241–250 of 494 posts
If by EARN IT, they mean Americans should earn their freedom - which this government is using its own crimes[1] as a pretext for taking from them - that seems really just unwise.
[1] EDKH
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone should watch these two hearings: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings/open-hearing-fi... https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings/open-hearing-fi... Feinstein shows her true colors. The first is 2013, right after Snowden leaked the presidential surveillance program. These are our elected officials who oversaw the program. They knew of its existence before the leak. The second is 2017, right after…
Wyden is great, he's my model of what I'd like to work on if I was lucky enough to be a politician.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can have E2EE to the service provider, but they can be free to rummage through your data if they choose to or are coerced to by a legal demand from an authority. But it eliminates the average schmoe from going through that data. Is that adequate security? Is that adequate privacy? This is what bills like EARN IT and its ilk are positing with backdoors et al. It depends on your threat model. If a warrant opens a d…
E2EE refers to fully encrypted communication between end-users of a service, hence end-to-end. If one of the ends is the service provider, the term doesn't apply.
Ergo, if this is a consideration within your threat model, it's an inappropriate solution. However, I am highlighting that EARN IT is no more a threat than existing service providers abiding by a court order, ergo the existing solutions likely aren't fit-for-purpose for some folks, depending on threat model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For people who say they have nothing to hide, I ask them why they have locks on their doors, passwords to their email, and clothes on their body.
Well, clothes are mostly down to weather and laws on public decency, and nudists are the counterpoint that prove some demographics would prefer to be naked if the law allowed it, same with tribes like Koma. Locks are more for security than privacy, and it's important not to conflate the two. People can have nothing to hide, but also not want to be robbed. And as for email, that's again a matter of security because th…
A reminder that "you have nothing to hide" argument is a fallacy because people abuse their power: Some first hits as reminders of places where their powers are abused [1]: "NSA staff used spy tools on spouses, ex-lovers: watchdog" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog... [2]: https://reason.com/2022/07/26/police-can-access-your-ring-ca... [3]: https://reason.com/2021/04/26/warrantless-border-s…
Many seem to not realize that privacy is not about having something to hide (I guess that would be secrecy), but about the right to keep things to yourself. Those are two different concepts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Real patriots, in my experience: 1. Don't talk long and loud about being patriots (i.e. don't self-identify) 2. Tend to work for the government. Career govvies or military. They show their patriotism through action. > There's a huge subset (dare I say majority) of those "patriots" you deride who don't like this stuff, don't think their goings on are any of the government's business. I know the type well, as that desc…
> Tend to work for the government. Career govvies or military. They show their patriotism through action. I just want to chime in here and say that working for the government isn't the only way to be a patriot (i.e. serve the country). Upholding American values is something anyone can do in any part of society.
A reminder that "you have nothing to hide" argument is a fallacy because people abuse their power: Some first hits as reminders of places where their powers are abused [1]: "NSA staff used spy tools on spouses, ex-lovers: watchdog" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog... [2]: https://reason.com/2022/07/26/police-can-access-your-ring-ca... [3]: https://reason.com/2021/04/26/warrantless-border-s…
Even framing it as "nothing to hide" implies that hiding is the exception. Shouldn't it be the default?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what I said about WikiLeaks even at the time. Sprinkle in some untruths with truths and you've got something convincing.
You don't even need to say anything that isn't true. Just being selective about which true secrets you reveal can be a very powerful tool to control the narrative.
I find myself consistently disappointed when reading blog posts like this. I generally agree with the principles that the EFF advocates for, but it's hard to see this post as anything other than rage-bait. I can't trust it to be an accurate source of information on what this bill actually does. For example, I've repeatedly seen claims that this bill would effectively outlaw end-to-end encryption, but the bill explici…
Client side scanning came out of the discussion around this bill the last time it was proposed. That it isn’t in this bill doesn’t mean it isn’t in politicians’ heads, and if this gets passed there is then significant precedent for extending it, as a small extension doesn’t seem as big as a full-scale government invasion of citizens’ privacy (i.e. this bill).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
So 1984 style listening devices and cameras in every home is the obvious solution right? Houses are where a lot of abuse happens. Scanning doesn’t even stop abuse from happening, just the possession and distribution of it.