Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The German Problem with Tor

worldofmatthew.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 131 posts

Re: The German Problem with Tor

#101

Post by jedmeyers »

terminalcommand wrote: post #16
_Microft wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's only double standards if one considers states and companies as being in the same position. A state and a company have vastly different goals. A state should care for its citizens, this includes protections against threats to public safety (terror, organized crime) and surveillance is a tool in the box for that. A company on the other hand, would have no issues fleecing people and abusing their power for profit…

In many places in the world, the government is corrupt and there is no transparency. I’d be surprised if people trust their governments in Poland, Bulgaria etc. Government officials have more power to abuse people than companies. At least Germany has an established constitutional court that can still resist the politicians to some degree. I think the american view is that governments are bad because they can be used…

> Maybe this generation in Europe trusts their government and thinks that its good.

Which is strange, since there are people alive today who's relatives were executed in camps by the democratically elected government of Germany. People who think that democratic government is somehow a panacea against tyranny are constantly being proven wrong by history. The modern example is Venezuela and the fact that Maduro's predecessor, Chávez was elected by the majority of the population.

Re: The German Problem with Tor

#102

Post by black_puppydog »

Kalium wrote: post #54
jupp0r wrote: post #14

Keep in mind that government IT jobs in Germany are almost comically underpaid. People competent enough to perform timing correlation attacks usually choose the >2x salary industry jobs. The running gag was that this is the greatest protection for citizens privacy. Unfortunately, an unintended consequence is that the government looks to shady companies like Gamma to do its job. This leads to FinFisher, which is norma…

> to be used against German law enforcement. Against, or by? I'm not trying to nitpick, just make sense of this. You imply that the German government hired Gamma to gain access to FinFisher, and then talk about it being used against German law enforcement. This seems internally inconsistent.

"By"

I'd suspect a writing/editing mistake here. But nobody is spying on our law enforcement. In fact, they seem to be so confident that anytime someone does look into their affairs for whatever reason, unconstitutional attitudes and practices just show up all over the place.

Re: The German Problem with Tor

#103

Post by black_puppydog »

gmueckl wrote: post #90
asimovfan wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If those attacks are completely negligable, was it the progressiveness and open mindedness of politicians that brought us to this point in history in terms of civil rights etc?

It was Hitler and Stalin. The Federal Republic of Germany was set up to have a constitution with very strong protections of individual freedom and democracy in response to the highjacking of the Weimar Republic constitution by the NSDAP. That state then evolved into a counterexample to German Democratic Republic while slowly gaining more and more independence from the Allied oversight that was put in place initially.…

Best example IMO: for the last ~20 years, government after government has tried to push the essentially same data retention legislation. And everytime they do pass it, it gets shot down in a court. It's not even always the same people pushing it (although Merkel was chancellor for most of that time, but she never seemed to get involved directly, not her style) but at this point it's quite clear that "the government" simply wants these laws, constitutional or not.

Re: The German Problem with Tor

#104

Post by afiori »

dabbledash wrote: post #37
afiori wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't really bring myself to agree with this view of the world. To me it sounds like saying that parents are dangerous because they can mistreat children or that employers are dangerous because they can oppress employees. Obviously those are true statements, but they are also horrible first approximations. Parents are supposed to be caregivers, employers are supposed to be source of opportunities, and governments a…

Employers will be good to you if you have bargaining power, but employees who have none are often mistreated. That is why we need a competing source of power (the government!) to regulate employers. The government, like an employer, needs to be checked by something if it isn’t going to grow abusive. Parents are somewhat different in that they tend to actually know and love their children. But even then we don’t give…

I completely agree, what I wanted to say is that in all those cases relationship work better when the basic nature of the connection is trust, not distrust. In a sense societies puts limitation on the power of governments/employers/parents so that they can be safely trusted even more (specifically so that those deserving of trust are allowed to have it), not because they are inherently untrustworthy.

Re: The German Problem with Tor

#105

Post by afiori »

pravus wrote: post #84
afiori wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't really bring myself to agree with this view of the world. To me it sounds like saying that parents are dangerous because they can mistreat children or that employers are dangerous because they can oppress employees. Obviously those are true statements, but they are also horrible first approximations. Parents are supposed to be caregivers, employers are supposed to be source of opportunities, and governments a…

There is a significant difference in the relationship between parent-to-child and The State-to-Citizen. Children mature and achieve autonomy from parental control and can escape violence if present. When am I ever allowed my autonomy from The State? According to its laws I am always subject to its rule regardless of my vote, intentions, ethics, personal values, or will. My only defense is the system itself and I have…

There are many different answer depending on the situation. For once you can leave the state. You can take a boat and live off fishing in the middle of the pacific ocean.

