Edward Snowden: The Internet Is Broken • Hacker News Board

Re: Edward Snowden: The Internet Is Broken

#161

Post by roywiggins » Sat, Apr 23, 2016, 7:57 PM UTC

randommodnar wrote: post #149

roywiggins wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Languages do exist with gender-neutral pronouns. Is Hungarian full of "sjw" crap? Adding a gender neutral pronoun to English isn't a crazy idea- "sibling" is a gender-neutral 20th Century invention and it fits in fine. I'm partial to "they" as the easiest option (it has a long history of being used in the singular) but constructed pronouns would work too.

Also, sibling is not a 20th century invention in gender neutrality. Sibling is an old English word meaning a kinsmen or relative. It simply saw a revival in the 20th century and had its meaning narrowed to mean only brother or sister.

You're right, but when people began to hear it again in the 20th century, they didn't think "ah, I know that word! It's Old English." It wasn't, at the beginning of the 20th Century, an English word at all.

I'm not sure reintroducing a word from a long-dead language (even if it's an antecedent to your own) is much different from just making a new word up, other than it might sound a bit better if the language is related. Words can come from anywhere; why not invent the ones you need? Laser radar quark...

Re: Edward Snowden: The Internet Is Broken

#162

Post by roywiggins » Sat, Apr 23, 2016, 8:16 PM UTC

xg15 wrote: post #136

roywiggins wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Languages do exist with gender-neutral pronouns. Is Hungarian full of "sjw" crap? Adding a gender neutral pronoun to English isn't a crazy idea- "sibling" is a gender-neutral 20th Century invention and it fits in fine. I'm partial to "they" as the easiest option (it has a long history of being used in the singular) but constructed pronouns would work too.

That might be, however languages usually evolve on their own. Simply inventing a new word and expecting that suddenly everyone understands it feels arrogant and leads to discussion derailments like this one. I would also agree that "they" is the best choice.

I would argue that languages evolve when someone needs to express a concept and reaches for a word, finds nothing, and improvises. The first person who does it always stands out, but if other people around them have the same need, the word catches on. Eventually, the perception of arrogance mellows and it becomes an ordinary word.

I don't like artificial pronouns either, they stick in my mouth and feel weird, and I'm lazy so I use they. But other people have other preferences or needs so I try to tamp down any unproductive instinctive reaction in myself- who am I to say in a hundred years we won't be using them? After all, our post-singularity AI offspring won't have the same idea of gender as we do...

Re: Edward Snowden: The Internet Is Broken

#163

Post by rwallace » Sat, Apr 23, 2016, 8:21 PM UTC

Semiapies wrote: post #111

mirimir wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they're gender-neutral pronouns: ve = she/he ver = him/her vis = hers/his I encountered them in Greg Egan's Diaspora . And yes, True Names :) An inspiration. With a decent host machine, one can run numerous Whonix instances, each with one or more personas. They can be long-term or throwaway. I do nothing at all private on smartphones. Signal and WhatsApp are cool and all, but radios are untrustable black boxes. E…

Tangentially, I prefer the Spivak pronouns sets. They feel more "natural" to me than spiking the distributions of X and V.

Personally I like David Brin's solution from the Uplift novels. Most of the things we want to say have nothing to do with sex and apply regardless of gender, so if we aren't going to let the same words double for male and gender-neutral usage, keep the traditional, simple words for the latter usage and move the former to something else. Thus, in Brin's novels, 'man' refers to any human with no implication of gender, and the words for a specifically male or female human are 'mel' and 'fem'.

Re: Edward Snowden: The Internet Is Broken

#164

Post by mirimir » Sat, Apr 23, 2016, 10:57 PM UTC

randommodnar wrote: post #147

Semiapies wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tangentially, I prefer the Spivak pronouns sets. They feel more "natural" to me than spiking the distributions of X and V.

It's definitely more natural. You'll never hear any significant number of English speakers saying bullshit like "ve, vis".

Yeah, I get that. I normally use they/them/their. But then I'm stuck in plural. That does generally flow better, but sometimes... Anyway, I used to like s/he, but there's nothing elegant for him/her and his/hers.

Edit: Oops, this was in the wrong subthread, so now I have maybe a duplicate. Damn.

