Live data from Hacker News

Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

signal.org

31–40 of 357 posts

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#31
Same people screaming 1984 have five authenticator apps installed on their fingerprinted tracking device and 2fa with their phone number, and have no idea what 'sensors off' does.

Palpable irony present when a chat provider whom requires personally identifiable information to use their service complains about privacy...

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#32
post #24

So, in this order: 1. You need a camera on your computer to allow a third party to verify your age before viewing adult content 2. It applies to social media too 3. It applies to your operating system too 4. Unless you age verify, the law demands your computer must be powerful enough to run an AI, or be internet-equipped and send your private photos to a third party, to detect and prohibit nudity. It must be capable…

With just enough fascistic pressure maybe Usenet can be great again. Just have to figure out how to filter known good content from the spam which I think can be solved with OpenPGP identities. Otherwise Tor and download managers for the patient people. Static generated galleries of pictures and videos spread across thousands of small sites. Some downsides of pushing people into dark corners is that all regulation goes out the window along with some tax revenue. Loss of tax revenue may be one way to get their attention.

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#33

[flagged]

This assumes surveillance prevents crime, or even that crime is worth preventing if surveillance is the cost.

In terms of everyday threats to my life, billionaires are a bigger one than criminals.

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#34

Signal refuses to answer: Why won't they release/open source all of their backend infra automation scripts/tools/etc... There's no reasonable reason why a 501(c)(3) won't put this out there to make sure there's redundancy so we could built an alternate network if they're compromised by some gag order.

Probably because its leadership seems to have been taken over by more politically and less technically inclined people (for better and/or worse) who don't understand why it matters.

The trade is we get (hopefully) people very dedicated to keeping the org developing the stuff alive and well-funded, and gaining mainstream acceptance/attention.

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#35

I sometimes wonder whether the people in the tech industry who worked on things like secure boot, attestation, and DRM saw this as the inevitability open source advocates always saw it as. Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means, that politicians couldn't transfer that control to themselves by political means? Did they think they could lock things down to ex…

Twitter people expressly started their company with the idea of crowd-friendly semi-anonymous msgs on demand.

The game of GO delivers an idea where a very large construct can be built then in one move the entire thing flips to a different purpose... seems relevant somehow..

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#36

I sometimes wonder whether the people in the tech industry who worked on things like secure boot, attestation, and DRM saw this as the inevitability open source advocates always saw it as. Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means, that politicians couldn't transfer that control to themselves by political means? Did they think they could lock things down to ex…

I often also wonders if ideological zealots ever thinks of this passage while pushing their agenda for control:

    ...and it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast could even speak and cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be killed.
    Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead,
    so that no one can buy or sell who does not have the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#37

I sometimes wonder whether the people in the tech industry who worked on things like secure boot, attestation, and DRM saw this as the inevitability open source advocates always saw it as. Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means, that politicians couldn't transfer that control to themselves by political means? Did they think they could lock things down to ex…

That was nicely put. I think you can learn about it most by reading clever, capable people from big tech corporations. Their framing often involves tradeoffs against a slow but inevitable societal pressure that is helped by compromising on freedom. So I don't believe they are ignorant of all your points; it's rather that they don't see a realistic way how tech, corporations, and perhaps even ordinary people can go fo…

A lot of harm would be prevented if people didn't do bad shit under the assumption the next guy will do it if they don't. You're the next guy.

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#38

I sometimes wonder whether the people in the tech industry who worked on things like secure boot, attestation, and DRM saw this as the inevitability open source advocates always saw it as. Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means, that politicians couldn't transfer that control to themselves by political means? Did they think they could lock things down to ex…

My impression is that people who can work on stuff like that are the kind who just take the stuff in the world for granted. "This is how the world is, we need digital restrictions so now we need to implement them." "I don't have a say about whether DRM or remote attestation is standard business practice or not, it is just how it is."

This is akin to how two kinds of people respond to law. The first kind think "This is the law, we must follow it" and the other kind think "This law doesn't make sense, we must change it".

People who look at pedestrian traffic lights and cross when it's green vs. people who look at cars and cross when there are no cars coming. The first say you must follow traffic rules and the second kind say they wouldn't be alive if they looked at the green/red light of law instead of whether there are oncoming cars: a green doesn't mean it's safe to cross and a red doesn't mean you can't cross if only there are no cars.

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#39

Same people screaming 1984 have five authenticator apps installed on their fingerprinted tracking device and 2fa with their phone number, and have no idea what 'sensors off' does. Palpable irony present when a chat provider whom requires personally identifiable information to use their service complains about privacy...

> Same people screaming 1984 have five authenticator apps installed

"Yet you participate in society. Curious!"

https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#40

Signal should come out swinging. Here's a pitch. The Government is going to put a snitch on every phone, tape every bedroom, and listen in every evening on every home. Every doctor's visit. Every therapy session. Every pub. Every street. Every store. When the snitches phone home, what you type to your lover may get the cops sent to your home. Artificial stasi in every desktop, laptop, tablet, camera, and phone. Aroun…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN