It happens because Facebook's design is fundamentally flawed for the security.
How is it fundamentally flawed?
U.S. government seeks Facebook help to wiretap Messenger
101–109 of 109 posts
Re: U.S. government seeks Facebook help to wiretap Messenger
#102Re: U.S. government seeks Facebook help to wiretap Messenger
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Public Option has 75% popular support. Medicare-For-All has 59% popular support. [HR] Yet we have neither. Brexit was decided on an embarrassingly close vote: 51.9% So we have two seemingly popular things that haven't happened and one that has happened but was not so popular (but it turns out that it was more popular than was suspected by anyone beforehand). I'm afraid that is politics. If it helps, I am not a fa…
> There is no conspiracy and I don't think that it is fair to accuse your police and government of being arseholes (to put words in your mouth!) Sometimes we simply have to accept that our personal will does not always dovetail with that of the majority - that is how democracy works. To be fair though, there is also nothing wrong with getting a good rant in on HN. You've clearly never dealt with either in the US for…
Now that it isn't being influenced by an outside party, it is no longer narrowly winning.
My original point about Brexit being very close still stands and I would suggest that your Remain on 52% and Leave on 48% are still very close given the sheer pain of the separation that has become apparent since the original vote (you try listening to the news here - its bloody boring.) If you had waved say 60% Remain, I might take notice.
Re: U.S. government seeks Facebook help to wiretap Messenger
#104Easily tapped central server(s) is my nutshell theory of why rightwing extremists aren't being kicked off of Twitter. Third-party doctrine, and all that.
I honestly can't tell what groups are being banned, nor what the rules are. Isis isn't banned but random right winger is. Jimmy Dore and Kyle Kulinski have pointed out seemingly random left wingers getting banned, Sarah Jeong gets a blue check. It all seems so random and incoherent. I am genuinely lost.
You are definitely lost if you think Sarah Jeong should be sanctioned.
Re: U.S. government seeks Facebook help to wiretap Messenger
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
P2P routing is hard (nat bypass only really works on 80-90% of networks which is not good enough and Tor is unviable for mass adoption), and decentralized identifiers are generally not liked by users Other than that, it's doable. Spam protection and censorship (necessary for mobile app stores) can be distributed as opt-out blacklists. If it gets to be a huge problem then a "enter this password to add me" type thing c…
Can routing be solved through an intermediary acting like an always-on mailbox? Along the lines of http://cweb-services.com/protocols.html
Using an intermediary would make it not decentralized unfortunately :(
Re: U.S. government seeks Facebook help to wiretap Messenger
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
I honestly can't tell what groups are being banned, nor what the rules are. Isis isn't banned but random right winger is. Jimmy Dore and Kyle Kulinski have pointed out seemingly random left wingers getting banned, Sarah Jeong gets a blue check. It all seems so random and incoherent. I am genuinely lost.
You are definitely lost if you think Sarah Jeong should be sanctioned.
I don't think anyone should be censored/sanctioned. ISIS, Alex Jones, Antifa, let them all speak as far as I'm concerned. But to the extent that there are currently censorship rules in place, I genuinely do not understand them. Enforcement seems genuinely random and arbitrary.
Sarah Jeong mocks white racists, no ban, fine.
Candace Owens copy/pastes Sarah Jeong's tweets, gets banned, not fine.
A world in which Alex Jones gets banned but ISIS does not is total insanity.
To reiterate, I don't want any of the above to be banned/censored. However, in an world in which the above facts exist, I am suggesting I do not understand what the rules are at all. It seems random and arbitrary.
Re: U.S. government seeks Facebook help to wiretap Messenger
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can routing be solved through an intermediary acting like an always-on mailbox? Along the lines of http://cweb-services.com/protocols.html
Using an intermediary would make it not decentralized unfortunately :(
Intermediary is not the best word here. What if you could use a storage infrastructure to implemented a protocol for storing and retrieving packets across NAT and disconnected devices. If the role of storage is similar to the raw networks transport via ISP, then it is not more centralized than using an ISP.
Re: U.S. government seeks Facebook help to wiretap Messenger
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no conspiracy and I don't think that it is fair to accuse your police and government of being arseholes (to put words in your mouth!) Sometimes we simply have to accept that our personal will does not always dovetail with that of the majority - that is how democracy works. To be fair though, there is also nothing wrong with getting a good rant in on HN. You've clearly never dealt with either in the US for…
Now that it isn't being influenced by an outside party, it is no longer narrowly winning. My original point about Brexit being very close still stands and I would suggest that your Remain on 52% and Leave on 48% are still very close given the sheer pain of the separation that has become apparent since the original vote (you try listening to the news here - its bloody boring.) If you had waved say 60% Remain, I might…
Yeah but your statements are largely irrelevant to what I was saying. A heavily influenced vote with borderline +/-2% isn't what I was discussing.
Re: U.S. government seeks Facebook help to wiretap Messenger
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technical and legal solutions are not complementary, they're relatively unrelated. Legal rules addressing behavior are about what we "should" do. Technical rules are about what we "can" do. Technology is about implementation and enforcement, law is about what we consider to be the correct result. But the main place where law and tech come together is enforcement. For law to work at all, it has to be enforced relative…
> Technical rules are about what we "can" do. And legal is about what recourse we can seek afterwards, when we understand we've messed up the implementation and security had failed. Relying on legal protections alone is absurd. Relying on technology without any legal recourse for failures maybe somewhat less so, but still not suitable for this "real" world we live in. Not without reconsidering our approaches and atti…
> And legal is about what recourse we can seek afterwards, when we understand we've messed up the implementation and security had failed.
Not at all. Legal rules are about what we "should" do, what's right and what's wrong. However, legal rules need to be enforced to be effective. If you create a legal rule that's impossible to enforce and everyone flouts it, not only does your rule not get enforced, but it also creates doubt in the entire legal system.
So legal rules ought to consult with what's possible and impossible, but they should not be dictated by them.