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

Using a VPN could become a criminal offence under new CFAA interpretation

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–98 of 98 posts

Re: Using a VPN could become a criminal offence under new CFAA interpretation

#91

Post by notTheAuth »

PeterisP wrote: post #53
notTheAuth wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So only after it’s precedent and harder to undo then does it matter? This is basically saying there’s no point in testing software, ship every line to prod and see what happens. This is exactly the kind of political ennui the system purposely tries to inculcate. Not fine grain mind control, but indifference. Laws dictate acceptable social agency. One might think we’d take what ends up in them at least as seriously as…

It would be appropriate to start such a discussion once a single court ever has accepted such an argument and it gets appealed and starts a years-long process where it might become precedent for some wider area; it would be absolutely ridiculous to consider every theory put forth by a litigating lawyer as worth of a public discussion - I mean, there are so many of them and usually the judges shoot many of them down w…

Replies seems to be of the perspective I was suggesting we target courts proactively.

I don’t think anything I wrote constrains public response to lobbying courts. We could lobby to legislate open access to privacy tech and encryption.

One of the big papers wrote today how state legislatures are effectively gerrymandered for one party or the other.

There’s a whole lot of political effort the public could participate in that would prevent ideas like this specific one from getting beyond a back room rant between elected officials.

And frankly it wouldn’t have to impact our real logistics at all; we could collectively take ownership of our own agency and refuse to login unless legal ownership is reassessed.

The internet community seems to have forgotten SOPA blackouts worked.

The political reality is not accepting the literal one; a real majority with nothing to lose is quickly losing patience with the real minority gaming everyone’s society.

Re: Using a VPN could become a criminal offence under new CFAA interpretation

#92

Post by Dylan16807 »

ravenstine wrote: post #80
Dylan16807 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's basically meaningless to talk about whether something is encrypted without the "from who" factor. Otherwise you might as well rot-13 it. If you want to use such a narrow definition of 'encrypted', then it doesn't matter if the lawyer knows the answer.

No, the answer is way simpler than you are making it out to be. Is the data in a TLS connection transformed in such a way that it would make it difficult for an intermediary to figure out the plain information being sent? If so, the data is in fact encrypted . Where are you getting this idea that encryption is more than that? That is by definition what encryption is, and everything else is just approaches and securit…

'difficult' is uncomfortably vague here. Lots of transforms happen to the bits that might make them difficult to figure out even without encryption. Many of them don't intend to keep people out, despite them being more obscuring than a ceaser cipher!

I feel like you're overdefining encryption to make a point, when you don't need to at all.

Re: Using a VPN could become a criminal offence under new CFAA interpretation

#93

Post by FDSGSG »

splistud wrote: post #86
FDSGSG wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

English is a third language for me, I would expect that regardless of language everyone can understand the concepts of sarcasm and irony if they're willing to spend any time thinking about what they are reading. There's literally zero context to suggest that I might be serious in accusing another poster of being a pedophile, even if they were it wouldn't make sense for me to randomly drop that.

Whether or not you're serious, and forgetting the salaciousness of your satire, there's the point about how completely irrelevant it is as an analogy to what is in question

> there's the point about how completely irrelevant it is as an analogy to what is in question

It's really not irrelevant. It makes as much sense to campaign against my obviously nonsensical allegation as it makes sense to campaign against some random lawyers obviously nonsensical allegation.

Re: Using a VPN could become a criminal offence under new CFAA interpretation

#94

Post by FDSGSG »

jasonlotito wrote: post #83
FDSGSG wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

English is a third language for me, I would expect that regardless of language everyone can understand the concepts of sarcasm and irony if they're willing to spend any time thinking about what they are reading. There's literally zero context to suggest that I might be serious in accusing another poster of being a pedophile, even if they were it wouldn't make sense for me to randomly drop that.

> I would expect that regardless of language everyone can understand the concepts of sarcasm and irony And I feel it's fair for someone like you on HN to accept fair criticism of their comments. > English is a third language for me I would expect you'd still understand the point being made and understand it's not about you, but about many others, and just because you understand sarcasm or irony, others might not who…

>And I feel it's fair for someone like you on HN to accept fair criticism of their comments.

I'm happy to accept the criticism, and I acknowledge that people replying to me are mostly correct on the facts.

