271–280 of 520 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you genuinely believe that people being able to engage in a frank exchange of views hasn't changed anything... how did Orange Man get elected? :D
BBSes weren't powerful enough to elect him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But we all know Excepting the approval of end to end encryption and residential zoning, pretty much every problem thread on HN is littered with comments about how we need more regulation and laws to solve X or Y or Z. Wanting the "good guys" to have more power is pretty much the default response on here nowadays. I remember earlier- including before I had signed up for an account- when HN was much more libertarian,…
disclaimer: I am not American, and know nothing about American politics. I think all these start around Trump's administration. Trump start calling some media/social media as fake news, and some media/social media start censoring his supporter. After seeing the worse effects of misleading information, many free-speech-supporter back off alot.
Trump is a correlation to (not cause of) both the left and right in America turning sharply populist and inward looking in recent years. Populists tend not to be concerned with principles like freedom of speech, or the concerns of the global community.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They want the police to have all the power they can get because, as far as they're concerned, they're the good guys, and giving the good guys more power helps them win against the bad guys. But we all know that giving excessive power to good guys turns them rather reliably into bad guys.
> But we all know Excepting the approval of end to end encryption and residential zoning, pretty much every problem thread on HN is littered with comments about how we need more regulation and laws to solve X or Y or Z. Wanting the "good guys" to have more power is pretty much the default response on here nowadays. I remember earlier- including before I had signed up for an account- when HN was much more libertarian,…
The alternative to giving a democratic government power isn't 'nobody has power'.
The alternative to giving a democratic government power is ceding it to undemocratic, unelected oligarchs.
When a democratic government has it, you get some say in how it is used.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. The only way this ends with the preservation of encryption as a standard is a bipartisan fappening-style leak of CEOs, politicians, lawyers, etc. Not just sexual content, but intimate content of any and all kinds: financial records, healthcare visits, everyday texts, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
E2EE is offered to all users, whether or not they are law-abiding. More precise is to say that E2EE is offered to users who are primarily law-abiding. Your points are well-heard, even by those in the IC. What isn't occurring, is a good-faith discussion on solving the issues faced by law enforcement and the IC related to the growing entropy of E2EE wielded at scale by folks, a large subset of whom are engaging in crim…
> E2EE wielded at scale by folks, a large subset of whom are engaging in criminal behavior You cannot really engage in criminal behavior exclusively via E2EE communication. Victim would use the communication as evidence. All the crimes you are talking about have an essential component outside E2EE communication, which means that detection and evidence gathering is possible without breaking E2EE.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you writing years as if they are C octals? Standards in communication are important.
He's representing the year numeral as YYYYY to avoid a Year 9999 problem and make it into a Year 99999 problem instead. (see The Long Now and other long-term thinking projects)
While English from 1000 years ago would be unintelligible to most of us now...
And how long is HN gonna keep these threads? I was worried about the NSA but now I'm worried about dang.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They want the police to have all the power they can get because, as far as they're concerned, they're the good guys, and giving the good guys more power helps them win against the bad guys. But we all know that giving excessive power to good guys turns them rather reliably into bad guys.
> But we all know Excepting the approval of end to end encryption and residential zoning, pretty much every problem thread on HN is littered with comments about how we need more regulation and laws to solve X or Y or Z. Wanting the "good guys" to have more power is pretty much the default response on here nowadays. I remember earlier- including before I had signed up for an account- when HN was much more libertarian,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's representing the year numeral as YYYYY to avoid a Year 9999 problem and make it into a Year 99999 problem instead. (see The Long Now and other long-term thinking projects)
So, to be clear, he is worried that in 7000 years time it's the _date_ part of his comment that will be hard for a human, or computer, to parse? While English from 1000 years ago would be unintelligible to most of us now... And how long is HN gonna keep these threads? I was worried about the NSA but now I'm worried about dang.
It seems like this Stanford page has clearly taken a side on the issue. Does anyone have a link to a solid unbiased discussion of the pros and cons of this? It's got bipartisan support, so clearly there are legitimate arguments in favor of these changes, would be interested to hear what they are.
Let's have no fear to face down our opponents' claims. Senators pushing this bill laid down their claims in a document [0], and everyone should put on their critical thinking caps and grapple with it. [0] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21194217-earn_it_act...
> MYTH: Requiring companies to be on the lookout for child abuse will harm startups and nascent businesses.
>FACT: No other type of business in the country is provided such blanket and unqualified immunity for sexual crimes against children.
This jumped out out to me in particular. I can think of another similar industry that delivers private packets which may contain CSAM. What is the US Post office doing to evaluate the bits they deliver? What is the post man's legal liability?