Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations • Hacker News Board

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#161

Post by shadowprofile77 » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 4:25 PM UTC

sampo wrote: post #143

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…

> last time we in Europe experimented with unadulterated free speech, and got Hitler and WW2 as a result We also needed Americans to save us Europeans from those other Europeans.

> last time we in Europe experimented with unadulterated free speech, and got Hitler and WW2 as a result

Aside from being really smug about Europe's supposed superiority today, this comment is just factually misleading. For one thing, it wasn't "unadulterated free speech" that got Hitler into a position of dictatorial power, it was backroom politics, legal manipulation, and finally laws and a German constitution that were extremely pliant towards misuse and reinterpretation for the sake of dictatorship, with all kinds of clauses in favor of martial law, censorship and so forth that the Nazis used to powerful effect once Hitler was appointed chancellor. Had they been dealing with something more absolutist about freedoms like the U.S constitution, his road to dictatorship would have been much more difficult, chancellor or no. You actually have the whole thing about the value of rigidly preserved freedoms exactly backwards in your claim about Hitler and free speech.

In other words: Hitler's rabidly racist speeches never once won him a single electoral victory in Germany (and this even at a time when anti-semitism and racism were much more popular). The much greater damage was done by a weak constitution ridden with clauses against individual freedom, which couldn't effectively stop Hitler from becoming a dictator once he got the chancellors office.

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#162

Post by BuildTheRobots » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 4:30 PM UTC

BlueTemplar wrote: post #159

stiray wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Description of my life. I was telling people for years what is going on, not from position of daydreaming, but what I would be able to pull off. I got back everything from tin foil hat to "I have nothing to hide". Snowden changed that and I am gratefull to him for exactly that... And for one more sentance, that is a work of pure genius: “Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing…

I was actually more positive than reality, for a better "quip" - I still had a discussion where the other person pushed the "I have nothing to hide" angle as recently as last month ! And that persons' grandparents died in Auschwitz... (Thankfully, this seems to be much more rare in the "tech" circles ?)

The "I've got nothing to hide" angle terrifies me.

As one obvious example, LGBT Russians had absolutely nothing to hide, right up until the moment it was outlawed, again. Then suddenly it was extremely easy to identify and persecute.

In a world where we hold people like Willem Arondeus, Sophie Scholl or anyone else involved in hiding or exfiltrating Jews during WW2 a hero, it baffles me that the idea of "nothing to hide" even exists. The fact we've made a modern kinder-transport or even a resistance nearly technologically impossible honestly stops me sleeping.

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#163

Post by crankylinuxuser » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 4:32 PM UTC

cameronbrown wrote: post #156

lostjohnny wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he intended that unadulterated free speech is not necessarily the most important of the rights. I think freedom of the press and freedom of association come before that. In fact the first thing Mussolini did when he won the election (not without the help of violence, verbal but more importantly physical, like Hitler also did after him) was to abolish the free press and make all the other parties illegal.

1) Freedom of the press is a subset of freedom of speech. 2) Verbal 'violence' is a fallacy. It doesn't exist.

Your legal name is: $name

Your Address is: $address

Your phone is: #ph

You work at: $employer

You did X abhorrent thing (fakes picture or video with deepfakes). It would be a shame if something happened to you.

-------------------------------

That right there is indeed verbal violence, AND a call to arms to enact violence against you.

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#164

Post by jancsika » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 4:34 PM UTC

bloak wrote: post #144

cameronbrown wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libel laws aren't anti free speech at all. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences* *Unless it's from the government in which case it's absolute.

"Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences." It sounds like a quote from "Animal Farm", doesn't it? I am free to say anything I like, but if I say the wrong thing, I get punished for it. Also, "some are more equal than others".

There are a bunch of relevant passages about this in Animal Farm, but I can't seem to find them at the moment.

For example-- that famous one where the hedgehog pornography tycoon runs an add in his magazine accusing one of the pigs of having sex with his own mom, and then is cleared by a panel of pig judges who rule that parody is protected speech.