However, I think it would be a terrible shame to give into this feedback and refrain from using such literary devices out of fear that I might offend someone who doesn't understand the language.

What really bothers is that nobody would ever tell me this stuff if I had written the comment in some other language. Are we supposed to let the English language rot simply because many people are learning it as a second language?

>Except for the fact that it's a serious accusation that one does not make lightly, and so it's fair to assume no one would simply drop that in civil conversation.

You make my point, it's obvious that no one would simply drop that in civil conversation so there must be a deeper meaning to it (as was immediately acknowledged in the very same comment!)

Re: Using a VPN could become a criminal offence under new CFAA interpretation

#95

Post by ravenstine »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #92
ravenstine wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the answer is way simpler than you are making it out to be. Is the data in a TLS connection transformed in such a way that it would make it difficult for an intermediary to figure out the plain information being sent? If so, the data is in fact encrypted . Where are you getting this idea that encryption is more than that? That is by definition what encryption is, and everything else is just approaches and securit…

'difficult' is uncomfortably vague here. Lots of transforms happen to the bits that might make them difficult to figure out even without encryption. Many of them don't intend to keep people out, despite them being more obscuring than a ceaser cipher! I feel like you're overdefining encryption to make a point, when you don't need to at all.

I've made the definition as simple as it could possibly be. Technically speaking, yes, rot13 is a form of encryption; it's just a really bad one that has virtually no security features, only being a minuscule step above plain text. Rot13 even has a decryption key, but only ever one, which is the algorithm to decode it. (Of course it would not take long at all to reverse engineer) Besides, any encryption other than OTP can be broken in theory given enough time.

Honestly, I haven't the faintest clue the point you are making or why you are nitpicking to this degree. I think I made it clear why legal and judicial professionals should have a rudimentary understanding and awareness of encryption for the purpose of making sound decisions that affect society. If your disagreement with my definition of encryption gets in the way of that for you, then I really don't know what to say. Look up what the word "encrypt" means, think of the etymology, and rethink what you've been saying.

Re: Using a VPN could become a criminal offence under new CFAA interpretation

#96

Post by Dylan16807 »

ravenstine wrote: post #95
Dylan16807 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'difficult' is uncomfortably vague here. Lots of transforms happen to the bits that might make them difficult to figure out even without encryption. Many of them don't intend to keep people out, despite them being more obscuring than a ceaser cipher! I feel like you're overdefining encryption to make a point, when you don't need to at all.

I've made the definition as simple as it could possibly be. Technically speaking, yes, rot13 is a form of encryption; it's just a really bad one that has virtually no security features, only being a minuscule step above plain text. Rot13 even has a decryption key, but only ever one, which is the algorithm to decode it. (Of course it would not take long at all to reverse engineer) Besides, any encryption other than OT…

> Honestly, I haven't the faintest clue the point you are making or why you are nitpicking to this degree. I think I made it clear why legal and judicial professionals should have a rudimentary understanding and awareness of encryption for the purpose of making sound decisions that affect society.

You're asking for them to have a very strange understanding of encryption, that doesn't match how the term is normally used. The important part is the security, not that you need an algorithm to decode. It's not nitpicking to say you're asking for them to know something irrelevant that's adjacent to some important things they should understand.

Re: Using a VPN could become a criminal offence under new CFAA interpretation

#97

Post by Cypher »

winkeltripel wrote: post #68
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #35

Well, in the video of the hearing you posted earlier hiQ's counsel said an IP block is not akin to a password. The court added that IP addresses do not identify people. As such IP blocks ban computers not people. There was also suggestion that the "access control" only relates to the manner of access; people can easily change IP addresses. The court seemed to agree with that argument. hiQ's counsel argued that a "gat…

I think a nice metaphor would be that linkedin banned my car from their property, then I keep coming back in by taxi.

Yes and Linked wants to argue that it's trying to lock you out but you keep coming back and so they want to throw you in jail.

Re: Using a VPN could become a criminal offence under new CFAA interpretation

#98

Post by baktubi »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #84
baktubi wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm. You could also argue that not having understanding of the technology is a good thing. For instance, the judge can remove themselves from the details and look at it on a higher level. It’s the job of the attorneys to make the case for or against using subject matter experts etc.

You could argue that. However, it means that people can basically lie to the judges, and the judges don't have the background to call them out on it.

Pretty sure they lie to the judges anyway.
Post reply on HN