Live data from Hacker News

Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA

blog.wikimedia.org

101–110 of 117 posts

Re: Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA

#101
post #11

Seems like it's trendy to hate the NSA. It gets conflated with an anti-authoritarian mindset. I wish smart people would gain some perspective - I got some by reading Bamford's books and a new one by Fred Kaplan - Dark Territories, about NSAs painful move to cyber. Some key points: * All the great powers have NSA equivalents. Meaning they play offence and defense in crypto, RF, and cyber. We (USA) can impose restricti…

The NSA might have more credibility if there were some basic policy discussions about its purpose after the Cold War ended and indefinite wars on terror/drugs began.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA

#102
post #23

I'm curious, can the government use surveillance on paper mail at the large mail operators?

Yes, a picture is taken of every piece of mail sent, tracking the "metadata." Additionally, the Church committee found around 10,000 pieces of mail a year were opened and photographed by the FBI without postal service knowledge.

I'm interested; do you have a link to an article or something describing this? I'm curious about how the FBI could get access to the mail without the post office knowing.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 differ…

"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."

It seems you agree with my comment that the U.S. has need of such spy agencies but disagree with their goals or probable results of their actions. We're in the same boat on the latter.

"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. "

That shouldn't worry me. What people think is often a consequence of the media they view. I know people believed what you wrote and sometimes killed/died for it in the 1930's-1940's in Germany. We're educated about that extreme example but I don't know your current trends. I do know you also have different sides of politics with media groups focusing on each. I also know you're a huge player in exported goods. So, I can't predict anything except that Germany's choice will be significant. I do know the government wanted to be part of Five Eyes giving a lot of concessions for that. And BND is as devious externally and internally as the CIA. So, more similarities on this topic than differences except for the large scale nature of foreign involvement that American government has done. Those pricks meddle with everyone.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 j…

Your response surprises me because you're old enough to have tried to find information before major search engines for WWW existed. The process involved mostly word-of-mouth, finding obscure sources, books, consultants, academic journals, associations, and so on. As Internet grew, we got that over dial-up lines with shitty search engines. Eventually, with early Web, I had to painfully grab all this content you talk about with a handful of search engines whose strengths and weaknesses varied. Most lay people thought they sucked with many using the older methods as often as search.

Then, there was Google. Initially, it was just another tool in my meta-search toolbox. It grew to index massive number of content sites, its engine filtered bullshit a bit better, its presentation was efficient/clean, and its front-page results were better than the competition. Got to the point that lay people adopted it massively with most of them talking about how it improved their productivity, learning, and entertainment. They supplanted that on video side with YouTube. I continued to use Google to find info I needed before and during build of Wikipedia. It found the Wikipedia articles along with others that may or may not be better. Many people told me they also do what I do: just Google the topic if you're interested in a Wikipedia article since it will be on or near the top anyway.

The productivity and discovery benefits of Google were huge. They just went up with its massive market share and investments. So many people benefit from it for finding content now that they literally tell people to "Google" something instead of search for it. Wikipedia could disappear and I could find all that information through Google. Actually, Google plus Wayback Machine if I'm being totally honest. Content pages can disappear but the archive can keep them. So, Google plus Wayback Machine were most amazing things to me with one giving me everything I need to know plus other preserving everything I need or might want to know.

You think that's terrible but I say it's awesome. The problems you mention come from the market's and voters' preference rather than Google's excellence at search. Market chose to go to surveillance model. They punish most who try to free us from it. The voters chose to put corrupt people in office who would pass or strengthen IP laws benefiting the bribing few over the many. They chose temporary safety over liberty later. Different choices could've led to a very different Google (or replacement). I blame the demand side since they seem to always pull that shit.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA

#105
Given the current climate, with a foreign actor attempting to subvert our democracy, I'm more inclined to support other more obvious victims of NSA spying than Wikimedia.

This seems loosely held together - that said I do trust that our justice system will investigate it properly.

