Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 8:02 AM UTC

ryanlol wrote: post #92

nnn wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of running Vuvuzela is dominated by bandwidth, and the paper used AWS prices to estimate the cost; purchasing IP transit directly would lead to about an order of magnitude reduction in costs (still non-trivial, of course).

Order of magnitude? 1Gbit on amazon costs 22k/month. Even an order of magnitude cheaper sounds pretty damn expensive, two orders of magnitude still isn't "cheap". It's really easy to underestimate how big of a ripoff EC2 bandwidth pricing is.

Post by tremon » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 9:45 AM UTC

gnarbarian wrote: post #220

jacalata wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course emotions are an argument. We're not Vulcans. Pretending that emotional impact is an irrelevant factor is a great way to win an argument without ever making anyone care what you said.

Thanks for the reply. I 'feel' safer with the right to carry a gun. I can feel safer when everyone has a gun. Therefore morninj's argument does in fact also apply to guns. Anyone can feel a certain way about anything, which is why it is invalid when trying to construct a logically sound objective argument. A subjective premise can not lead us all to an objective conclusion.

Post by tempodox » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 12:08 PM UTC

Bartweiss wrote: post #48

StavrosK wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but I'm kind of tired of having to fight my own government every step of the way. I'd prefer a political solution at this point.

To me, the big question is what a trustworthy political solution would look like. I see this desire raised a lot, in contexts from HN to Valley-mocking pieces on how encryption is no substitute for advocacy. I completely understand the instinct, but every incarnation of it seems to struggle with the same question. Namely: how do you know when you've won? Restrictions against collecting data on US citizens didn't prod…

Post by wodencafe » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 12:31 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #57

Bartweiss wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, the big question is what a trustworthy political solution would look like. I see this desire raised a lot, in contexts from HN to Valley-mocking pieces on how encryption is no substitute for advocacy. I completely understand the instinct, but every incarnation of it seems to struggle with the same question. Namely: how do you know when you've won? Restrictions against collecting data on US citizens didn't prod…

You never win. To use a controversial example: Who thinks abortion rights people "won" with Roe v Wade? Their opponents have been relentlessly chipping away at that "victory" ever since. When you make something a political issue, you are guaranteeing that it cannot be won with any kind of finality.

Post by lettergram » Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 12:35 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #146

ryandrake wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You never win. To use a controversial example: Who thinks abortion rights people "won" with Roe v Wade? Their opponents have been relentlessly chipping away at that "victory" ever since. When you make something a political issue, you are guaranteeing that it cannot be won with any kind of finality.

> When you make something a political issue, you are guaranteeing that it cannot be won with any kind of finality. But you also set up the infrastructure to fight the good fight forever. Which is what it takes to make democracy work, and work well. Because everything important is a political issue, whether you want it to be or not. The Superconducting Supercollider, which was as clear a piece of pure science as you c…