621–630 of 785 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, do you think there are people who think “Let’s Go Brandon” is anything but a hilarious conservative self-own?
How is this a self-own?
There was an interview with the CEO of Signal and some UK conservative politician[1]. It's a pretty infuriating interview, as both parties try to debate two complete separate issues. Meredith Whittaker of Signal, rightfully tries to debate the issues with breaking encryption and it's ramification, but the politician has that sorted. See they don't want to break the encryption, they want the apps to pick up the messag…
Signal, Whatsapp, and iMessage threatening to leave the UK over this bill indicates to me that the bill is unreasonable. However, Meredith Whittaker did a very poor job of demonstrating that during this debate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I feel we've been collectively losing the battle to keep our conversations private. The USA is still doing pretty good but the UK and the EU are staunchly anti privacy. They're pretty good on consumer privacy but don't believe that privacy from the government should exist.
This feels pretty opposite to me. I mean sure UK is pretty privacy hostile in practice (CCTVs everywhere), but what does the US have for companies surveillance of people? How much of that data is legal for governments to buy? Maybe the US gov isn't spying on citizens, but how many 5-eyes partners are definitely sending data to them in proxy (by careful surveillance design)? I guess my question boils down to what spec…
That said, it has become apparent to me that we need to impose further limitations because apparently the whitelist/blacklist approach we have thus far is insufficient and the Anti-Federalists were much more correct in the long run.
Why do the British still think they have power to do dumb stuff like this? Their economy is floundering, their consumer market is small, and their government is a joke.
The UK is still the 6th biggest market in the world. Enough potential profit that most companies will be happy to follow slightly ridiculous laws. The only reason Apple are saying this is because it's good PR and nobody in the UK uses iMessage anyway, so they won't lose any money. Wake me up when WhatsApp say the same...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/mar/09/whatsapp-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's crazy that we allow this at all. The government can't observe clandestine conversations that occur in person, does that mean they can mandate us to carry a government recording device? That people don't equally balk at requests to encumber encryption is baffling.
They feel they have nothing to hide. I find the “nothing to hide” argument baffling, as when they say this, I immediately ask them to tell me about their last sexual encounter, in graphic detail. After all, they’ve nothing to hide. For some reason, they never do, and they usually get rather upset with me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM Apple is a participant in the NSA's PRISM mass surveillance program. They've been compromised for a long time. I doubt any decent sized corporation isn't.
I am going to give them the benefit of doubt in the case of PRISM. It is not clear whether PRISM is the result of forced/voluntary participation, or the result of vulnerabilities found in their systems. Because of the diagrams in the PRISM powerpoint mentioning some of the integration is "coming soon", I feel it is definitely not legally coerced, otherwise everyone would participate at once. Also due to the integrati…
[0] https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/06/apple-internal-memo-icloud-ph...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like this vein of argument: assume that it is good that the government be able to snoop on your text messages. Why not in-person conversations as well? OK, let's make it so everything you say gets recorded. Eesh.
Yeah... the crux is should electronic conversations be afforded the same rights, and by extension are they assumed rights for all communication? Where to draw the line? It's definitely murky.
It shouldn't be murky at all. For all of the history of humanity, privacy has been the default state. I could talk to people face to face (what used to be the only way) and it was by default private. I could keep written notes and records and they were by default private.
There were special-case mechanisms to violate that privacy (e.g. search warrants, targeted spying) but by their nature they target specific people and, at least most of the time, go through a process with some checks and balances. I don't have any objection to this type of spying. If someone is suspected of a serious crime, it's reasonable for society to have a way to approve planting some surveillance bugs on them and them only.
It's only now that nearly all communication is over third party systems that government suddenly feel it's ok to spy on everyone and all the time. It's clearly not ok, nothing murky about that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this a self-own?
Because it makes people look like pathetic muppets. If you mean "Fuck Joe Biden", say "Fuck Joe Biden", don't clutch your damn pearls about it.