241–250 of 534 posts
Personally, I don't give a flying fuck about it. I have nothing to hide and if the proposed surveillance measures help in preventing crimes, I say – go for it, babe.
Every time this comes up people talk about protecting privacy and anonymity and what not and while luckily for us most of the time the laws die out they still do pass on occasion. The fundamental issue to me is that society still wants to protect against pedophiles or drug dealers or whatever other group more than protect privacy. As an example, how many people here could go on television onto some talk program or ne…
I think I'm misunderstanding you here, are you implying presently real politicians would have to do that to advocate for privacy laws?
Strangest thing to me about the topic is that it’s obvious vast percentage of citizens within democracies wish they lived in an authoritarian country, yet choose to live in a democracy and use the liberties they’re provided to actively destabilize and destroy it. To me this is the largest issue, not a given topic that results from it. Yes, I am aware current authoritarian countries wage propaganda campaigns, but in m…
Unpopular opinion: If you don't like democracy and use your democratic rights to actively work to dismantle it, you probably shouldn't actually be allowed to participate in democracy since you are operating in bad faith.
If you don't let them vote, they'll act to destroy their society.
It would be emotionally satisfying, but ultimately destructive. It would also be ripe for abuse; imagine how awful it would be if we had secret lists of people who weren't allowed to do other normal activities, like air travel or vehicle registration.
We certainly need decentralized systems that cannot be controlled by EU, US, or any government/entity. Privacy is a human right. We probably all know that they will show reasons like "fighting terrorism", "preventing national threats" or "hunting down child pornography" etc, whereas the real motivation is to control people's freedom of speech and communication even though they will 100% deny it. Anyone who is really…
> We certainly need decentralized systems that cannot be controlled by EU, US, or any government/entity. I agree in principle, but controlled != regulated. It's (technologically) relatively easy to create a private, censorship-resistant distributed system, but if it's illegal people just won't use it. It's a human problem, not a tech problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We probably all know that they will show reasons [...], whereas the real motivation is to control people's freedom of speech and communication even though they will 100% deny it. I don't think this is how it works, absent an already existent police state. In democracies, it really is pushed for {good reasons}. Once built, it's then used by law enforcement, because it exists and gets the job done. Pretending there's…
Is anyone else astonished by how dramatically Hacker News has shifted its tone on this issue over the last five to ten years?
Strangest thing to me about the topic is that it’s obvious vast percentage of citizens within democracies wish they lived in an authoritarian country, yet choose to live in a democracy and use the liberties they’re provided to actively destabilize and destroy it. To me this is the largest issue, not a given topic that results from it. Yes, I am aware current authoritarian countries wage propaganda campaigns, but in m…
Well, I think we had a solid bipartisan support for classical-liberism up until 2015. It's worth going back to it with the lessons learned. It was the bedrock that allowed limited centralization and most importantly, accountability . We need new journalism that keeps powers in check and hold them accountable, not pander to their readers in an ever resonating echo chambers.
As for American media, issues related to pandering to readers is likely related to it deregulating media industry in the 80s; for more information see:
https://apnews.com/article/business-immigration-deregulation...
We certainly need decentralized systems that cannot be controlled by EU, US, or any government/entity. Privacy is a human right. We probably all know that they will show reasons like "fighting terrorism", "preventing national threats" or "hunting down child pornography" etc, whereas the real motivation is to control people's freedom of speech and communication even though they will 100% deny it. Anyone who is really…
The four horsemen of the Infocalypse
> The phrase is a play on Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. There does not appear to be a universally agreed definition of who the Horsemen are, but they are usually listed as terrorists, drug dealers, pedophiles/child molesters, and organized crime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We certainly need decentralized systems that cannot be controlled by EU, US, or any government/entity. I used to think this way, and still do to a degree... but it's not enough. The idea of zero trust as an absolute is flawed, because if the adversary is your own government they will just keep shifting targets. Lets play this out: 1. Gov start monitoring all proprietary messaging platforms and services. So lets ass…
IMO, your hypothetical falls apart at the second point: > Now gov mandate that all hardware must have have backdoors to circumvent those measures. A government could legislate that it may not rain anywhere in the country on Tuesdays, but executing that isn't practicable. Likewise, backdooring one family of CPUs may be possible, but you can't simply tell chip fabs to backdoor each and every design. They'd grind to a h…
Yes, it's supposed to be an unrealistically optimistic thought experiment, both in favour of the efficacy of technical solutions (ignoring the societal component) and government power (ignoring economic side-effects). It shows that technology alone cannot outmanoeuvre unchecked power, and so power must be kept in check.
In reality, there are multiple forces beyond legislation that naturally add friction, which you allude to... However governments can get very far before hitting those thresholds, especially if there is no pushback from the people. There is also the problem of compounding policies eroding democratic freedoms, that can allow for easier enactment of ever more extreme policies, even in spite of economic consequence. For instance this is the case with the GFW in China where workers no longer have access to the full wealth of information available on the wider internet to perform their jobs as effectively.
The ultimate point I'm trying to make here (and I think we are in agreement), is that as technologists we cannot simply bury our heads in our code, we must acknowledge that developing more resilient technology is only a single component, it is not sufficient. Supporting the fight against freedom eroding policies is necessary.
Every time this comes up people talk about protecting privacy and anonymity and what not and while luckily for us most of the time the laws die out they still do pass on occasion. The fundamental issue to me is that society still wants to protect against pedophiles or drug dealers or whatever other group more than protect privacy. As an example, how many people here could go on television onto some talk program or ne…
Upper-middle class PMCs generally aren't worried about being monitored or censored by authorities (except within the games of party power politics and wedge issues.) If anything, when they hear about it, they look to see if there are job openings. They are concerned about child abuse, because even wealthy children get abused. Universal.
They constitute (if I'm being generous) 20% of the population and are useless to try to convince. It's their duty to explain to you that the society that has rewarded them generously for their hard work actually has everyone's best interests at heart, no matter how ludicrous it seems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should look into the so called ghost guns that show up. It hasn't been easier to get one, whether from assembling a kit to 3d printing to finding plans to build one from scrap.
It's still hard . I couldn't go out and make a gun right now. Meanwhile, many children have invented their own codes and ciphers by age 10, armed only with paper and pencil and the desire to keep a secret. A basic understanding of group theory lets you invent RSA, a practically-unbreakable asymmetric cryptographic scheme, given only the idea that "hey, maybe asymmetric encryption is possible" and the knowledge that (…
And I bet the NSA would break your homegrown RSA built with your basic understanding of group theory in a few minutes. RSA is extremely subtle to implement correctly and if you get it wrong you can easily leak everything.