Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations • Hacker News Board

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#121

Post by echeese » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 3:18 PM UTC

jmnicolas wrote: post #106

jasonvorhe wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's Encrypt brought TLS to the masses, browsers are bringing focus to sites still not using transport encryption, https is a signal for Google ranking. Don't be so defeatist.

I always assumed Let's Encrypt was an NSA front so that they can decrypt most of the https traffic. Remember just after the Snowden revelations all the 3 letter agencies were very worried about https adoption rising, then their concerns suddenly disappeared. However I have no idea how encryption works so maybe my hunch is stupid (I remember that the NSA impersonated a certificate authority for that purpose).

You'd need to issue a fake certificate to do a MITM attack, they wouldn't be able to decrypt existing traffic without issuing one, which would be noticed by someone watching. Key pinning would have helped with that but it was mostly used to accidentally lose your keys and lock people out of your server.

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#122

Post by Darkstryder » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 3:18 PM UTC

stiray wrote: post #87

Darkstryder wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” I find this sentence interesting because it is very specific to the American public. I am European and personally I care a lot more about privacy than free speech, and America's obsession with free speech boggles my mind. It might hav…

I am European too. But without the freedom of speech, we wouldnt be discussing this. They are both liberties and we need them both. There is no "I care more about X". We need them both as fundamental human rights.

Of course.

But free speech is not absolute, even in USA (libel laws and all that).

What I find interesting is how the threshold between the freedom of speech and the freedom of others people is set differently between US and most of Europe.

For instance you can be convicted for incitement to ethnic or racial hatred in a lot of European countries [1] while to the best of my knowledge this kind of speech is protected in the US.

Personally I am very happy with how the free speech threshold is set in France or Germany but I have no doubt it is a cultural thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial...

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#123

Post by lostmsu » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 3:18 PM UTC

jmnicolas wrote: post #106

jasonvorhe wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's Encrypt brought TLS to the masses, browsers are bringing focus to sites still not using transport encryption, https is a signal for Google ranking. Don't be so defeatist.

I always assumed Let's Encrypt was an NSA front so that they can decrypt most of the https traffic. Remember just after the Snowden revelations all the 3 letter agencies were very worried about https adoption rising, then their concerns suddenly disappeared. However I have no idea how encryption works so maybe my hunch is stupid (I remember that the NSA impersonated a certificate authority for that purpose).

I think you don't understand how certificates are created. You never have Let's Encrypt create a private key for you. You do it yourself, and LE just gives you a signed proof it acknowledged the new cert.

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#124

Post by lostjohnny » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 3:23 PM UTC

stiray wrote: post #87

Darkstryder wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” I find this sentence interesting because it is very specific to the American public. I am European and personally I care a lot more about privacy than free speech, and America's obsession with free speech boggles my mind. It might hav…

I am European too. But without the freedom of speech, we wouldnt be discussing this. They are both liberties and we need them both. There is no "I care more about X". We need them both as fundamental human rights.

You have it, but it's not pure free speech US style, everything is good because it's the constitution, like bearing arms and whatnot, you have the right to your opinions, but some opinions could lead you to jail.

Which is slightly different.

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#125

Post by lucozade » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 3:23 PM UTC

DrScientist wrote: post #73

lucozade wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is highly unlikely that Facebook can read WhatsApp messages. The reason I say that is that Zuckerberg said the couldn't, repeatedly and explicitly, to Congress. If there was any chance that they could, he would have either not said anything (the context would have allowed for that) or he would have dissembled. As he did numerous other times on other subjects. As to benefiting from WhatsApp, I'm sure they benefited…

Don't have the transcript - did he say that 'he' couldn't or that Facebook couldn't? Or that other agencies, facilitated by Facebook couldn't?

For example, he said at one point:

> No, we don’t see any of the content in WhatsApp, it’s fully encrypted

It's clear he's speaking about his company. Given Snowden, it would be monumentally stupid to make such a bare faced lie to Congress if they were reading, or facilitating the ability to read, unencrypted content.

