81–90 of 443 posts
Some HN users are stuck in an interesting privacy paradox. Most of the time when a company or government tries to undermine privacy or encryption they jump at the throat and point out the need for both. However, it seems when we actually accomplish those goals and create systems that are truly anonymous, private and/or encrypted they basically say it's only for criminals and child abuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ok, I get it. You're against free speech. Another day, another person confusing 'free speech' with a private publisher not wanting to publish hate speech. You're entitled to print what you want, you're not entitled to force someone else to print anything.
>>you're not entitled to force someone else to print anything. Unless you're the surgeon general. Then you can force private companies to publish compelled speech on their alcohol and tobacco products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ECHR contains the freedom of speech as a human right and so do most EU countries in their own constitutions. "Countless people have been successfully prosecuted for what would be covered under the 1st amendment" (and the ECHR) in the US too. The constitution only has value as long as it's enforced.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ok, I get it. You're against free speech. Another day, another person confusing 'free speech' with a private publisher not wanting to publish hate speech. You're entitled to print what you want, you're not entitled to force someone else to print anything.
>>you're not entitled to force someone else to print anything. Unless you're the surgeon general. Then you can force private companies to publish compelled speech on their alcohol and tobacco products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ECHR contains the freedom of speech as a human right and so do most EU countries in their own constitutions. "Countless people have been successfully prosecuted for what would be covered under the 1st amendment" (and the ECHR) in the US too. The constitution only has value as long as it's enforced.
[flagged]
This is a bold and unsubstantiated claim.
> And there is no doubt she would be free in every state in the US.
For this specific action? Sure. For other actions that are protected under the 1st amendment? Depends on whether there is a law against it and if she pissed off someone "important" or enough people. There are various such cases.
edit: will respond to the replies after the rate-limit expires
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, and it's frankly hard to believe that our governments didn't have some hand in shaping that future. The further you follow the cryptography and anonymity paper trail, the more often you run into intelligence agencies. In some ways, it wouldn't surprise me if our current "big tech" paradigm is being relentlessly funded and propped-up by the United States in some way or another. As more and more users get herd…
No need to speculate, we know that governments had a direct role in this thanks to the Snowden revelations.
The goal is growth and consolidation. They want every major industry to be completely dominated by a small handful of big players. This makes it much easier to regulate and implement policy.
It would be impossible for them to have nearly the same amount of control over a economy if the economy was dominated by hundreds or thousands of small and medium players. By having 3 or 4 major public corporations they are much more easier to manipulate and keep tabs on. They can 'invite them to the table' to advise and help draft policy and regulations that are mutually beneficial. Also it makes it much easier to convince the public that such regulation is done for the public's benefit.
This model of American State Corporatism was developed in the late 19th, early 20th century and has since been exported across the world.
It is a pattern that is repeated over and over again. Whether it's automobile manufacturing, steel manufacturing, railway transportation, television broadcasting, ISPs, or Social Media.. once the government set it's sites on regulating it you will see markets devolve into 3-5 major corporate players that pretty much control everybody else. All of this heavily encouraged through regulation of capital markets and central banking systems.
The classic pre-internet example is the development of AT&T monopoly. FCC used it's ability to regulate peering agreements to heavily favor the markets towards re-establishing the AT&T monopoly. A monopoly that they essentially lost when the early Bell patents ran out.
They were then able to use that monopoly, through regulatory forces, to gain control over the communication infrastructure during the cold war, which was a national security priority. That is how we ended up with things like Room 641A. (which was in 2003-later era, but is something they did through out the entire cold war)
History repeated itself with the Prism revelations.
Some HN users are stuck in an interesting privacy paradox. Most of the time when a company or government tries to undermine privacy or encryption they jump at the throat and point out the need for both. However, it seems when we actually accomplish those goals and create systems that are truly anonymous, private and/or encrypted they basically say it's only for criminals and child abuse.
Some HN users are stuck in an interesting privacy paradox. Most of the time when a company or government tries to undermine privacy or encryption they jump at the throat and point out the need for both. However, it seems when we actually accomplish those goals and create systems that are truly anonymous, private and/or encrypted they basically say it's only for criminals and child abuse.
This is a good point. Censorship-resistance sounds good in theory, but when you actually think about it there is certain stuff that everybody would agree needs to be censored.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, I get it. You're against free speech. But the point stands--it's difficult to find a place to host a forum that contains legal discussions that happen to offend the sensibilities of the type of people who run tech companies.
No, I am against hate groups. They are the absolute worst of humanity, they destroy people, and they destroy societies. Do not participate in them. Do not support them. Do everything you can to oppose them.