Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations • Hacker News Board

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#211

Post by jknoepfler » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 9:01 PM UTC

whateversclever wrote: post #191

jknoepfler wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The distinction between civil and criminal law isn't terribly relevant here. You can be found liable in civil court for all of the things listed in the first two paragraphs.

Sure it's relevant. In the context of Free Speech, we're talking about freedom from persecution by the state. In the US, you can say whatever you like and you will not be prosecuted or jailed. That is simply not true in most other countries.

It isn't pertinent to the conversation re: europe. Also, it's false, you can be imprisoned for inciting violence (or taking other unlawful action) in the United States. Finally, there isn't a categorical distinction between having speech restricted by a suit brought in civil court vs in criminal court: in both cases my speech is curtailed by law.

I drew the obvious contrast with most of the rest of the world in the parent comment, I have nothing more to say there.

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#212

Post by cameronbrown » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 9:22 PM UTC

hgjbhujxgjbv wrote: post #192

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can insult the president, house, senate, justices, and all the others in government. And not only that, I can 'peacably assemble', and 'petition for a redress of grievances'. Those are all rights in the 1A alongside free speech. Compare that to: Poland, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, and Saudi Arabia.4 are European and 2 not. Yet it is a criminal charge if you do. And in Saudi Arabia, it's a terrorist c…

Please dont do it. 1A is protecting you, but they still got guys with batons, tear gas and tazers. It is not about the letter within some law but rather how it is practised, by insulting someone strong enough, law might protect you but at the end you will still finish as a begger. And, me personally, I wouldnt dare to do it in states. Actually I would rather do it in Switzerland. Or maybe even Thailand.

I disagree. This is the very thing freedom of speech protects, bar violent incitement. The great thing about the US is that FoS is not not just a law, but also a cultural tentpole. I doubt the people holding the tazers would carry out their orders in this case.

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#213

Post by shadowprofile77 » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 9:44 PM UTC

sampo wrote: post #203

shadowprofile77 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> You actually have the whole thing about the value of rigidly preserved freedoms exactly backwards in your claim about Hitler and free speech. Not my claim, it was the GP's claim and I was also disagreeing with it.

I saw that and sorry. I couldn't find his original claim again and just replied to you. Cheers

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#214

Post by biggt » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 9:57 PM UTC

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…

Me_cleaner might help with Intel's backdoor management engine

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#215

Post by lozf » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 10:56 PM UTC

epmaybe wrote: post #61

inanutshellus wrote: post #60

Naive question: This cryptography blog seems to, but... is WhatsApp really trusted as secure end-to-end encryption chat client? Colloquially, for one thing it's now owned by one of the biggest personal-data collection companies in the world, which would have little interest in owning a chat client it couldn't benefit from data-wise. For another, I read an article mentioning it was "known" that WhatsApp decrypted your…

While I don't know much about how secure the messages are in WhatsApp, it's easy to imagine other ways Facebook could harvest data from users. They could track what you tap on in the screen, or how much you scroll, or what buttons you click on. They could still use that information to serve ads effectively in the future. Like, how many people click on forwarded messages or pictures.

It stands to reason that for every WhatsApp conversation they'd have access to:

- who is communicating with whom,

- dates, times, and durations,

- method (text / voice / video),

- amount of data transferred,

- type of attachment if applicable, and

- location of each device,

along with unique device identifier, and perhaps other information.

See the Privacy International report[0] or video[1] on how much data FB glean from on other apps that merely use the Facebook SDK, each time an app that uses it it opened for a clue... how much more will they want from a service they paid billions for?

[0]: https://privacyinternational.org/report/2647/how-apps-androi...

[1]: https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9941-how_facebook_tracks_you_on_...

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#216

Post by ncmncm » Thu, Sep 26, 2019, 12:39 AM UTC

lucozade wrote: post #75

ncmncm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does not suggest, in any way, that nobody else can read all WhatsApp traffic, only that explicitly-Facebook employees can't. It would be pre-2013 naive to imagine that, now that WhatsApp traffic is no longer end-to-end encrypted, no use is being made of the change.

> now that WhatsApp traffic is no longer end-to-end encrypted I'm sorry, what?

Yes. Use Signal, or Mastodon, or WARP 1.1.1.1 if you trust that.

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#217

Post by dang » Thu, Sep 26, 2019, 4:27 AM 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.

We've banned this account as explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21078055.

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#218

Post by dang » Thu, Sep 26, 2019, 4:28 AM UTC

lostjohnny wrote: post #127

jigglesniggle wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Please don't break the site guidelines by taking a thread further into flamewar and by replying to an egregious comment instead of flagging it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#219

Post by kevintb » Thu, Sep 26, 2019, 5:18 AM UTC

Excellent article, and great blog find.

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#220

Post by bayesian_horse » Thu, Sep 26, 2019, 7:16 AM UTC

crowtoe76 wrote: post #210

bayesian_horse wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you did not want to state Epstein is innocent right? That would go counter to your prior point. And yes, conspiracy theorists don't have an accurate appreciation of how hard it is to manage projects and keep them secret.

Are you saying that conspiracies don't exist because secrets are hard to keep?

Are you implying you don't know the difference between conspiracies and conspiracy theories?

There are plenty of conspiracies, plenty of which have become known. The point is that there is a limit to the number of participants, significance and age of those that are not yet known.