If what you are saying is that you want to secede your person from the state then you are as free from your state as other states are free from each other influences.

> My only defense is the system itself and I have been given good evidence to not trust its outcomes or intentions regardless of how it is advertised.

This is essentially the prisoner's dilemma; my philosophical stance is that the only way to improve the world is by mutual trust, even if that means being betrayed.

Re: The German Problem with Tor

#106

Post by afiori »

eldaisfish wrote: post #52
afiori wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't really bring myself to agree with this view of the world. To me it sounds like saying that parents are dangerous because they can mistreat children or that employers are dangerous because they can oppress employees. Obviously those are true statements, but they are also horrible first approximations. Parents are supposed to be caregivers, employers are supposed to be source of opportunities, and governments a…

the fundamental flaw in your analogy is that there is an authority above both parents and employers - the state. Who will watch the watchmen? Once the state legislates overreach into law, who will challenge them effectively?

This is only a flaw insofar as the child-protective services are effective in detecting abuse and the state is a monolithic entity.

My point is that trying to guarantee recursive watchmen does not work. It almost invites looking at that structure as a puzzle to be solved, as a game to played.

A power balance based on mutual trust and mutual responsibility is more susceptible to individual overreach, but also more stable in identifying them.

Re: The German Problem with Tor

#107

Post by afiori »

tjenkinsqs wrote: post #53
afiori wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't really bring myself to agree with this view of the world. To me it sounds like saying that parents are dangerous because they can mistreat children or that employers are dangerous because they can oppress employees. Obviously those are true statements, but they are also horrible first approximations. Parents are supposed to be caregivers, employers are supposed to be source of opportunities, and governments a…

Here is the fundamental flaw with the parent analogy: Both the government and the citizens are adults. Don't treat me like a child. Government is not supposed to keep us safe from ourselves but protect our god given freedoms. In the US the government is of the people, by the people, for the people. The other argument that people in government are smarter is laughable, at best. Government is a necessary evil, but it n…

> Government is a necessary evil

Everything is a necessary evil, if you want to see it that way.

> Government is not supposed to keep us safe from ourselves but protect our god given freedoms.

A lot of the job of the state is to keep us safe from other individuals and other states. History proved that one of the best way to do that is to respect individual freedom in a very strong way.

Personally I am not convinced that personal freedom is an end to itself, I see it as the only stable principle that is able to fuel a civil and fair society. More freedom is good only insofar as it produces healthier societies.

I think we have quite different world views on this.

Re: The German Problem with Tor

#108

Post by Tainnor »

jedmeyers wrote: post #101
terminalcommand wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many places in the world, the government is corrupt and there is no transparency. I’d be surprised if people trust their governments in Poland, Bulgaria etc. Government officials have more power to abuse people than companies. At least Germany has an established constitutional court that can still resist the politicians to some degree. I think the american view is that governments are bad because they can be used…

> Maybe this generation in Europe trusts their government and thinks that its good. Which is strange, since there are people alive today who's relatives were executed in camps by the democratically elected government of Germany. People who think that democratic government is somehow a panacea against tyranny are constantly being proven wrong by history. The modern example is Venezuela and the fact that Maduro's prede…

You can be certain that nobody in Germany has forgotten the Third Reich. The German constitution is a direct response to the experience of the collapse of the Weimar Republic and has been very carefully designed to avoid the same sorts of mistakes. There are consitutionally guaranteed, inviolable rights and principles that can never ever, legally, be changed ("Ewigkeitsklausel"). Nazi Germany can't ever happen again in any sort of legal way, nor whatever happened in Venezuela.

No system is flawless and if shit really hits the fan and somebody makes a coup, who knows what may happen, but the German system is probably the most stable in the world, so I think some amount of trust in it is not misplaced.

And the European, or at least Western European, perspective is that governments are elected and certainly more representative than any large companies that are incentivised only to maximise profit above everything, so having an oligopoly of companies dictating the rules of society is seen as a problem. This is a perspective I largely agree with.

(NB: I'm not saying you should fully trust the government, I certainly don't always do that, but I do trust that the system generally works to keep the government in check.)

Re: The German Problem with Tor

#110

Post by 1996 »

jacobush wrote: post #41
1996 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you start a problem killing hundreds and save tens, do you think we should focus on the tens?

I think they meant how somewhat organising instead of anarchy saves lives.

This bold claim requires proofs.

We have no counterfactual than anarchy in a developed country would cost lives.

We can see that the government "organization" of covid tests, messing up their official tests while forbidding private alternatives, costed lives.

Post reply on HN