Live data from Hacker News

Spy agency ducks questions about 'back doors' in tech products

reuters.com

261–270 of 272 posts

Re: Spy agency ducks questions about 'back doors' in tech products

#261
post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it were so important you’d think people would treat it as such, and yet a look at any election or referendum shows the majority simply do not. Indeed the USA, that great “exporter of democracy” has turned their right to vote into something akin to duelling religions, or sports teams. Low information voting isn’t new either. If it helps, I’d also stop the elderly from getting a vote once they’re within x years of t…

I agree that low information voting is problematic. But don't use that as an excuse to disenfranchise the poor. Poor people are often better informed the richer people.

>Poor people are often better informed the richer people.

I wouldn't be surprised, but I'm still going to ask for some proof to the above?

Re: Spy agency ducks questions about 'back doors' in tech products

#262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well i can't disagree with people having opinions, only with their opinions, and even that might be a useless endeavor. I disagree with the "the internet is like outside", the "the internet is like a tribal village" and with the "corporations are like people" metaphors. But to answer your question: I believe that the constitution must limit the data, which government agencies and private corporations can legally aggr…

I think you'll have more constructive conversations on this topic if, instead of disagreeing with an analogy wholesale, you seem to understand _the ways in which it is accurate_ and then respond to those. Yes, of course, the internet is not outside. It's an analogy that illustrates a broader point, that what you consider a reasonable expectation of privacy looks to others like tin foil hat wearing. The truth is, desp…

I think the analogies are faulty. The anthropomorphism is used to argue that companies should be allowed to harvest data on a massive scale, because you can not reasonably expect your neighbor not to look out of the window. I find that ridiculous and reject the argument. It also paints a romanticized picture that makes people emphasize with an abstract inhumane entity as if its brand was a person within ones social circle, and that is biased by design. That can be seen when i try to explain the data harvest by some such corporations within the limits of the analogy: my counter example requires metaphors you find absurd and which you describe as "tin foil hatty", because they don't normally happen outside in villages - yet you probably have an extension in your browser that blocks trackers, know how those work and know perfectly well what i reference with the trenchcoat wearing agents of adtech.

> most people do understand that and they simply don't care

That's the thing: if they are well informed, of the appropriate age, and give consent, that is fine by me. But in my opinion the relationship between the mega-corporations and the people is one sided and abusive, so such careless consent isn't worth much. Imagine a village and i say to you "hey that farmer is beating his wife", would you say "well that is how they do things here, most farmers are beating their spouses, and they don't seem to care"? There is something wrong with that village. But i think the corporations as people analogy is overused. For most data farmers the users are more like cattle, not spouses or neighbors. This asymmetry can be seen with other freedoms as well: many people don't read contracts anymore, leave alone know about the freedom of contract. They simply have accepted that the corporations give them one and they sign that unread. After all, what alternatives exist to ?

> What realistic future do you see where that [unregulated data farming] comes back to bite them

A change of society away from "Liberal Democratic Capitalism" to "Totalitarian Surveillance Capitalism" enabled by mega-corporations abusing their position as gatekeepers for social communication, capitalist markets and even government services.

Re: Spy agency ducks questions about 'back doors' in tech products

#263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you'll have more constructive conversations on this topic if, instead of disagreeing with an analogy wholesale, you seem to understand _the ways in which it is accurate_ and then respond to those. Yes, of course, the internet is not outside. It's an analogy that illustrates a broader point, that what you consider a reasonable expectation of privacy looks to others like tin foil hat wearing. The truth is, desp…

I think the analogies are faulty. The anthropomorphism is used to argue that companies should be allowed to harvest data on a massive scale, because you can not reasonably expect your neighbor not to look out of the window. I find that ridiculous and reject the argument. It also paints a romanticized picture that makes people emphasize with an abstract inhumane entity as if its brand was a person within ones social c…

... wow we strayed far away from nsa backdoors. Let me just say this: as someone who had "east german ministry of state security" as part of the school curriculum, i can only warn those who did not about the immense dangers of a database with a profile of every citizen created by invasive surveillance into their private lives. In less realistic scenario: they might be building a baslilisk in that utah data center that ranks citizens for termination by drone strike and that can go very wrong in case of a singularity. Arnie even traveled back to 1984 to warn us ...

Re: Spy agency ducks questions about 'back doors' in tech products

#264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's only about 5,000 "real" people on the planet. The rest are unconscious echoes. Thus the weird pressure and "Truman show" feeling those people face.

None of us are "real". We are all living in a simulation.

Even more edgy: None of us are "real", and it is not a simulation.

(To be pedantic, it doesn't matter if it's a simulation or not. The important part is that we are not what we think we are.)

Re: Spy agency ducks questions about 'back doors' in tech products

#265
post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of us are "real". We are all living in a simulation.

Even more edgy: None of us are "real", and it is not a simulation. (To be pedantic, it doesn't matter if it's a simulation or not. The important part is that we are not what we think we are .)

Of course it's possible for us to be "real" and still be part of a simulation. If we go deeper into philosophy and explore the concept of "free will", another question arises: Are we "real" if all of our choices and actions are preordained?

Of course this is way off topic, so I'll try to steer us back.

The NSA has a choice between improving domestic security by helping to improve standards and protocols, or choosing to deliberately weaken them so they can collect more. (As an aside, it is nonsensical to collect any more since they cannot even process what they are collecting now.) NSA has chosen to support and encourage the weakening of information security, and that has had serious consequences for both national and global security. One good example of the consequences is the Shadow Brokers dump. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shadow_Brokers

Re: Spy agency ducks questions about 'back doors' in tech products

#266
post #5

"The tactics drew widespread attention starting in 2013, when Snowden leaked documents referencing these practices." So this is what Snowden has done: he "drew widespread attention to these tactics". Before Snowden they would call you "paranoid" if you would allow yourself to mention it. Today they can not call you paranoid anymore. And yes, it has hurt US industry reputation. Many don't trust Intel processors and Ci…

the US police is such a shit show, as the news of innocent people getting gunned down keep showing us. I have zero trust in a system that has even less accountability.

Re: Spy agency ducks questions about 'back doors' in tech products

#267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please stop posting this disinformation.

How is this disinformation? The Intel ME is replaced with zeroes, except a few percent: https://puri.sm/posts/neutralizing-intel-management-engine-o... , and it’s hardly functional.

The Intel ME is a circuit, not a software program. You can't "overwrite" it. And the HAP bit doesn't do what you think it does:

https://twitter.com/rootkovska/status/938458875522666497

Re: Spy agency ducks questions about 'back doors' in tech products

#268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this disinformation? The Intel ME is replaced with zeroes, except a few percent: https://puri.sm/posts/neutralizing-intel-management-engine-o... , and it’s hardly functional.

The Intel ME is a circuit, not a software program. You can't "overwrite" it. And the HAP bit doesn't do what you think it does: https://twitter.com/rootkovska/status/938458875522666497

You can overwrite most of it: https://github.com/corna/me_cleaner. AFAIK such overwriting will fix the bug in your link (and this is exactly what Purism is doing).

Re: Spy agency ducks questions about 'back doors' in tech products

#269
post #14

I have a friend that works for a chip company and he said he couldn’t get into details but the amount of back doors in communication companies and in chips would scare the shit out of me.

Counterpoint: I actually do work at a chip company and have never heard of any of this internally. Even from the people working on secure biometrics. Neither of these anecdotes proves anything.

What about this here? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25043465
Post reply on HN