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

121–130 of 220 posts

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#121

Post by cma »

ReptileMan wrote: post #110
tptacek wrote: post #67

One of the first things you can do with any of these kinds of lists is to see if they recommend Firefox over Chrome. It's an excellent shibboleth, because Firefox codes (rhetorically) profoundly more activist- and privacy- friendly than Chrome does, but Chrome has much more sophisticated and better tested runtime protections. Firefox seems like it would be the better recommendation, but if what you care about is not…

[flagged]

They've already said they're going to deport pro-Palestine protesters with student visas who attended protests in the past, and are opening up 15,000 units at Guantanamo Bay for other immigrants to avoid us mainland law, along with an offering for units in an El Salvador concentration camp like megaprison.

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#122

Post by Arech »

tillulen wrote: post #34

How much does a Firefox 0-day cost these days on the grey market compared to a Chrome 0-day with sandbox escape?

Disproportionally more if you divide it on the user base to get the cost of targeting 1 user when you want them all (and most of evildoers want that exactly).

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#123

Post by cma »

ekianjo wrote: post #120
hobs wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They literally got a pardons for murdering people. Please check your priors.

The only people who died were some of the jan 6 protestors. Check your priors.

Something like 170 officers were injured, 15 hospitalozed, and at least one suicide in the aftermath. Several gun charges.

An insurrectionist climbing through a window busted out with an American flag pole was shot for almost getting into a holed up area of law makers. Police and Secret Service warned "Get back! Get down! Get out of the way!"

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#124

Post by bsenftner »

taurknaut wrote: post #92
xethos wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a perfect world? The same way Apple did in ~2015. Argue that code is equivalent to speech, compelling them to write code to change the way the system works is compelling speech, and making that demand is unconstitutional. Apple gets lots of shit for a multitude of reasons, but their stance of "We built it to be securely encrypted from everyone but the owner; if you want to change that then fuck you, make me" is so…

> Not every corporation has both morals I think this is easier: there isn't a single corporation on the earth with morals. Morality and profit-chasing are not generally coherent principles. Nobody doing any good on this earth has a need for an LLC.

I generally agree with your posts/comments, but anyone trying to "do good" in the USA absolutely needs to have liability protection, such as an LLC or a corporation shell of some kind. The moment one starts to make a difference in this corporate controlled nation, the full legal power of both the corporations and their owned government minions will rain down on you. I've seen it. If you're trying to make any kind of a difference, get liability shells around your activities, or you'll be ended the moment you gain traction.

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#125

Post by mvieira38 »

logifail wrote: post #76
janmo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I pointed out they also route all of their traffic through Cloudflare. They also have been caught red-handed logging the IP of an activist despite having previously advertised that they didn't keep any logs. Now they are using misleading terms such as "privacy by default" which according to them means that by default they won't log you but that they can be "forced" to log a user if a law enforcement agency asks th…

> by default they won't log you but that they can be "forced" to log a user if a law enforcement agency asks them to do so Not wishing to be negative, but how (or more specifically for how long) can any provider refuse to cooperate with law enforcement/the legal system?

Yup. Unless you're providing a truly zero-access encrypted service such as chat (e.g. Signal), there truly is no way of avoiding it while staying afloat as a private company. It seems people don't understand that email, which is Proton's bread and butter, CAN'T be fully anonymous and private in relation to the provider unless the provider severely limits functionality by only allowing PGP.

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#127

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #79
jrm4 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not smart. It's entirely reasonable that Chrome may be better on top of its exploit game; but this absolutely pales in comparison to the threat of universal surveillance that Google hits us with frequently. Shouts to the heroes on the inside, but what did I just hear about an AI removal pledge?

See, this is what I'm talking about. If you're trying to protect activists from threats, protect them from threats. Making a political statement about commercial surveillance isn't doing that. A lot of these guides are LARPs. How about this: if you feel strongly about commercial ad surveillance vs. susceptibility to drive-by RCE exploits loaded off web pages, look to see if the "infosec for activist" guides you're re…

[deleted]

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#129

Post by greenie_beans »

newscracker wrote: post #64

This page says it was last updated a few weeks ago, but the recommendation against iCloud backups seems to have glaring errors and omissions. > Keys to unlock the phone’s full-disk encryption are also stored in the iCloud backup. This arrangement allows law enforcement to request the backup data from Apple and use the key to unlock the entire phone. It also offers a convenience, where if the user forgets their unlock…

great! here are the github issues for the repo so you can make that change: https://github.com/InfosecForActivistsTeam/infosec-activists...

Re: Infosec 101 for Activists

#130

Post by hobs »

ekianjo wrote: post #120
hobs wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They literally got a pardons for murdering people. Please check your priors.

The only people who died were some of the jan 6 protestors. Check your priors.

You're right, I went back and read and it looks like the officer who died had their stroke ruled as their cause of death, not the blunt force injuries they received, though it was ruled contributing to his cause of death.

Upon further reading it looks like they only intended to murder a bunch of people and were prevented from doing so while invading the capitol buildings holding nooses, a completely blameless activity.

How's your priors doing btw?

Post reply on HN