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

Julian Assange: Cryptographic Call to Arms

cryptome.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 281 posts

Re: Julian Assange: Cryptographic Call to Arms

#91

Post by anigbrowl »

contingencies wrote: post #84
anigbrowl wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You claim it is wrong to question the system, implicitly suggesting there is no alternative. No I didn't. How can you expect me to engage with the rest of your comment in any serious fashion when you just make up claims like this?

I read your "As if we lived in a halcyon utopia prior to that..." paragraph as implicitly denying alternatives to the status-quo of modern society. Apologies if this was not your intent; in any case, in that paragraph you have done essentially to Assange's views what I did with my comment to yours. Haha :) May we all live long and prosper; peace amongst all.

I'm not denying alternatives to it; I'm pointing out that absent a state people still employ violence to assert things like land and property rights, and usually in a more direct and short-term fashion at that.

Re: Julian Assange: Cryptographic Call to Arms

#92

Post by georgeorwell »

anigbrowl wrote: post #76
ef4 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is a non sequitur: states are necessary, therefore states are not systems through which coercive force flows. If you want to argue that states are necessary, fine. But call a spade a spade. Can you imagine a state that doesn't wield violence? That's what a state is . The lack of clarity on this issue leads to a lot of bad conclusions. When we argue that the state should solve any particular problem, we…

Your argument is a non sequitur: states are necessary, therefore states are not systems through which coercive force flows. I did not say that at all. I am OK with states being systems through which coercive force flows, because I think channeling and supervising said force usually results of less of it flowing than otherwise would. Can you imagine a state that doesn't wield violence? That's what a state is. It's har…

I believe his point is that taken to its logical conclusion, states are able to do all of the things that they do because there is inevitably the consequence of violence for non-compliance. All of your examples result in violence for disobedience: destroying infrastructure, breaking laws, ignoring subpeonas. A core idea is that property ownership requires the threat of violence to work; don't pay your rent but don't move out and the sheriff will show up sooner or later. Do you have an example of something a state does that is not actually supported by its power to wield violence?

Re: Julian Assange: Cryptographic Call to Arms

#94

Post by artichokeheart »

mtgx wrote: post #13

I think this is very relevant here - interview with the NSA whistleblower, William Binney, on how NSA is storing every post people are making online, so they (and FBI) can use it later: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuET0kpHoyM No wonder NSA and FBI want warrantless access to private companies by lobbying for new laws like CISPA, and trying to build backdoors in services like Facebook, Skype, Twitter etc. They want…

"But their #1 priority should always, always, be respecting the Constitution, and not trying to skirt around it. And I think they've forgotten all about that long ago."

That's the irony of the whole American security apparatus. They are in place, nominally, in order to protect American citizens rights to live with the freedoms inherently granted to them by the Constitution.

Re: Julian Assange: Cryptographic Call to Arms

#95

Post by SoftwareMaven »

acabal wrote: post #18

I agree with the sentiment, but Assange's prose is a little dense. Maybe it's OK for his target audience, as I assume the layman won't be reading cryptome.org. What we really need is a champion to explain in relatable, plain English why encryption is essential even for mom and dad, and to explain it in a more mainstream venue. I think a big reason why people don't encrypt mail, etc., is because: 1) they don't know wh…

The problem isn't that people don't care.

You are right, people care. But not about things that would make reducing government power likely nor encrypting things by default probable.

They care about getting to work in the morning and getting home at night. They care about dinner with the family and a couple hours mindless television. They care about being safe while they do these things, and they've fully bought into the government's mantra of "we will protect you", so, as long as that's happening, they don't care about anything else.

Go talk to just about anyone outside of sites like Reddit or HN about the TSA, and you will be told how good a job they are doing. When the government tells them it is time to randomly drop their pants for the cavity check, as long as they are told it is making them safe, they will willingly oblige.

As much as the government's power grab, the complete lack of concern for it scares the hell out of me.

Re: Julian Assange: Cryptographic Call to Arms

#96

Post by bluedanieru »

wissler wrote: post #77
bluedanieru wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forget about the Constitution. Rather, they should respect basic human rights and the principles of the Enlightenment. All this focus Americans put on their Constitution makes it easier for their government to become oppressive, because it encourages complacency. As though you could write the perfect set of laws, that you could define the perfect set of operating principles for your government, and in that way free y…

Insightful. I'm curious as to what you think are the basic human rights and the principles of the Enlightenment.

