461–470 of 483 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This assumes you can get the wrench close enough to the admin. If they are in another country, one that is outside of your jurisdiction you'll have a hard time applying your wrench.
The wrench need only be applied to whomever tells the admin to unlock the archive. In a manner that the admin is likely to accept the request.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may think I mean straight up pedopholia involving elementary school aged children. That can happen certainly. But a 17 year old is legally still a child in many jurisdictions. A lot of men in their twenties see nothing wrong with getting involved with a 17 year old. If you are talking a dating situation, my views on that get a lot more complicated. If you are talking prostitution, a 17 year old sex worker is high…
>If you are talking prostitution, a 17 year old sex worker is highly unlikely to be there by choice. That's true for most workers of all ages.
From what I have read, even sex workers generally agree that most adult sex workers "made a choice" if they remain in the life and "it's different if they are underaged."
Among other things, I've read a few biographies by sex workers.
I would love to see sex work generally see an improved track record of human rights protections. In developed countries, child labor is generally deemed to be a bad thing, even when the work in question isn't inherently exploitative.
I stand by "raping children is a bad thing" and "underaged sex workers are victims of child rape."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how often does that happen, in real life? The answer is "not that often". The example you gave was of someone who was suspected of murder. The amount of people who are in the population of "people suspected of murder, and are jailed for not giving up their password", is a very small population size.
So as long as the government makes a pinky promise to never use their power elsewhere it's okay? Think at least a little about the future. They might be doing it now for a good cause, but how long is that going to last? There's nothing stopping them from jailing anybody who refuses to give up their password, because what's jailable is the act of not giving up your password.
I never made any claims about what is or it is not OK.
The only claim that I am making is that this whole "XKCD wrench meme" is dumb, and that encryption actually works really well for the vast majority of people in the vast majority of usecases.
That's all. Encryption works, and you are not going to be tortured, or locked up forever, because you refused the order of a low paid border guard.
Such situations are extremely rare, and it is annoying that people keep bringing them up when they basically don't happen to anyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if you took cars away from the entire population that would only account for up to 25% of the CO2 being released. So, on this small a scale it's doing almost nothing.
A 25% reduction in CO₂ is a massive undertaking the likes of which have never been attempted before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't post flamebait like this again. It's flamebait because it's both inflammatory and unsubstantive. It's like spending your last dollar to buy spoiled milk. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
You are careening dangerously close into abuse of the rules just because a position is slightly controversial, and I think you should rethink your approach to this matter. I understand that it is likely my last setence that you are talking about, and while I certainly should have worded it a bit more carefully, to have a mod jump in and then call my point "unsubstantive" reeks of abuse of power. Before you begin to t…
You've provided no basis for this claim.
> Let's get real here, stuff like this is about control, not about security, and certainly Nota about morality...
You've provided no basis for this claim.
> That's just how politicians package it so the people swallow the poison pill.
I take this as an expression rather than a claim, but still it doesn't teach us anything.
You haven't tied your point about sovereignty to the topic of discussion, and when commenters don't do that we get taken off into generic tangents.
This is not about holding controversial opinions. It's about failing to meet the standards of discourse here, and meeting them is a rather mechanical thing which all commenters are capable of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are careening dangerously close into abuse of the rules just because a position is slightly controversial, and I think you should rethink your approach to this matter. I understand that it is likely my last setence that you are talking about, and while I certainly should have worded it a bit more carefully, to have a mod jump in and then call my point "unsubstantive" reeks of abuse of power. Before you begin to t…
> Terrorism, children, drugs, or sex; all excuses used for attacking individual liberty. You've provided no basis for this claim. > Let's get real here, stuff like this is about control, not about security, and certainly Nota about morality... You've provided no basis for this claim. > That's just how politicians package it so the people swallow the poison pill. I take this as an expression rather than a claim, but s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's much easier for a policeman to demand the password to decrypt data when he has you in custody at customs than when it is searched by the mailman. You're confusing "not perfect" with "not good". There's an old saying: when outrunning a bear, you don't have to be the fastest guy, you just have to be faster than the slowest guy.
> It's much easier for a policeman to demand the password to decrypt data when he has you in custody at customs than when it is searched by the mailman. is that really true? I would expect that they can just perform hardware tampering when you're not present when searching in mailed items, but given that customs might use racial profiling to target you at airport, you may be better off mailing the computer securely,…
On what legal authority?
The border search exemption is about searching, not tampering.
The issue is more that border agents are taking advantage of a law written before the age of computers to use powers the founders probably never intended.
I seriously doubt that there's any legal basis to bug a computer just because it was shipped internationally.
So if the threat model is being asked for your password, not being present when the device crosses is a good mitigation.
(If you've done enough bad things they government is targeting you specifically, YMMV)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like, leave a private key at home and encrypt your drive with the public key before crossing the border? Yeah, at that point you are powerless to do anything until you are at home.
But what's the difference? The end result is the same: your device(s) are confiscated and they attempt to brute force the password. Telling an officer that you cannot give them the password because you did some techno-mumbo-jumbo is just going to piss them off and make them assume you have "something to hide" because "no honest person would go to those lengths".
Nothing justifies an honest person going to great lengths to do some weird thing quite like "company policy".
Nothing makes officers think twice like the mention of lawyers backed by Apple / Google levels of money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think they did this kind of invasive search? It's very weird to me that border patrol would randomly search all the images on someone's computer. This doesn't even seem like an efficient way to catch criminals. Power trip?
>Power trip? It saddens me that we think of federal governments as benign protectors of our rights. The States did not need and did not want a federal government. We feared they couldn't protect our interests. We had to be persuaded through the Bill of Rights to accept their "protection." The feds have some idealistic people within their organizations, but their stance is to utilize state-level resources for their ow…
It sounds like you're just skeptical of a powerful centralized state, and it's coming out through the lens of historical American federation/republicanism. That isn't wrong, but it's as much a history of competing factions as it is an strong intellectual basis.
You're not the only one skeptical of a powerful, centralized state. Try reading Kropotkin or Luxemburg. You might find the ideas resonate with you. Those authors have a coherent ideological basis, and suggest paths to decentralized democracy that has been realized in various forms in recent history, but is radically different to the current American government.