Especially as he could have chosen not to say anything so specific. Congressman Schatz was talking about advertising. He could have just said something innocuous like: we don't have the ability to use WhatsApp content for advertising.

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#126

Post by homonculus1 » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 3:26 PM UTC

Darkstryder wrote: post #122

stiray wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am European too. But without the freedom of speech, we wouldnt be discussing this. They are both liberties and we need them both. There is no "I care more about X". We need them both as fundamental human rights.

Of course. But free speech is not absolute, even in USA (libel laws and all that). What I find interesting is how the threshold between the freedom of speech and the freedom of others people is set differently between US and most of Europe. For instance you can be convicted for incitement to ethnic or racial hatred in a lot of European countries [1] while to the best of my knowledge this kind of speech is protected i…

Who defines incitement? Who defines ethnic or racial hatred? Is it incitement of racial hatred to post a joke video of your dog performing a Nazi salute?

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#127

Post by lostjohnny » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 3:27 PM UTC

jigglesniggle wrote: post #119

Darkstryder wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” I find this sentence interesting because it is very specific to the American public. I am European and personally I care a lot more about privacy than free speech, and America's obsession with free speech boggles my mind. It might hav…

Blaming WWII on free speech is like blaming 9/11 on planes. If Europeans are too weak for freedom that is their perogative, though I do not understand it.

> If Europeans are too weak for freedom that is their perogative

We can legally drink before the age of 21 because we are able to control ourselves.

We can have sex between 14 and 16 years, because we are able to control ourselves.

We don't shoot other people in school when we are upset, because we are able to control ourselves.

Tell me more about your strength...

https://i.imgur.com/pmQWG4F.jpg

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#128

Post by lucozade » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 3:27 PM UTC

693471 wrote: post #96

lucozade wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is highly unlikely that Facebook can read WhatsApp messages. The reason I say that is that Zuckerberg said the couldn't, repeatedly and explicitly, to Congress. If there was any chance that they could, he would have either not said anything (the context would have allowed for that) or he would have dissembled. As he did numerous other times on other subjects. As to benefiting from WhatsApp, I'm sure they benefited…

If you can read your WhatsApp messages on your phone and you don't control the WhatsApp binary... then Facebook can backdoor WhatsApp to read the decrypted message.

Again, that would mean that he deliberately, explicitly and unnecessarily lied to Congress. That would pretty much require him to be an idiot. He is many things but that's not one of them.

I'm not suggesting that no-one can read them. I have no idea. I am saying that his testimony makes me very comfortable that Facebook is not because he has way more to lose from lying than from not in those circumstances.

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#129

Post by Darkstryder » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 3:30 PM UTC

homonculus1 wrote: post #126

Darkstryder wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course. But free speech is not absolute, even in USA (libel laws and all that). What I find interesting is how the threshold between the freedom of speech and the freedom of others people is set differently between US and most of Europe. For instance you can be convicted for incitement to ethnic or racial hatred in a lot of European countries [1] while to the best of my knowledge this kind of speech is protected i…

Who defines incitement? Who defines ethnic or racial hatred? Is it incitement of racial hatred to post a joke video of your dog performing a Nazi salute?

Every country's law is a bit different in that regard, but mostly : exactly like how the United States Supreme Court defines obscenity [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#130

Post by lostjohnny » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 3:31 PM UTC

homonculus1 wrote: post #126

Darkstryder wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course. But free speech is not absolute, even in USA (libel laws and all that). What I find interesting is how the threshold between the freedom of speech and the freedom of others people is set differently between US and most of Europe. For instance you can be convicted for incitement to ethnic or racial hatred in a lot of European countries [1] while to the best of my knowledge this kind of speech is protected i…

Who defines incitement? Who defines ethnic or racial hatred? Is it incitement of racial hatred to post a joke video of your dog performing a Nazi salute?

> Is it incitement of racial hatred to post a joke video of your dog performing a Nazi salute?

Why did you post it?

Because you know it's controversial and would create engagement.

If the nazi salute wasn't controversial (and rightfully considered hate crime) you would have ignored it.

BTW the first amendment does not condone hate speech.

Because even USA understands that there is a limit on everything.