Re: Edward Snowden: The Internet Is Broken

#165

Post by mirimir » Sat, Apr 23, 2016, 10:59 PM UTC

komali2 wrote: post #107

roywiggins wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Languages do exist with gender-neutral pronouns. Is Hungarian full of "sjw" crap? Adding a gender neutral pronoun to English isn't a crazy idea- "sibling" is a gender-neutral 20th Century invention and it fits in fine. I'm partial to "they" as the easiest option (it has a long history of being used in the singular) but constructed pronouns would work too.

They is the easiest, and already fully adopted, option. Why bother trying to add another?

Yeah, I get that. I normally use they/them/their. But then I'm stuck in plural. That does generally flow better, but sometimes... Anyway, I used to like s/he, but there's nothing elegant for him/her and his/hers.

Re: Edward Snowden: The Internet Is Broken

#166

Post by mirimir » Sat, Apr 23, 2016, 11:05 PM UTC

return0 wrote: post #138

roywiggins wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Languages do exist with gender-neutral pronouns. Is Hungarian full of "sjw" crap? Adding a gender neutral pronoun to English isn't a crazy idea- "sibling" is a gender-neutral 20th Century invention and it fits in fine. I'm partial to "they" as the easiest option (it has a long history of being used in the singular) but constructed pronouns would work too.

"They" has a logical connotation that it translates to "either he or she" (hence the plural). Something like "ve" seems to imply "neither he nor she" , as if, "something else". That's why it may alienate ppl.

Doesn't "they" mean more than one person, without specifying gender?

Re: Edward Snowden: The Internet Is Broken

#167

Post by uberi » Sat, Apr 23, 2016, 11:15 PM UTC

toomanythings2 wrote: post #144

eggy wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say making a move like be did brought him into laser focus, and into more contact with like-minded individuals that only amplified his knowledge and commitment. We can all grow our minds if we apply ourselves.

First, understand that he did not make a movie. Someone else did. Second, if someone makes a movie about you, that does not expand your knowledge into wide areas or into depths of world knowledge. Third, no one individual can become an expert on all things based on knowing other like-minded individuals. My point was, it seems too many of his worshipers now come to his altar asking for his opinion on all things ... an…

I think you may want to re-read the parent comment :)

Re: Edward Snowden: The Internet Is Broken

#168

Post by mirimir » Sat, Apr 23, 2016, 11:22 PM UTC

sievebrain wrote: post #152

shabble wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would assume a comprehensive system of serial number scanning at point-of-sale in order to track the movements and actually connect it with people/purchases. The technology is probably available, and it's entirely possible that ATMs could be recording serial numbers of dispensed cash and tying them to the account used, but it's (presently) deeply unrealistic that every possible (or even most) places that accept…

You're falling victim to the same trap as what Snowden is talking about. Serial numbers on bills are routinely scanned and tracked. There's a discussion here: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ou4h4/e... It's not done at the point of sale. It's done when the money is returned to the banks themselves, and when they're dispensed at ATMs. Cash doesn't circulate for long and anti-money laundering laws…

Yes, and that's problematic for mailing cash anonymously. It's not so easy to accumulate large denominations, and may attract attention. When possible, I like to mail gold. It's easy to clean, too.

Re: Edward Snowden: The Internet Is Broken

#169

Post by nickpsecurity » Sun, Apr 24, 2016, 2:52 AM UTC

deepnet wrote: post #83

nickpsecurity wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly agree with that. It's not what you said, though, which went further and is what I responded to. Stallman and FOSS fans like to go from those contributions to unsopported claims where no proprietary can have a single property of OSS. Yours implied only FOSS could've resisted a secret, US directive which was 100% untrue given existence of closed, non-US products. I preempted your likely counter by pointing out…

Fair point and well preempted. Proprietary software can offer some freedom but it does not ensure it will remain, nor does it offer the full 4 freedoms required. What you say is not technically incorrect, but practically Google, Apple & Microsoft were all secretly in NSA's PRISM. A large corporate entity is subject to state pressure in a different way than a public good. A corporation must profit, new markets must be…

"Ownership is a single point of failure."

Ownership can be a single point of failure but someone owns copyright to GPL code, too. Trick is protections in licensing. A recent conversation found that the real issue, if you get down to it, is in distribution: free distribution and network effects is strongest benefit of FOSS over proprietary, shared-source model which may have every other benefit.

