Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

thephonesgsm.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 276 posts

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#261

Post by bmm6o »

sliverstorm wrote: post #231
bmelton wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

in America, criminals have rights, including the right to privacy. Convicted criminals and convicted felons do not It sounds like you are rather pedantically making a distinction between criminals and convicted criminals.

You know what you call someone who hasn't been proven guilty? Innocent.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#262

Post by kijin »

bduerst wrote: post #224
whatever_dude wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Hey someone committing a crime is writing notes to each other! Quick, order all pen manufacturers to send us copies of everything people are writing!" "Sir the pen manufactures said they can't comply" "Ok that's it, stop the sales of all pens" Then everyone starts using pencils.

Seems okay if the pencil manufacturers are complying? I guess I don't get the analogy.

Pencil manufacturers can't comply, either, because their pencils are not equipped with sensors and antennas. None of the mass-market writing instruments do.

To extend the analogy, the government might order all manufacturers to build sensors and antennas into every writing instrument. That might work, until people start smuggling cheaper, foreign-made, non-spying pens into the country.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#263

Post by EGreg »

kawakiole wrote: post #260
EGreg wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I realize that. If I disagree with my government and my message cannot spread by any method other than hijacking mass media, then perhaps most people don't feel as I do. And that is super significant. Everyone is equal, and giving random people the chance to control a huge megaphone makes you LESS equal, not more. The one who gets their megaphone spreads their message more. And with great power comes great respon…

> giving random people the chance to control a huge megaphone makes you LESS equal, not more People can choose what to hear. It's not random, It's the complete opposite of random.

When it comes to mass media, they can choose the channel that they listen to from a limited number of platforms. On this channel, they hear something because a few elites made a decision to broadcast it. For example, how many Messengers are there? Apple, FOX, Telegram have a responsibility because of their reach.

Anyway you haven't addressed the downsides I posted. All you do is ignore them in favor of the upsides. I could be an anarcho capitalist and insist on the unlimited right to property, also. Saying it's a moral right and ignoring any downsides.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#264

Post by datburg »

PauloManrique wrote: post #252
ppadron wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can those numbers be 'out of place'? Just last month the state of São Paulo started to remove assassinations by the police from the official murder stats [1] to make it look like things are getting better. Also: "Between January and November in 2014, 816 people were murdered by military police officers in the state of São Paulo." - and it did not reduce crime [2] [1] http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/cotidiano/2015/11…

Do you realize we got a civil war in Brazil, where 60k people die every year?

It's the media like CNN that make my blood boil. I am not sure why Trump is in every other story on the international channel. Actual reporting does not sell.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#265

Post by datburg »

siculars wrote: post #145
kbart wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No right is absolute, and that includes the right to privacy. Criminals, for example, simply don't have it." The problem is, that by definition, you can't take away privacy from criminals without taking it away from everyone else. Especially when term criminal varies from country to country -- in this case it might be a drug lord, but i.e. in Russia it might be an opposition leader or journalist that dug too deep.

...or a gay person. Or a Jewish person. Or a Christian. Or a woman. Take your pick, somewhere on this planet it's against someone's law to be that and communicate freely.

Muslims or Arabs should be there too., unless you want to ban them!

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#266

Post by datburg »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #161
d_theorist wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of secure communication is that nobody except the sender and receiver can read it. It's not that we all agree not to read it unless we really really think the people are bad. That is not security. So, you either have secure communication systems available for everybody, and accept that the government is not always going to get what it wants, or you don't. There is no such thing as a secure system that a thi…

That would be the first system like that available to public ever. "It's not that we all agree not to read it unless we really really think the people are bad" is pretty much the definition of the secrecy of correspondence we had since pre-digital era.

I am confused because what you are saying negates your main point, no?

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#267

Post by noir-york »

sneak wrote: post #247
noir-york wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right to life is not absolute, otherwise there would be no army; nice thought, but not going to happen. Right to not be tortured is debatable No right is absolute, and there is no single hierarchy of rights. Read Isaiah Berlin's seminal Four Essays on Liberty on why.

If the right to not be tortured is debatable, why do you refuse to debate me when I assert that it is absolute?

I'd love to debate you on it, but first I need to formulate my own thoughts.

Prima facie, there may be a case for there to be an absolute right not to be tortured, but depending on the moral framework - utilitarian, say - one can make a case for allowing torture in specific circumstances. Hence, not an absolute right.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#268

Post by Kenji »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #164
Kenji wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Privacy that relies on trust in the state is no privacy at all. You are an opponent of privacy. A shame.

Society relies on trust in the state. If people have none, then you have bigger problems than police seeing your dick pictures.

Trusting in the state blindly is like waiting for fascism and totalitarianism to happen.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#269

Post by khgvljhkb »

marcosdumay wrote: post #253
khgvljhkb wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know brazilian law, but in my country (Sweden. I'm ashamed...) the Military office for Radio Communications (FRA) is recording all data crossing the border (which of course includes the data of all citizens, since the internet is borderless). They certainly do not have evidence that every citizen and every foreigner (total 7 billion people) is a pedophile, terrorist or even a jaywalker. I for one have lost an…

Well, as far the it's publicly known, Brazil does not monitor data that crosses its border, nor has implanted capacity to do so. What I don't understand is why you bring that point to a discussion about WatsApp hiding information about an specific crime.

The discussion turned into what rights a government should be able to take, and that is what I tried to reply to.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#270

Post by rlpb »

beothorn wrote: post #225
rlpb wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's my point. He said a judge's order is required for a "wiretap", but other commenters have said (and provided text) that metadata is available without a judge's order. So unless that statement is incorrect and a judge's order is actually required, the entire argument that there's a high bar to wiretap is false. He's just redefined "wiretap", that's all.

Other commenter here. The text says that any autority (autoridade policial ou administrativa -> police force or administrative power) may require that the metadata be recorded for a period of time , but access to this metadata needs the judges order. For example, if the cops starts investigating John Doe they may ask the service provider to keep metadata for a fixed period of time, stated on the Marco Civil (six mont…

That's useful, thanks.
Post reply on HN