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

51–60 of 220 posts

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#51

Post by WaitWaitWha »

RajT88 wrote: post #47
WaitWaitWha wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are multiple documented cases where emergency vehicles are blocked by "blocking a highway" as a "peaceful protest" that resulted in deaths. e.g., London (2022) - Mark Heap and Lisa Webber.

That does not a riot make. It is still a peaceful protest, whether you like it or not, contingent on the definition of "peaceful" being the absence of violence. You do not have to like the outcome of a protest, but if it is not a violent one, you are expected here to describe it in accurate language. You are not doing that. To illustrate my point: your logic dictates that not pulling over for an emergency vehicle is…

I was responding to your note that it is peaceful, not that is or is not a riot.

A gathering where someone dies because of the gathering it is no longer undisturbed by strife, turmoil, calm, and tranquil. It is no longer peaceful.

> ... contingent on the definition of "peaceful" being the absence of violence.

The breaking of peaceful to me is not absence of violence. It is no longer peaceful because force was used to stop the emergency vehicles. Force is one way to be no longer peaceful. In this context, when force is used it implies resistance from someone that was forced to do something they did not want to do (emergency vehicle did not want to stop). It is no longer peaceful; yet no direct "violence" was used.[1]

I can fathom where your response comes and grasp your interpretation, but I disagree.

[1] https://help.unhcr.org/iran/en/more-information/what-is-viol...

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#52

Post by tbrownaw »

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.

The only secure computer is one that's been sealed in concrete without ever being powered on?

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#54

Post by andrewflnr »

fooqux wrote: post #8
some_furry wrote: post #5

That they recommend a VPN and not Tor in their first table immediately makes me suspicious. https://gist.github.com/joepie91/5a9909939e6ce7d09e29

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.

Probably because deanonymizing VPN users isn't news.

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#55

Post by RajT88 »

WaitWaitWha wrote: post #51
RajT88 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does not a riot make. It is still a peaceful protest, whether you like it or not, contingent on the definition of "peaceful" being the absence of violence. You do not have to like the outcome of a protest, but if it is not a violent one, you are expected here to describe it in accurate language. You are not doing that. To illustrate my point: your logic dictates that not pulling over for an emergency vehicle is…

I was responding to your note that it is peaceful, not that is or is not a riot. A gathering where someone dies because of the gathering it is no longer undisturbed by strife, turmoil, calm, and tranquil. It is no longer peaceful. > ... contingent on the definition of "peaceful" being the absence of violence. The breaking of peaceful to me is not absence of violence. It is no longer peaceful because force was used to…

> The breaking of peaceful to me is not absence of violence

Thank you for acknowledging the use of your own definition instead of the common one.

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#56

Post by tbrownaw »

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.

> The USSC recently decided that if you are merely silent that means you waive your right to remain silent.

No. Based on the opinion linked in one of the other comments, there are these possibilities:

- explicitly say you are invoking your right to remain silent -- the have to stop asking you questions

- say nothing -- you're fine, your right to remain silent means they can't use this against you

- answer questions (without being coerced) -- if they read you your rights properly and confirmed you understood, this waives your right to not do what you just did; if they messed up, then you can get your answers thrown out

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#57

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

jfengel wrote: post #16
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.

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.

Telling people how violent the police are tends to get applause in some circles online, but spreading misinformation that you can't get away with exercising your rights is pretty straightforwardly pro-police propaganda. The vast majority of police officers in the US will not kick you if you say you don't want to talk to them.

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#59

Post by pstuart »

protocolture wrote: post #38
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.

> I read an article stating the opposite.

Please share a link then.

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

There's a lot to be unpacked there, but I'm not sure about what you think is "effective action" and why peaceful demonstrators are a bad thing.

Here's a study that backs up my initial statement: https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-vi...

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#60

Post by blackeyeblitzar »

pstuart wrote: post #36
blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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…

I feel that the label of “civil disobedience” is misused as a tactic to justify illegal acts. Infrastructure is not there to serve as anyone’s political platform, and it is built with taxpayers’ money for other purposes. If the gathering does not have a permit, it is illegal, and therefore a disturbance of the peace - in other words, a riot.
Post reply on HN