>>34886809 (OP)
>installing the botnet
harharharhaharaharhrahrahrhra
FAGGOT

>>34886866
Dude, did you even read the post? OP is saying that it doesn't matter if you install botnets because if the NSA knows everything, what have you got to hide?

>>34886888
This, no point in trying to hide, just don't do any stupid shit online.

File: 1372333982669.jpg-(50 KB, 640x512, b.jpg)

50 KB JPG

>>34886809 (OP)
>All this asssuming you're not an ultra-secured Tails user with atleast eighteen VPNs that don't keep any logs. (Can the NSA get past that?)
Oh fuck! This is me all the way. Can we get an answer to thsi question?

>>34886809 (OP)

>In light of the NSA scandal, is there any reason to avoid using Chrome or using the virtually identical Chromium?
Chrome: Yes
Chromium: Possibly
>All this asssuming you're not an ultra-secured Tails user with atleast eighteen VPNs that don't keep any logs. (Can the NSA get past that?)
Even if you have 18 VPNs and encryption, any executable program can send unenecrypted data through your network(s). This means the websites you visit and your cookies are still subject to surveillance, even with super-paranoid measures. The only way to play it safe is to use only open source programs, because you know their exact functions.

>Also since we've established that the best thing in life (the internet) is infact botnet,
The fuck are you saying

>The fuck are you saying
Im saying that since the NSA already knows everything, is there a point in avoiding well known botnets unless you use TAILS?

>>34887184
>open
hahahahah

>>34887224
Tails is still in dev and isn't very secure. As for "NSA already knows," it's always good to follow the better late than never concept.

Your best bet at security is encryption through only open source software, because you can know exactly what they do so you know they don't have malicious features.

>>34887231
what's the joke

It's much more difficult to decrypt the data going over the wire so the easiest way for the NSA is to go for the weakest link. Using a free operating system isn't going to guarantee absolute privacy but using a botnet makes it worse when they can request data from the botmaster.

>>34887264
>open source software, because you can know exactly what they do so you know they don't have malicious features.
implying Windows shill OP knows any programming languages.

>>34887224
Did you think this through at all?
The whole damn reason that "they" can get that info is thanks to "botnets" like Chrome and Windows.

If you clean yourself up and protect your shit, it's very unlikely that they will be able to get much info from you.

>>34887279
The joke is that he's a retard who can't compile, so he assumes that even open source might be a pack of lies.

>>34887288
OP doesn't need to know any languages, just the fact that others can verify the source is still an improvement.

>>34887283
most p2p networks work in parts though, so finding a weak link only gives you part of the encrypted message, which is practically useless.

>>34887297
>The whole damn reason that "they" can get that info is thanks to "botnets" like Chrome and Windows.
I thought they consulted with IPs and phone providers. In any event I *started* this thread on Chrome so is there anypoint in switching browsers and continuing the thread from there?

>>34887317
>Chrome
>P2P

>>34886809 (OP)
You have no idea whether or not chromium is virtually identical to chrome, that's the whole problem with proprietary software

>>34887329
They did that as well.

>>34887348
YOU CAN READ THE FUCKING SOURCE CODE YOU RETARD.

>>34887336
We're talking about encryption, not chrome. Try to keep up.

>>34887359
of chrome?

>>34887359
but i can even into kompiling

>>34887384
>what is decompiling
>can't into computers

>>34887383
>implying that the closed source and potentialy dangerous Chrome is just as good as open source and super safe Chromium
>mfw *I* missed the point.
Sorry to yell

>34887348
It's basically identical, but there are a few differences; less things work in chromium, like pandora and coursera (on my current computer, though they worked fine on another). Chrome is a bit more aggressive in getting you to "sign in".

File: 1372335474786.png-(439 KB, 499x496, 1372289573902.png)

439 KB PNG

>>34887422
It's okay anon, here's some motivation

>>34887424
>>only using one arrow.
>>Making me keep track of numbers
Do you even click?

File: 1372335541575.jpg-(16 KB, 220x293, snowden.jpg)

16 KB JPG

The Snowman probably warned you about the botnet years ago anonymously
Why didn't you listen?

>>34887424
well then you obviously don't need source code in the first place to know they aren't identical
>still can't into computers

>>34887449
Have you seen the motion of tabs when you click on them? It's the same. The settings page is the same. For fucks sake even the entire window interface is the same. Javascript runs the same. It's the same fucking thing with Google branding.

>>34887584
Were not talking about features. Were talking about an invisble botnet.

>>34887629
we already know chrome is a buttnet

>>34887658
Im talking to an idiot who thinks Chrome == Chromium just because all of the feature are the same

>>34887584
That says nothing about the backend