71–80 of 342 posts
I'm not complaining, but I'm curious: Why would a post with 43 points and 54 comments in two hours be way down on page 3 of HN? Should I not have edited "How" back into the title?
It set off the flamewar detector. (the usual answer)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to be Debbie downer but there’s been a cultural shift in the liberal establishment over the years away from protecting speech, even hateful speech to actively espousing and advocating for censorship. It’s clear that principles can shift over time and Wired is toeing the line.
How does that relate to the article? It seems like a completely different subject to me, but maybe I'm misunderstanding you. > there’s been a cultural shift in the liberal establishment over the years away from protecting speech, even hateful speech to actively espousing and advocating for censorship The shift is to protecting the rights of people oppressed by hate speech, in the balance between its speakers and vict…
> The motivations that led to end-to-end encryption going mainstream lie far out on the political fringe. The original impetus for Marlinspike’s entry into cryptography, around 2007, was to challenge existing power structures, particularly the injustice of how (as he put it) “Internet insecurity is used by people I don’t like against people I do: the government against the people.” But sticking to anarchism would imp…
The authors of the Declaration of Independence are also the authors of the Constitution, premised in part on English Common Law, in which the public is entitled to every man's evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does that relate to the article? It seems like a completely different subject to me, but maybe I'm misunderstanding you. > there’s been a cultural shift in the liberal establishment over the years away from protecting speech, even hateful speech to actively espousing and advocating for censorship The shift is to protecting the rights of people oppressed by hate speech, in the balance between its speakers and vict…
Can you define hate speech? Or “politically vulnerable”? I’m not dogging you but this sounds like an argument that someone who would like to ban E2E encryption would make. No one has a right to not be offended and we have already clearly defined where words become terroristic threats. Although the law is the least of my concerns as I get downvoted for having an opinion not totally in lock step with the social-liberal…
I'm not sure how E2EE is implicated: If the speech isn't heard by the politically vulnerable, it's much less likely to be oppressive; if someone texts me hate speech over Signal, the encyrption doesn't matter. If it's a plan of violence, that's of course a different and existing issue.
> I get downvoted for having an opinion not totally in lock step with the social-liberal worldview.
The victim routine degrades the credibility of your comment. It looks like someone just following standard right-wing rhetoric. Also, you don't offer convincing evidence.
”Signal [pioneered] end-to-end encryption, a feature that WhatsApp turned around and copied from Signal.” It wasn’t copied from Signal — at the protocol level, it is Signal: https://signal.org/blog/whatsapp/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one, not my mother, not my government, not my dog, has the implicit right to monitor a conversation between myself and another party No one has the right to dictate the manner in which I communicate with another individual, contending that it doesn't cause network problems (such as the FCC and radio band restrictions. And to the point, I believe the ban of cryptographic communication on public radio channels to be…
I agree with you and the word “implicit” is crucial here. If the state is suspicious of you then they can come over, break in, tie you up, search all your stuff, and take anything they like home with them. It sounds infuriating but it’s what we need in order for the state to catch villains and the crucial part is they can only do it with a warrant . If a judge ordered you to unlock your phone and hand over all your m…
This isn't true, if you're talking about the USA. Within 100 miles of a border, CPB and homeland security can conduct warantless searches, without probable clause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuer...
This range includes the all but one of the largest American cities.
That's just the law, though. Functionally and practically speaking, the cops can break in and kill you without a warrant, and do so frequently. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policekillings/ They can also kill your dog, and frequently do https://aldf.org/project/dogs-shot-by-cops/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one, not my mother, not my government, not my dog, has the implicit right to monitor a conversation between myself and another party No one has the right to dictate the manner in which I communicate with another individual, contending that it doesn't cause network problems (such as the FCC and radio band restrictions. And to the point, I believe the ban of cryptographic communication on public radio channels to be…
I agree with you and the word “implicit” is crucial here. If the state is suspicious of you then they can come over, break in, tie you up, search all your stuff, and take anything they like home with them. It sounds infuriating but it’s what we need in order for the state to catch villains and the crucial part is they can only do it with a warrant . If a judge ordered you to unlock your phone and hand over all your m…
You shouldn't be even compelled to help the government convict your loved ones, much less yourself. The government has enough money, powers and people at its disposal, why should they be allowed to be lazy and strongarm you into helping them against your vital interests?
Go far enough in that direction and you'll end up with show trials.
> The motivations that led to end-to-end encryption going mainstream lie far out on the political fringe. The original impetus for Marlinspike’s entry into cryptography, around 2007, was to challenge existing power structures, particularly the injustice of how (as he put it) “Internet insecurity is used by people I don’t like against people I do: the government against the people.” But sticking to anarchism would imp…
Not to be Debbie downer but there’s been a cultural shift in the liberal establishment over the years away from protecting speech, even hateful speech to actively espousing and advocating for censorship. It’s clear that principles can shift over time and Wired is toeing the line.
Can you link to anything that actually backs up that claim of yours?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one, not my mother, not my government, not my dog, has the implicit right to monitor a conversation between myself and another party No one has the right to dictate the manner in which I communicate with another individual, contending that it doesn't cause network problems (such as the FCC and radio band restrictions. And to the point, I believe the ban of cryptographic communication on public radio channels to be…
I agree with you and the word “implicit” is crucial here. If the state is suspicious of you then they can come over, break in, tie you up, search all your stuff, and take anything they like home with them. It sounds infuriating but it’s what we need in order for the state to catch villains and the crucial part is they can only do it with a warrant . If a judge ordered you to unlock your phone and hand over all your m…
But now it's more like dictatorship and police controlling opinions, which, when it happens in non-western-aligned countries, we all agree that is a really bad thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one, not my mother, not my government, not my dog, has the implicit right to monitor a conversation between myself and another party No one has the right to dictate the manner in which I communicate with another individual, contending that it doesn't cause network problems (such as the FCC and radio band restrictions. And to the point, I believe the ban of cryptographic communication on public radio channels to be…
I agree with you and the word “implicit” is crucial here. If the state is suspicious of you then they can come over, break in, tie you up, search all your stuff, and take anything they like home with them. It sounds infuriating but it’s what we need in order for the state to catch villains and the crucial part is they can only do it with a warrant . If a judge ordered you to unlock your phone and hand over all your m…