[Bender]

Me personally, I will use chained encoding because technically and legally that is not encryption. I am fine with drawing attention. If my adversaries wish to spend a gazillian mega-bucks to try to win the arms race of decoding my chained encoding to see my mid-wit comments and pictures of a moose then I am doing a good job. When they change the laws to prevent encoding then we move on to another technique. There are nearly infinite ways to limit communication to a group of people and evade fuzzy scans.

[palata]

Respectfully, you completely miss the point. You personally, you will still be able to use proper encryption.

It's mainstream platforms who won't be. Those platforms will be mandated to scan their own communications.

There is absolutely no reason to do this weird encoding stuff. Nobody says that it is illegal to encrypt stuff properly.

[Bender]

Well in that case I will use my silly chained encoding and their fuzzy scans of files on the mainstream platforms will have to figure out what to do with it.

For what it's worth I myself do not use these platforms. I just want to get people thinking about mitigating options. I use my own self hosted forums, chat servers, sftp servers, chan servers, voice chat servers and so on. Even then it can be useful to obfuscate text and files in the event someone is using a fondle-slab. I try to discourage fondle slabs.

[palata]

> I just want to get people thinking about mitigating options.

You should refrain from making dangerous suggestions, I think. Some people may actually need proper encryption.

[Bender]

My suggestion has always been to use PGP or OTR for individual messages or individual files. dm-crypt plain with a random cipher/hash/mode combo for filesystems using a 240 to 480 character passphrase which can also be layered and chained.

This is just an alternative if people believe they are not permitted to encrypt something. The threat vector in this topic is fuzzy scanning local and remote. ChatControl uses fuzzy scanning. Encoding can do just as good a job of mitigating fuzzy scans as any level of encryption. Even manual intervention should take a lot of effort just as much as brute forcing a simple encryption password. If we are being honest encrypted files are most often protected by a weak password and the cipher/hash are already disclosed and the key space is usually small. LUKS for example discloses cipher, hash, mode making brute force just a factor of compute power. If an app is chain-encoding and the chain is shared out of band I suspect it will take orders of magnitude more compute time to cycle through every possible combination of encoding and compression.

For fun has anyone decoded my simple message in the thread?