Where is that passage in Animal Farm? Maybe I don't have the details correct, but I certainly remember reading a long passage where Orwell clearly establishes that a book of satire like Animal Farm itself would be allowed in the Animal Farm universe. I thought it was such a nice touch of optimism in an otherwise dreary book. (And if I remember correctly it was a welcome respite from those long boring passages of complicated libel case law in the animal world.)

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#165

Post by NeedMoreTea » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 4:38 PM UTC

lostjohnny wrote: post #130

homonculus1 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The last time I came across someone referring to that case here on HN, I went away and read the judgement. It took the story from being surprising to a perfectly restrained, considered and reasonable verdict.

Mainly as the defendant hadn't, despite the judge's specific encouragement, bothered to submit a proper defence or explore freedom of expression. So it could only be decided purely on the breach of the law. Then there were all the surrounding circumstances of how he set this up.

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meecha...

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#166

Post by auiya » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 4:44 PM UTC

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #3

raxxorrax wrote: post #2

Isn't the practice of the NSA just plainly treason? And why would it not be?

Hypothetically, a benevolent NSA would primarily develop cryptographic security tools for the populace.

They do. https://cryptome.org/2016/01/CNSA-Suite-and-Quantum-Computin...

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#167

Post by kerkeslager » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 4:46 PM UTC

andy_ppp wrote: post #112

saalweachter wrote: post #107

The article mentions MUSCULAR, but neglected the follow-up: shortly after the leaks, Google began encrypting all of its internal traffic over its own fiber links.[0] First, it's worth pointing out that "encrypt everything in flight always" is not prohibitively expensive on modern hardware; also that your own internal network should not be viewed as an impenetrable bastion where you can let down your guard, just becau…

“Security of organisations should be done in layers” and each layer makes breaking into your (whole) organisation harder, but comes with friction for your staff.

It should be noted that your staff are a key attack vector.

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#168

Post by wefarrell » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 4:53 PM UTC

Hendrikto wrote: post #45

BlueTemplar wrote: post #41

Oh yeah : - Before Snowden, if you spoke about these issues, you were dismissed as paranoid. - After Snowden, if you dismiss these issues, you are dismissed as hopelessly naive... Oh, also - considering all this - you can bet that Intel's Management Engine has likely been backdoored by the NSA, so using Intel's processors is not recommended, especially if you're a non-US company... (industrial espionage !) https://bl…

> Before Snowden, if you spoke about these issues, you were dismissed as paranoid. I’ve been telling people for years, but nobody listened. Now everyone knows it’s true, but still nobody seems to care…

Information sharing is like entropy - it will only increase over time. We're moving towards a future where privacy is becoming an archaic concept.

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#169

Post by whateversclever » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 4:54 PM UTC

jknoepfler wrote: post #151

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…

There is absolutely no divide. The concept of a right to (almost) unrestricted freedom to criticize the government comes straight out of Western European legal norms that were in fashion around the founding of the United States, and have continued to remain in fashion since. No Western-style democracy observes a right to absolutely unrestricted freedom of speech, because it conflicts in obvious ways with other rights…

Anyone absolutely can "Yell fire in a theater" in the US, this canard has an interesting history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

You can also go on the radio and accuse your boss of whatever you like in the US as well. You might get sued by your boss in civil court, but the police will not come after you.

You can also deny the Holocaust, that the earth is round, that people have landed on the moon, or anything else. An unfortunate side effect of freedom is that other people will be allowed to say things that you dislike.

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#170

Post by kerkeslager » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 4:54 PM UTC

santoriv wrote: post #105

goto_self wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or in other words, quoting James Mickens: > My point is that security people need to get their priorities straight. The "threat model" section of a security paper resembles the script for a telenovela that was written by a paranoid schizophrenic: there are elaborate narratives and grand conspiracy theories, and there are heroes and villains with fantastic (yet oddly constrained) powers that necessitate a grinding bat…

And yet, Snowden is out of the reach of the US govt (for now).

Snowden is in a situation where it would be a PR nightmare for the US if they were to touch him. That's not the same as being out of reach.