Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Infosec 101 for Activists

infosecforactivists.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 220 posts

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#11

Post by wtfwhateven »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #6
sitkack wrote: post #4

National Lawyers Guild Know Your Rights reminder: Shut the f** up! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWEpW6KOZDs https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/stopped-by-police

That video, unfortunately, is out of date. The USSC recently decided that if you are merely silent that means you waive your right to remain silent. I wish I were making that up. You now have to repeatedly state it. The USSC has been off the rails for at least ten years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins for the curious

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#12

Post by layman51 »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #6
sitkack wrote: post #4

National Lawyers Guild Know Your Rights reminder: Shut the f** up! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWEpW6KOZDs https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/stopped-by-police

That video, unfortunately, is out of date. The USSC recently decided that if you are merely silent that means you waive your right to remain silent. I wish I were making that up. You now have to repeatedly state it. The USSC has been off the rails for at least ten years.

Just playing devil’s advocate here, but this idea of having to invoke your fifth amendment rights reminds me of a “Silent Man” (David Hampson) in the UK who would be arrested multiple times for blocking traffic by standing in the middle of the road. I’m not sure of the details, but in the process he would never speak to anyone at all (not even to his lawyer or psychiatrists, or just to confirm his name). It does seem problematic because what happens if the person arrested is actually mute?

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#14

Post by sitkack »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #6
sitkack wrote: post #4

National Lawyers Guild Know Your Rights reminder: Shut the f** up! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWEpW6KOZDs https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/stopped-by-police

That video, unfortunately, is out of date. The USSC recently decided that if you are merely silent that means you waive your right to remain silent. I wish I were making that up. You now have to repeatedly state it. The USSC has been off the rails for at least ten years.

Not a lawyer, but the advice they give is still good opsec. Don't talk to anyone except your lawyer.

If you are arrested, then yes you do have to assert your right to remain silent.

https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/miranda-rights/rig...

Invoke the right and stay silent.

Do not answer the obvious bullshit questions, those are used as bait, once you start answering any questions, you lose your 5th amendment protection.

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#15

Post by mbrubeck »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #9

Is DuckDuckGo really secure? It's just Bing re-skinned. Makes me question the rest of the list.

Yes, they use Bing’s search index, but the relevant difference is that they promise not to retain logs of your searches associated with your IP address or other identifying data: https://duckduckgo.com/privacy

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#16

Post by jfengel »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #6
sitkack wrote: post #4

National Lawyers Guild Know Your Rights reminder: Shut the f** up! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWEpW6KOZDs https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/stopped-by-police

That video, unfortunately, is out of date. The USSC recently decided that if you are merely silent that means you waive your right to remain silent. I wish I were making that up. You now have to repeatedly state it. The USSC has been off the rails for at least ten years.

Also note that repeatedly invoking your right to remain silent is going to be considered "resisting arrest" and you're going to get the shit kicked out of you.

And then they send you the bill for shoe polish.

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#17

Post by roenxi »

some_furry wrote: post #10
fooqux wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? I've personally seen more news articles about Tor users getting de-anonymized than I have VPN users. Purely anecdotal, I know, but the point being Tor is obviously not foolproof, so I am curious why recommending one over the other is apparently enough for you to call the entire article into question.

> Why? Because if I was running SIGINT at the NSA and collaborating with the FBI to arrest activists, the very first thing I would do is start up a bunch of VPN providers that bill themselves as "private" and then log everything aggressively. The second thing I would do is have useful idiots (i.e., influencers) spread vague anecdotes about Tor users being "de-anonymized" when VPN users are never "anonymized" to begin…

> The second thing I would do is have useful idiots (i.e., influencers) spread vague anecdotes

An unfortunate factor at play in these matters (and that I note in the article) is that the intelligence services are known to run the occasional shell company [0]. It seems likely that some privacy-oriented providers are actually intelligence fronts - because if you were running an intelligence collection agency an obvious thing to try would be a privacy-focused email company or something.

If it isn't built on a trustless model it isn't trustworthy.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_AG

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#18

Post by jfengel »

globalnode wrote: post #7

This is ridiculous, just don't use a network of any kind or you'll be tracked by someone somewhere. Simple as that. Misleading people into thinking they can use these tools and be safe is dangerous. I suppose the only way to be safe is to assume you're being tracked somehow and use burners or throw aways that don't matter.

You need to coordinate with people. It could be as simple and necessary as getting your ride back home after the protest.

Yes, any use of the network is a risk. You take a risk just showing up. This is about mitigating risk, not eliminating it. You have to decide if it's a risk worth taking.

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#19

Post by d4mi3n »

globalnode wrote: post #7

This is ridiculous, just don't use a network of any kind or you'll be tracked by someone somewhere. Simple as that. Misleading people into thinking they can use these tools and be safe is dangerous. I suppose the only way to be safe is to assume you're being tracked somehow and use burners or throw aways that don't matter.

While you’re not wrong, there’s a trade off between communication needs and security guarantees. Activism and protesting requires organization, which is effectively hampered by the inability to quickly and efficiently disseminate information.

I’ve read the EFF’s guide and it seemed reasonable for a layman. What caveats or disclaimers would you include that they haven’t already? What more do you feel could be done to make people with these needs safer while helping them pursue their goals?

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#20

Post by youainti »

pstuart wrote: post #3

A bit of a tangent, but modern protests are subject to hijacking from agents provocateur and general shit stirrers -- it's been quite effective in delegitimizing public protests. It would be nice to find ways to counter that. Case in point: how BLM protests were turned into riots by antagonistic forces: https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-helped-ignite-george-floyd-rio...

I think this was the whole point of the "self purification" process that Dr ML King Jr describes in his Letter from Birmingham Jail [0], where they had workshops on non-violence etc.

[0] https://letterfromjail.com/

Post reply on HN