Live data from Hacker News

Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

jonathanmh.com

261–270 of 337 posts

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#261

Obama has a meta-point however that proponents of the absolutist position don't seem to want to face. Democracy relies on transparency. Many of the progressives who are rallying in support of absolute right to privacy are some of the same people who constantly criticize Swiss bank accounts, Cayman island financial shenanigans. But if companies were to implement the same sorts of impenetrable encryption, on every devi…

Unbreakable encryption isn't new. One-time pads have been around for a long time. Book ciphers can be impenetrable when done properly. And there's always the tried-and-true technique of simply never writing anything down, and doing everything face to face. Even if you argue that this is too difficult and you need something modern and easy to use, uncrackable encryption programs have been available for maybe two decades now.

Yet regulators seem to still be able to get the information they need. They're often nearly toothless, but that's because of politics, not technology.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#262
post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People determined to communicate without anyone hearing, e.g. to setup their tax-haven accouts-- can do it in 2000 ways." That's pretty much the argument made against any gun regulation, because pretty much anyone who wants to commit a gun crime can find a workaround. "including checking suspected bank transactions with a warrant" Assuming one is not using cryptocurrency like bitcoin to store money and make transact…

> "including checking suspected bank transactions with a warrant" > Assuming one is not using cryptocurrency like bitcoin to store money and make transactions. All transactions in Bitcoin are public. It's a public ledger that is barely pseudonymous. So, it's actually even easier for law enforcement than with banks -- you don't need to pick up the phone to investigate a transaction history.

[deleted]

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#263
post #125
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree - digital surveillance state will be gone within a decade, or twenty years at most. Already we see programs like Telegram becoming very popular (100 million users) where the opportunity for surveillance is massively reduced. Platforms are going to slowly transition towards encrypted content and data that not even service providers can decrypt (SpiderOak is a good example). The biggest holdout will be opera…

I'm not talking about the state exclusively, nor am I talking about your online activities. I'm saying you will have a camera and microphone trained on you, always. My personal AI assistant - smart but not nearly sentient - knows to highlight the most titillating segments, which I have just captioned and published for all to see (anonymously, over an encrypted connection). It's great that one's ISP doesn't know what…

> It's great that one's ISP doesn't know what porn site one is visiting,

Well.... that seems to be the way Utah is heading, with the support of anti-porn crusaders (many of whom are radical feminists - that's originally where I found this link)

http://fightthenewdrug.org/state-of-utah-makes-history-decla...

"One of the proposed directions is to see the government work with internet providers to allow pornography only on an opt-in basis."

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#264
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, good luck building your own army. My army can beat your army. As a citizen, you are expected to trust the FISA court.

That's entirely antithetical to a system of checks a balances. Distrust has always been a key part of the framework.

Which is why we don't give the Judicial branch an armed military force, and that we can impeach them.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm giving Bernie Sanders one last chance. But if he is elected and also reneges on his promises, I will probably stop caring about politics permanently. edit: Whoops! Shouldn't have revealed I'm a Bernie supporter. Forgot that HN is a libertarian paradise!

Forgot that HN is a libertarian paradise! It's funny, some threads you'd think everyone here was at least a socialist. Then in others you'd think everyone is one step short of declaring themselves sovereign citizens. I think the lizard people who run the site just flip a coin when each story is posted to decide which kind of comments it'll have.

Lizard people. I knew it. Now it all makes sense.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obama has a meta-point however that proponents of the absolutist position don't seem to want to face. Democracy relies on transparency. Many of the progressives who are rallying in support of absolute right to privacy are some of the same people who constantly criticize Swiss bank accounts, Cayman island financial shenanigans. And there's nothing preventing law enforcement to find about these by tons of other means…

"People determined to communicate without anyone hearing, e.g. to setup their tax-haven accouts-- can do it in 2000 ways." That's pretty much the argument made against any gun regulation, because pretty much anyone who wants to commit a gun crime can find a workaround. "including checking suspected bank transactions with a warrant" Assuming one is not using cryptocurrency like bitcoin to store money and make transact…

I thought it was interesting that someone in a previous thread pointed out the parallels between encryption and firearm regulation. They presented it as a point in favor of gun ownership, but it made me take a step back and look at it the other way.

My opinions haven't changed, but I'm a little more wary of the rhetoric being thrown around.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#267
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could say the same about Bernie? Or would you disagree?

Personally, I agree. He just has far lower odds in the general election.

Interestingly enough, the polls say otherwise. [0] [1]

As the Politifact piece notes, (1) it's early in the campaign; (2) Bernie is much less well known than Hillary, and his perceived negatives might become more important in the general election; and (3) polls can always be wrong. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem to be correct to say he has far worse odds against Trump than she does.

[0] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_...

[1] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/...

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#268
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, perhaps the balance we need to strike is rhetorical, not technical. I think some people in the tech world are 4th-amendment absolutists. That's not a new thing; in Cryptonomnicon there was the electromagnetic doorframe so strong that it would wipe drives passing through it. I don't know that it's a position I hold myself, but it's one I definitely respect. But we have a multi-century history of the gove…

Your message can basically be distilled into "it's absolutist but we can't let it come across that way to hurt our PR". I'm not sure trying to increase the complexity of the issue just to make it sound like the technology community doesn't see this as binary is a good solution. I think what we need to do is education people around how encryption works. If we're wishy-washy about the whole thing it may come off as som…

Not quite.

Some people on this are absolutists, and some aren't. If we could create a safe back door, some would be in favor of doing that, and some wouldn't. That's distinct from us not having a way to create a safe back door.

One problem I see us having (and I've seen this on Facebook) is that some people think that we are saying we can't create a safe back door because we don't want to. And I think they're getting that notion because of the people in the absolutist camp.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You act like his entire life hasn't been "executing a complex and demanding job"? Running a small business is hard enough, I can't even imagine running an empire. Trump has been one step ahead of every last person this entire election cycle. It's been fascinating to watch and I'm done doubting him, underestimating him, or second-guessing why he does or says anything. Now I'm simply at the point where I'm just trying…

It doesn't have to be hard to run an empire badly. A shell script that just repeats "Sell all assets and invest in SPY" would outperform Trump at running his empire, and it would have the side bonus of not being a crazy asshole.

How many people have you hired in your life?

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't have to be hard to run an empire badly. A shell script that just repeats "Sell all assets and invest in SPY" would outperform Trump at running his empire, and it would have the side bonus of not being a crazy asshole.

How many people have you hired in your life?

How is that remotely relevant?
Post reply on HN