"A proper security audit is only possible if one can compile that source with ones own toolchain or get the binary from a source you trust. One must test and make modifications, otherwise the binary only purports to be from exactly that source."

Realize that I said proprietary, shared source. You have the source of whatever you need. One can also do something like Wirth's Pascal/P where runtime is P-code and some I/O shims. Everything else in toolchain was compiled to it. Result was amateurs ported whole thing to 70+ architectures while having to reimplement just one, tiny part. Interesting enough, System/38 design did same thing at microcode or asm level with successful port to POWER with many apps needing no source recompile.

"So you must in the end trust the companies, and trust them to release patches promptly, not delay them at the behest of the NSA (as per Snowden)."

This problem exists for FOSS, too, so don't kid yourself. The vast majority of FOSS isn't Linux: it's barely maintained and many ignore bug reports for long periods. The average is in favor of FOSS if it's major projects vs proprietary software but individually it ranges from total shit to excellence. Totally dependent on contributors or maintainers.

"PGP and SSH are both provably secure. "

They're not due to their CVE history. They just got really good with GPG foiling NSA after years of improvements with a narrow focus for GPG. GEMSOS, PSOS, and seL4 are provably secure. World of difference in how they're built. None were created with a FOSS model.

"If a patch removes an essential feature and security is bundled with it, this is problematic. If you cannot use distributed community modifications then you are often out of luck."

" Free software forks at disagreements so everyone is happy. "

It's a risk but can be countered. The counter I did in another discussion was a shared-source license that allowed fixes, modifications, and even distribution to other customers. You perpetually keep what you licensed if you keep paying optionally with a limit on per organization charges. You and a group can do anything you want with that commercial code if you're paying. Btw, the real hacker OS was provided with some (but not enough) of those attributes with features UNIX still can't fully match:

http://www.symbolics-dks.com/Genera-why-1.htm

"cannot be taken from you by law - it is public domain."

It's actually not: it's copywritten software licensed with specific terms that enforce things on you. Public domain has no copyrights or restrictions. This is a problem or a feature of GPL vs public domain depending on who you ask. Only thing both protect almost 100% is widespread distribution which any paid model might... might... always reduce.

Re: Edward Snowden: The Internet Is Broken

#170

Post by nickpsecurity » Sun, Apr 24, 2016, 3:01 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #158

nickpsecurity wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are possibilities. As is Disqus-style moderation. Nonetheless, it's a lot of extra work with nothing to show for it and possibly dangerous to site experience. That's the problem Tor poses.

The problem isn't unique to Tor. It's anything that allows a spammer to use the same IP address as innocent people, including things that aren't exactly legal, like compromised PCs and routers. Which means blocking Tor blocks the people who follow the law but not the people who break the law. And the problem is going to get worse as a result of IPv4 address exhaustion because some ISPs are going to have to start usin…

"The problem isn't unique to Tor. It's anything that allows a spammer to use the same IP address as innocent people, including things that aren't exactly legal, like compromised PCs and routers. "

That's sort of true. It's technically true that any I.P. address might be the source of malice. Yet, Tor's I.P. addresses will steadily be the source of a ton of malice with no resolution of that problem. Quite different than what happens when someone's ISP tells them there's malware on their machine. There's also economics involved where people have to pay for those machines and are therefore more likely to use them for other, profitable activities. Probably why we see less spam from those accounts.

What remains are WiFi hotspots, libraries, etc. Apparently, they're not drowning services in hatemail and spam because they're still allowed. They could but few are complaining about them.

"And the problem is going to get worse as a result of IPv4 address exhaustion because some ISPs are going to have to start using carrier grade NAT (and some already are). "

Good call. I saw this coming. There were already talks by Ross Anderson IIRC about how critical it was for forensics to get the port number and time-stamp since CG-NAT would make I.P.'s useless. Already is in some areas.

"So the thing to show for it is that you can field test your solution prior to the day of Spam Armageddon when a spammer realizes they have a botnet with access to a million billion IPv6 addresses."

Haha. Interesting way of looking at it. I'm more worried about the routing tables, though, if IPv6 got massive surge of traffic. Never looked to see if they fixed early concerns about how well Tier 1-3 HW would handle it vs IPv4.