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

31–40 of 220 posts

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#31

Post by some_furry »

giantg2 wrote: post #29
some_furry wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Or you spin up a bunch of Tor nodes to de-anonymize user on that system.

Why don't you try that and report back?

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#32

Post by flashman »

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…

That's funny because if I was running SIGINT at the NSA I would do all of the above, and also compromise Tor

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#33

Post by jmbwell »

Is it correct that iCloud backups can lead to officials being able to unlock your physical device? That’s not consistent with my understanding of Apple’s circle of trust implementation.

I get that the backups can potentially be compromised, and of course having the backup means having most of what would be on the phone, but I would love to know more about how having a copy of a backup can compromise the physical device via iCloud.

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#35

Post by RajT88 »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #30
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...

[flagged]

Blocking a highway is not an act of violence, it is a form of peaceful protest.

Like a diner sit-in.

You are free to correct your post to explain all the acts of violence you saw which justify the term "riot".

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#36

Post by pstuart »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #30
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...

[flagged]

I'm not at all a fan of the tactic of blocking highways as a protest move, I think that's not the same thing as a riot -- it's civil disobedience.

The link that I shared explicitly pointed out that the riot was started by a white supremacist. It's documented and a fact. So were dealing with 1+N cases here.

> Near me, I would say all of them that were riots were that way on purpose.

Look, it worked. It has framed BLM in millions of peoples minds as just black people rioting, and who wants to support riots eh?

Edit: research proving the peaceful intent of protests: https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-vi...

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#37

Post by WaitWaitWha »

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.

> if you are merely silent that means you waive your right to remain silent.

This is not my reading. For those who want to read the actual details: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/560/370/

Here are some nuggets from the case:

"At no point during the interrogation did Thompkins say that he wanted to remain silent, that he did not want to talk with the police, or that he wanted an attorney."

"Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk with the police. Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his “ ‘right to cut off questioning.’ ” Mosley, supra, at 103 (quoting Miranda, supra, at 474). Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent."

Omitting pertinent information is the tool of debate not of discourse.

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#38

Post by protocolture »

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...

Interesting. I read an article stating the opposite.

That to organise effective action on the ground, smart protesters were distracting the anti violence bleeding hearts while discussing and implementing more effective actions.

In particular it was stated that part of those particular riots were a distraction to (successfully iirc) lure the cops away from the police station.

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#39

Post by 8note »

WaitWaitWha wrote: post #37
KennyBlanken wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> if you are merely silent that means you waive your right to remain silent. This is not my reading. For those who want to read the actual details: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/560/370/ Here are some nuggets from the case: "At no point during the interrogation did Thompkins say that he wanted to remain silent, that he did not want to talk with the police, or that he wanted an attorney." "Thompkins did…

whats the part youre disagreeing with?

the context to me still says that remaining silent does not invoke the right to silence.

unless tou break your silence to aay that you intend to be silent, yiu will be prosecuted for your silence

Post reply on HN