledge to know about net security
NET: I think did some network maintenance style job, a while back?  not sure.
Paes: showed security flaws on some major politicians site in his country

And I'm sure I'm forgetting a few.

Plenty of real-world experience that I don't have would make my views a bit far-fetched. I kinda only have an observer's perspective, if that wasn't obvious. It's all completely understandable.

No worries.  Just thought I should explain you getting the reaction you did.