181–190 of 276 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. This feels like some sort of inverse appeal-to-authority. "You can't be this kind of expert, therefore your assertions are false."
If you start your post with "I'm an authority" then you are inducing the appeal to authority implicitly through Priming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Incorrect. WhatsApp could not deliver what the judge requested, even if they wanted to. Messages are encrypted end to end and not kept in their servers. The Judge requested something impossible. predictably, WhatsApp and Facebook did not comply. The Judge threw a hissy fit and decided to block the service, affecting everyone who uses it (95% of the Internet users in the country). A similar thing happened years ago wh…
Banning the middleman in this communication here is kinda like banning pen and paper because people are writing notes to each other.
"Sir the pen manufactures said they can't comply"
"Ok that's it, stop the sales of all pens"
Then everyone starts using pencils.
I'm a judge in Brazil. Even tough I'd pray to not be the one that had to give such an impopular order (affecting more then 100 million Brazilians - WhatsApp is really a hit here), we have laws in this country and we must prosecute criminals. Mark's talk about privacy is, in my opinion, totally misplaced. No right is absolute, and that includes the right to privacy. Criminals, for example, simply don't have it. This i…
Incorrect. WhatsApp could not deliver what the judge requested, even if they wanted to. Messages are encrypted end to end and not kept in their servers. The Judge requested something impossible. predictably, WhatsApp and Facebook did not comply. The Judge threw a hissy fit and decided to block the service, affecting everyone who uses it (95% of the Internet users in the country). A similar thing happened years ago wh…
I'm a judge in Brazil. Even tough I'd pray to not be the one that had to give such an impopular order (affecting more then 100 million Brazilians - WhatsApp is really a hit here), we have laws in this country and we must prosecute criminals. Mark's talk about privacy is, in my opinion, totally misplaced. No right is absolute, and that includes the right to privacy. Criminals, for example, simply don't have it. This i…
This is part of the problem, in a way, and why - for example - Russia and China are developing their own versions of operating systems, so as not to have all their communications be snooped on by Microsoft and its host government's spooks. The latest Windows is a notorious privacy hog with nary a way to opt out anymore.
But notice the difference: facebook and WhatsApp are centralized by design and all traffic goes through their servers. Windows, on the other hand, is installed locally and only "phones home" as an auxiliary feature (for now). So, theoretically, once it is set up, you can install a DNS proxy between you and servers out-of-the-country and it will still work.
We need MORE open source software that anyone can install, inspect and administer. Perhaps Free software in the sense of FSF. We need this kind of software to run our social networks, on our own servers under our control. There is very little reason why messages between people in an African village or a cruise ship have to bounce halfway around the world through Facebook's satellites to its headquarters before going back. Also, a lot of document collaboration in classrooms would be faster if it used IPFS and intranets instead of Google Docs. And so forth.
Decentralize all the things! Then, the developers of the software would indeed not be bound by the law, but only the hosts. And the hosts would be small and distributed enough that only warrants issued to a specific host would be effective, and not general sniffing of all traffic on a social network!
If you want this future, we are building it: http://qbix.com/platform
I miss the days of ICQ, MSN, AIM, Yahoo, Zephyr, Gtalk, Facebook's XMPP, and all those other messengers. They had relatively open or decipherable protocols, and on almost all OSes there were at least a couple decent applications that allowed you to login to all messaging services using a single piece of software. I could even write gateways and plugins to use NLP and autoreply, encrypt messages, and all kinds of othe…
I'm a judge in Brazil. Even tough I'd pray to not be the one that had to give such an impopular order (affecting more then 100 million Brazilians - WhatsApp is really a hit here), we have laws in this country and we must prosecute criminals. Mark's talk about privacy is, in my opinion, totally misplaced. No right is absolute, and that includes the right to privacy. Criminals, for example, simply don't have it. This i…
"No right is absolute, and that includes the right to privacy. Criminals, for example, simply don't have it." You determine who is a criminal so you determine who has the right to privacy? Maybe you are a reasonable person but I think it is naive to operate under the assumption that governments/judges will always be reasonable. I think indeed that you may be spied upon when you are suspect of a crime but to force Wha…
Same goes for the right to free speech.
For example, if someone is broadcasting to 1 million people, their message should adhere to some standards. If something is really a popular message, it can be spread using "totally protected" speech to up to 1000 people at a time. I think giving a platform to ISIS and others to easily spread their mind virus and continually infect some susceptible 0.1% is irresponsible. Inciting violence on public television would have been unacceptable and regulated.
It's an economic concept known as the free rider problem. If you guarantee total protection to speech for ANY number of recipients, people and organizations will find ways to abuse it. The free tier should be limited.
Ideas replicating, on the other hand, is only limited by the amount of attention / allegiance any given person has. The only way we'll get a free rider problem there is when computers spread ideas among each other like computer viruses. And for that, we need to secure our protocols and implementations.
I'm a judge in Brazil. Your comment history says otherwise: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4167143 Seem to be a run of the mill dev to me. I'm surprised you got as many credulous responses as you did.
I believe there is a lot of evidence of autocratic regimes like Russia and China paying people to promote anti-US views. Who knows if this guy is one of them or what Stalin called a "useful idiot" but its amusing to see obvious trolling in action. Did he think no one would go through his posting history?
I'm a judge in Brazil. Even tough I'd pray to not be the one that had to give such an impopular order (affecting more then 100 million Brazilians - WhatsApp is really a hit here), we have laws in this country and we must prosecute criminals. Mark's talk about privacy is, in my opinion, totally misplaced. No right is absolute, and that includes the right to privacy. Criminals, for example, simply don't have it. This i…
> No right is absolute, and that includes the right to privacy. Criminals, for example, simply don't have it. I know nothing of Brazilian law, but in America, criminals have rights, including the right to privacy. Convicted criminals and convicted felons do not, but that is an entirely different category, and your wording seems woefully imprecise. > Do you guys think that pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers have…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anything is possible of course but what is more likely: 1. An elected Judge in Brazil also has a side business of running a marginal tourism website and the time to comment on HN 2. Someone is lying on the internet
The real question is what does it matter to you? Nothing a person says is correct just because they have the right title or label.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You reap what was sowed. Yes, what the NSA was (is!) doing is completely absurd. The net effect of that is a backlash against all information gathering by authorities and the practical effect of that is that companies will now be differentiated to greater or lesser extent by the amount of privacy their communications platforms give to ordinary citizens. This is what drives https anywhere and other such efforts. That…
First time I've read something by you I completely disagree with. "If they want to provide a communication service here, the law is clear that they must abide by judicial orders that allow wiretapping in very specific cases." I didn't the grandparent to be complaining. Simply stating that they are upholding the law of the country, which WhatsApp decided to ignore. The fact that it had massive popular adaption means W…