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

Project Shield

jigsaw.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 116 posts

Re: Project Shield

#81

Post by wstrange »

themihai wrote: post #37

> We’ve met news organizations around the world who suffer crippling digital attacks when they publish something controversial. Good...except Google doesn't protect you from such attacks once the US gov deems it illegal. We need a safe, anonymous protocol not the network of X corporation.

Technology alone is never going to solve this problem.

IMHO, focusing on Google's actions is not productive. All large corporations need to be watched carefully, and Google is no exception, but their motives are fairly transparent.

The real culprit here is government overreach. This is the core problem that we should be focusing on.

Re: Project Shield

#82

Post by sandworm101 »

rtkwe wrote: post #70
ryanlol wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The botnet attacking Krebs could in all likelihood take down the entire Tor network.

The advertised bandwidth for the whole network is much lower than the 600+GBps that's attacking Kerbs it's a little under 200 GBps. https://metrics.torproject.org/bandwidth.html

Tor has too many friends. I dislike the trend of Tor being used to control botnets, but the upside is that an entire underworld now sees tor as an asset. Any non-state attacking Tor would make some very interesting enemies.

Re: Project Shield

#83

Post by mikeyouse »

miend wrote: post #78
kevinSuttle wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You had me nodding in agreement until the very last word. Don't ruin it.

How is it so ruinous? It's a fairly bog standard way to say "naïve", "ill-advised", and so on. Hopefully you wouldn't let the rest of the content be overshadowed or dismissed by a particular pejorative. OP still makes points worthy of discussion.

Many words were once bog-standard that are now frowned upon. I agree though, it's pretty gay that you're gypped out of calling a spade a spade by these uppity, autistic commenters..

Re: Project Shield

#84

Post by sanderjd »

miend wrote: post #78
kevinSuttle wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You had me nodding in agreement until the very last word. Don't ruin it.

How is it so ruinous? It's a fairly bog standard way to say "naïve", "ill-advised", and so on. Hopefully you wouldn't let the rest of the content be overshadowed or dismissed by a particular pejorative. OP still makes points worthy of discussion.

It was definitely bog-standard at my middle school in the 90s, but it is definitely not in my adult world of people who have learned to empathize with people and avoid pointlessly insulting them. There are plenty of better words to use for this.

Re: Project Shield

#85

Post by arjie »

tloble wrote: post #64

> 'Disrupt online radicalization and propaganda' Well, it's cute that they only mention ISIS, but the same exact means can and are being used to suppress political dissent and unpopular opinion, while google is the master of spreading consumer propaganda and spying on people. > 'End repressive censorship' The commercialization of news is the best form of censorship. You don't need to censor much when the vast majorit…

This is just paranoid ranting. Google is offering one way to protect yourself from DDoS. Without Google you could still do it.

Pointlessly contrarian criticism with a solid dose of conspiracy theory. Just vague complaints with no threat model. If you think there's a credible threat, provide a sequence of steps that could occur for that dangerous action to take place. Describe a potential PoC.

Re: Project Shield

#86

Post by tloble »

sanderjd wrote: post #84
miend wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it so ruinous? It's a fairly bog standard way to say "naïve", "ill-advised", and so on. Hopefully you wouldn't let the rest of the content be overshadowed or dismissed by a particular pejorative. OP still makes points worthy of discussion.

It was definitely bog-standard at my middle school in the 90s, but it is definitely not in my adult world of people who have learned to empathize with people and avoid pointlessly insulting them. There are plenty of better words to use for this.

much adult. how ironic that there are so many cunts trying to censor my choice of words when expressing my own opinion in this thread

Re: Project Shield

#87

Post by Bartweiss »

rudolf0 wrote: post #74
kevinSuttle wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You had me nodding in agreement until the very last word. Don't ruin it.

That's the part I took least issue with. >while google is the master of spreading consumer propaganda and spying on people. Equating automated behavioral analysis or ad targeting with willful communications-spying, like NSA does, is retarded. Yes, Google has been guilty of many invasive tactics and holds too much power right now, but claims that they're doing that to "suppress dissent and unpopular opinion" or "sprea…

I mean, if you want to go all out on the "propaganda" and "alongside the NSA" claims, don't just look at advertising. Google Ideas is pretty explicitly about political and government-linked activity. Any tech company can operate alongside the NSA (they don't have much choice), but most of them don't employ Jared Cohen and send their executives to tour Iraq's green zone.

I don't want to veer into conspiracy territory here - I absolutely think DDoS protection is a great project, and we need it no matter who it's being provided for.

But reading The New Digital Age was a creepy experience that made me stop equating Google's political standing with that of Apple or other US tech companies. It was very openly a love letter to state power in a way I haven't seen even from topical companies like Palantir.

Re: Project Shield

#88

Post by delinka »

> 'Disrupt online radicalization and propaganda'

> 'End repressive censorship'

These are at odds. One person's (politician's? corporation's?) "propaganda" is another's "Declaration of Independence." How will can you possibly tell the difference?

Re: Project Shield

#90

Post by Bartweiss »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #51
mtbcoder wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really hope ISP naming and shaming takes over, so we can make DDoS a little bit more difficult. I think naming and shaming would have little impact and whatever impact it did have would be short lived. Consumers tend to have short attention spans and zero long term memory. Take the banking/finance industry for example, were egregious, predatory and at times criminal tactics are par for the course. Banking institu…

From what I hear about the US, many people there don't even have any alternative ISP to change to... Also changing a service provider often can be a huge inconvenience for one. For instance, if I were to learn today that my ISP makes DDoS very easy and doesn't care about the issue, I'd have a choice between one or two random small providers I don't know, and two big telecom operators that are already on my "do no ISP…

It's also fairly standard to suffer 1-2 weeks of outages when changing ISP's, which is somewhere between unwelcome and prohibitive for a lot of people. Worse, even places with "competitive" markets often have only one provider giving decent speeds - 1-5 Mbps maximum is not a realistic option for a lot of uses.
Post reply on HN