Live data from Hacker News

Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA

blog.wikimedia.org

91–100 of 117 posts

Re: Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an obvious consequence of the action. They're not getting others' secrets. Their enemies are still getting theirs. So, their enemies will know their plans but not vice versa. Definitely not a smart way to wage war.

So you are saying the whole world is the enemy of the US, including their own population? (I never said something against spying against enemys)

They look inside the US (in theory) to find the enemies inside the US. As for the whole world, they're competition when not enemies. Many allies even use spies to get our IP, outbid us on contracts, and so on. Need a spy agency to deal with that or do similar things. They help us stay on top.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA

#93
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't just make fun of "cyber" because it sounds stupid, they also make fun of it because it is stupid. The media literally portrays the threat as Tron, when it's actually that critical systems have remotely exploitable vulnerabilities. The only real solution is to find the vulnerabilities before the bad guys do so we can close them before they're exploited. Hoarding vulnerabilities in secret is the exact oppo…

I used to think like that. But consider two things. The capabilities of the state actors are high. They cooperate with chipmakers and OS makers (or subvert or hack them). They compromise routers and hard drive firmware. Second, Kaplan's book documents multiple waves of cyber-fear in the US government; multiple US presidents starting with Reagan have tried and failed to secure our vulnerable systems. Simply put, corpo…

It doesn't matter whether offense is stronger than defense because this is not a mutually assured destruction scenario. Having offensive capabilities doesn't prevent an attack because we already have offensive capabilities -- sanctions and missiles. The problem isn't an inability to strike back, it's attribution. A hoard of vulnerabilities does nothing to solve that.

What governments actually use vulnerabilities for isn't deterrence, it's espionage and sabotage. But those goals can't justify knowingly leaving critical infrastructure vulnerable to criminals and terrorists.

> I think you have to accept that hoarding vulns is the international reality and difficult to change.

It doesn't really matter whether other people are doing it. The solution is to keep the espionage agencies on the hunt for vulnerabilities but require them to be disclosed within e.g. four weeks.

If it really is so easy for entities with state-level resources to find vulnerabilities then they'll be able to find a new one every month and continue to use it for their espionage, and at least the low-hanging fruit will be eliminated which makes it harder for criminals without state-level resources.

If there is not an endless supply of vulnerabilities then soon enough they'll have reported every existing vulnerability in commonly used software, they'll all be patched and there will be nothing for other states to hoard regardless of whether they have the same policy or not.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are saying the whole world is the enemy of the US, including their own population? (I never said something against spying against enemys)

They look inside the US (in theory) to find the enemies inside the US. As for the whole world, they're competition when not enemies. Many allies even use spies to get our IP, outbid us on contracts, and so on. Need a spy agency to deal with that or do similar things. They help us stay on top.

"They help us stay on top."

Sure, with the biggest spy agencys and the biggest military(including ready to strike killer squads) stationed around the world, US are the biggest empire and they need all that to stay the biggest empire. Logic of the powerstruggle of empires. No doubt about it.

But I was talking about the other america, the former "leader of the free world" defender of human rights etc. Which is a different thing from an empire. And people all around the world actually did and some still love the former, but an increasing number hates the latter.

So continue to think and act like an empire - and see where that leads to.

Here in germany there are allready many people thinking siding with russia and china could be a better choice, as in their opinion the US is doing more evil stuff. Even though I do not think so, the fact alone should worry you. Because at some point there will be no more US-Dominance, when the whole world turns away.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA

#96
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Stasi was able to read all mail of targets (and they had many) fifty years ago. Practically all mail crossing the border was read, which again was a lot. I'd assume addresses are scraped anyway, since they are digitized for routing already, and targeted mail being opened without leaving marks (an art existing for hundreds of years).

I wouldn't be surprised if it's possible to read mail while still sealed in an envelope. Wouldn't a sufficiently bright light and OCR be sufficient to read the average single page folded in thirds?

I imagine a terahertz imager would make short work of text on paper in a sealed envelope. Or a high-resolution IR camera, taking advantage of the emissivity difference between the ink and paper.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like it or not the "cyber" is now the term that is used

People don't just make fun of "cyber" because it sounds stupid, they also make fun of it because it is stupid. The media literally portrays the threat as Tron, when it's actually that critical systems have remotely exploitable vulnerabilities. The only real solution is to find the vulnerabilities before the bad guys do so we can close them before they're exploited. Hoarding vulnerabilities in secret is the exact oppo…

So, can you explain why 'cyber' is stupid?

Are you saying it's stupid because media can't handle the topic competently? I hope not; that's possibly the lowest bar ever set for stupidity.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA

#98
Thinking about it, it was in about 1971 that US left the gold standard, and that was partly due to government spending. Watergate came not long afterwards. This design of the economic system where the government prints money still exists today.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a hard time choosing what's the best thing to come out of the internet: WikiPedia or the Khan Academy. If you're so intent on smearing WikiPedia it would probably help you if you studied it for a bit before spouting off a bunch of nonsense in this thread. I get it: you don't like WikiPedia because they ask you for a donation. Note that you're under no obligation whatsoever to donate and that the content is you…

I agree on their impact but disagree on best ons: it's Google. They let people reliably get the content they needed. Later made great email system, cheap alternatives to Microsoft, a browser, and so on. If I need Wikipedia article, Google will put the right one on top plus other sources right below it. Google is awesome.

No, Google is large.

But without Google Wikipedia would still be around, without content sites Google wouldn't exist.

And as for email: I'd much rather have the federated system we used to have rather than the few big players that are dominating the market (I'll never give up running my own email server), cheap alternatives to Microsoft already existed (OpenOffice), and an advertising company producing a browser is just plain wrong.

Google is terrible, but we'll just have to live with it.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA

#100
post #46
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With FB you're the product, your data is milked and sold. Have fun with your "free" social network. What a poor example of what you consider the viable alternative.

learn to read, I was just responding to someone who mentioned FB, never said anything about being alternative to wikipedia, you are writing to wrong person

You've been breaking the guidelines all over the place in this thread. Please don't do this.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post reply on HN