Does it matter? I'm not debating the principles of the Constitution here, but rather the American focus on the document rather than the principles themselves.

Re: Julian Assange: Cryptographic Call to Arms

#97

Post by neilk »

georgeorwell wrote: post #63
mtgx wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice username you got there. So you're saying this all conspiracy theory stuff? I think we've gotten way passed the point where the fact that the government monitors everyone online is just a conspiracy theory.

Thanks :) I don't think it's a conspiracy theory, I just think that the way he frames it is a bit overly dramatic. Personally I just try to stay relatively anonymous and I operate under the assumption that whatever I say or do is basically public information. I can't be bothered with encryption when I'm talking to my friends because those conversations usually consist of things like, "Where do you want to eat?"

I see, so you think if you just try to be as boring as possible, then you have nothing to fear from surveillance? Good luck with that.

What if the world changes, and yesterday's orthodoxy is tomorrow's heresy? This used to happen in the old Soviet Union, all the time.

What if, unknown to you, you are friends with a guy who the government doesn't like? This very thing happened to Maher Arar - actually it was two hops away, his friend's brother signed his lease, and that's all that was needed for the US government to whisk him from JFK airport to be tortured in a Syrian dungeon. Maher Arar is a guy just like you and me - he works in wireless tech, and crossed from Canada to America all the time. See http://maherarar.net/ .

Why do I have to explain this to someone whose nick is georgeorwell?

Re: Julian Assange: Cryptographic Call to Arms

#98

Post by cpeterso »

bluedanieru wrote: post #69
mtgx wrote: post #13

I think this is very relevant here - interview with the NSA whistleblower, William Binney, on how NSA is storing every post people are making online, so they (and FBI) can use it later: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuET0kpHoyM No wonder NSA and FBI want warrantless access to private companies by lobbying for new laws like CISPA, and trying to build backdoors in services like Facebook, Skype, Twitter etc. They want…

Forget about the Constitution. Rather, they should respect basic human rights and the principles of the Enlightenment. All this focus Americans put on their Constitution makes it easier for their government to become oppressive, because it encourages complacency. As though you could write the perfect set of laws, that you could define the perfect set of operating principles for your government, and in that way free y…

I don't disagree, but courts are much more likely to enforce laws that are written down and (implicitly) agreed to by US agencies.

Re: Julian Assange: Cryptographic Call to Arms

#99

Post by tptacek »

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #95
acabal wrote: post #18

I agree with the sentiment, but Assange's prose is a little dense. Maybe it's OK for his target audience, as I assume the layman won't be reading cryptome.org. What we really need is a champion to explain in relatable, plain English why encryption is essential even for mom and dad, and to explain it in a more mainstream venue. I think a big reason why people don't encrypt mail, etc., is because: 1) they don't know wh…

The problem isn't that people don't care. You are right, people care. But not about things that would make reducing government power likely nor encrypting things by default probable. They care about getting to work in the morning and getting home at night. They care about dinner with the family and a couple hours mindless television. They care about being safe while they do these things, and they've fully bought into…

The government doesn't have a "mantra" of "we will protect you". It has an obligation to actually protect its citizens, and, in America, does a pretty good job of it.

The notion that reliance on the government for protection is a brainwashed delusion is one of those conversational signifiers that convince normal people that all this encryption stuff has nothing to do with them.

Re: Julian Assange: Cryptographic Call to Arms

#100

Post by andrewflnr »

javert wrote: post #74
Myrmornis wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> their #1 priority should always, always, be respecting the Constitution Presumably their #1 priority can be specified in a more rational way without random worshipping of some old document? Other countries, not blessed with the Constitution of the USA, also have intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

No. The Constitution defines the proper form and responsibility of American government. If the Constitution falls, we no longer have legitimate government. That's historical fact. Other governments' law enforcement agencies follow the laws of their own countries (or don't). Are you saying they shouldn't do that?

Right. The point of a Constitution or whatever is to have some kind of law to follow. You don't need to worship it, it's just your axioms of government. That's your "rational way" of specifying priority #1.
Post reply on HN