Given the climate, my feeling is anyone attempting to say our justice system is awful, or that the NSA doesn't provide any security, are witting or unwitting supporters of a foreign adversary. Unless, of course, Russia succeeds; then it's all kosher and the history books will be written as such.

If you think our justice system is terrible then please point to a country that does it better. Note I'm not talking about laws- rather, the judiciary itself.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA

#106
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, a picture is taken of every piece of mail sent, tracking the "metadata." Additionally, the Church committee found around 10,000 pieces of mail a year were opened and photographed by the FBI without postal service knowledge.

I'm interested; do you have a link to an article or something describing this? I'm curious about how the FBI could get access to the mail without the post office knowing.

Some of the details are in the "Family Jewels," finally made public in 2007. The CIA not the FBI, my mistake there, would either arrange the post to be moved to a separate room or sneak mail out in briefcases or pockets.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/collection/family-je...

Re: Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 j…

Your response surprises me because you're old enough to have tried to find information before major search engines for WWW existed. The process involved mostly word-of-mouth, finding obscure sources, books, consultants, academic journals, associations, and so on. As Internet grew, we got that over dial-up lines with shitty search engines. Eventually, with early Web, I had to painfully grab all this content you talk a…

Google search is fantastic, but it can only do what it does because other people provide the content.

Google the company is horrible.

> Market chose to go to surveillance model.

No, companies offer the surveillance model and leave consumers very little in terms of choice unless those consumers are extremely conscious of what is happening behind the scenes. I highly doubt even 10% of the HN audience (which is more knowledgeable than your average consumer in this respect) could accurately tell you what is going on behind all those walled gardens and corporate faces.

From what I've seen it isn't much good.

And that's before we get into Google by assigning a value to a link and not thinking things through destroyed the value of those links.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA

#108

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…

Wikipedia isn't camel-cased.

Glass houses: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PascalCase

Re: Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA

#109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 differ…

"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." It seems you agree with my comment that the U.S. has need of such spy agencies but disagree with their goals or probable results of their actions. We're in the same boat on the latter. "Here in germany there are…

"It seems you agree with my comment that the U.S. has need of such spy agencies but disagree with their goals or probable results of their actions."

Not quite. I said that the EMPIRE USA needs all that. But empires rule with fear under the threat of violence and the aura of knowing everything about everyone.

So I was trying a bit subtle to ask, whether you and other US-People want the USA to be an Empire - or simply the most powerful state, which uses is power to actually defend human rights and respect the sovereignty of other states and people. Such a USA other states and people would follow willingly.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your response surprises me because you're old enough to have tried to find information before major search engines for WWW existed. The process involved mostly word-of-mouth, finding obscure sources, books, consultants, academic journals, associations, and so on. As Internet grew, we got that over dial-up lines with shitty search engines. Eventually, with early Web, I had to painfully grab all this content you talk a…

Google search is fantastic, but it can only do what it does because other people provide the content. Google the company is horrible. > Market chose to go to surveillance model. No, companies offer the surveillance model and leave consumers very little in terms of choice unless those consumers are extremely conscious of what is happening behind the scenes. I highly doubt even 10% of the HN audience (which is more kno…

"No, companies offer the surveillance model and leave consumers very little in terms of choice "

You must have forgot all the paid, non-surveillance options that existed in most categories that people ignored for surveillance-driven services. Ecosystem effects also drive it: so many people on Facebook Messenger even though things like Signal are free and better UI like Threema is a buck or two. The users had a lot of choices but kept saying free and spyware until most paid options were bankrupt or acquired.

Even today, there's a lot of firms selling security or privacy on top of a widely-accepted piece of software (esp email or browsers) to maximize uptake. They barely scrape by in revenue vs most firms. Some are small ones selling that stuff at a loss since developers themselves wanted it to exist even if market didn't pay.

So, situation is much bleaker on demand side than you say. If it wasn't, those of us developing secure or private tech would be rolling in more money than ad-driven, free tech in average case. We're not but they're regularly IPOing and gettimg tens of millions during acquisition.

Post reply on HN