U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#71

Post by mindslight » Fri, Aug 28, 2026, 2:37 PM UTC

nonethewiser wrote: post #63

iamnothere wrote: post #45

Everyone’s missing the big picture here which is that this targeting of infrastructure providers as “terrorists” is unprecedented and concerning: https://decode39.com/16319/autistici-inventati-case-sets-a-n... If a radical group sets up shop on I2P, are I2P users and devs now terrorists? This is a problem. What about Monero users/devs? Veilid? Tox? Signal?

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#72

Post by mrtesthah » Fri, Aug 28, 2026, 2:37 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #34

epolanski wrote: post #29

What does it entail, in practice? They are sanctioned, okay, and? What happens practically.

The consequences may include the loss of: • Bank accounts and payment processing. • U.S.-linked donations and fundraising services. • Hosting, cloud infrastructure and upstream network services. • Domain registration and related technical services. • Certificate, security and email-delivery accounts. • Software and communications services. • Relationships with non-U.S. providers frightened by American secondary sanct…

My question now is whether European hosting providers sprouting up in the face of the US CLOUD act will step up to provide those services.

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#73

Post by izolate » Fri, Aug 28, 2026, 2:38 PM UTC

[flagged]

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#74

Post by jszymborski » Fri, Aug 28, 2026, 2:40 PM UTC

nonethewiser wrote: post #63

iamnothere wrote: post #45

Everyone’s missing the big picture here which is that this targeting of infrastructure providers as “terrorists” is unprecedented and concerning: https://decode39.com/16319/autistici-inventati-case-sets-a-n... If a radical group sets up shop on I2P, are I2P users and devs now terrorists? This is a problem. What about Monero users/devs? Veilid? Tox? Signal?

[flagged]

> Their own manifesto says they use their limited resources to support groups they align with.

Woah, with radical statements like that, we might have to go after mutual aid groups, PACs, and churches.

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#75

Post by JohnTHaller » Fri, Aug 28, 2026, 2:41 PM UTC

Given administration's obsession with Antifa being in the room with them at all times, it's impossible to take anything they say in relation to this as even close to factual.

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#76

Post by joemazerino » Fri, Aug 28, 2026, 2:41 PM UTC

[flagged]

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#77

Post by tptacek » Fri, Aug 28, 2026, 2:42 PM UTC

agentcoops wrote: post #65

tptacek wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I share most HN'ers priors about this administration and its motives and am commenting positively, not normatively, and only about the specific claim the Treasury Department made. Signal doesn't knowingly and deliberately provide services to any organization, let alone one formally designated by the US and the EU. The whole point of Signal is to eliminate all pretenses of the service knowing who its users are or what…

Yes, I originally only meant to note that in the extended statement on a/I the PKK isn’t mentioned and the focus is rather on a network of “antifa” groups [0]. With respect to your legal point, I reread the document and we’re in agreement: the state department goes to lengths to demonstrate that a/I “manually vets all potential users.” [0] https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...

I feel much more confident saying that regardless of the validity of the underlying legal argument, this administration's messaging (on everything) is unhinged and partisan. I'm purposefully not reading into or out of what they're saying.

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#78

Post by stonogo » Fri, Aug 28, 2026, 2:42 PM UTC

izolate wrote: post #73

[flagged]

Of fascism, capitalism, and communism, only two are going concerns in these people's lives. If they're going to declare themselves "anti-communist" they might as well also take a strong vocal stance against ghosts and flying cars.

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#79

Post by lukewarm707 » Fri, Aug 28, 2026, 2:43 PM UTC

nonethewiser wrote: post #63

iamnothere wrote: post #45

Everyone’s missing the big picture here which is that this targeting of infrastructure providers as “terrorists” is unprecedented and concerning: https://decode39.com/16319/autistici-inventati-case-sets-a-n... If a radical group sets up shop on I2P, are I2P users and devs now terrorists? This is a problem. What about Monero users/devs? Veilid? Tox? Signal?

[flagged]

we should be careful not to assume that the eu, uk and us set a good moral standard to follow.

you might ask who is right; the groups like google providing services to the us military, or the groups providing services to those opposing the us military.

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#80

Post by tptacek » Fri, Aug 28, 2026, 2:44 PM UTC

iamnothere wrote: post #45

Everyone’s missing the big picture here which is that this targeting of infrastructure providers as “terrorists” is unprecedented and concerning: https://decode39.com/16319/autistici-inventati-case-sets-a-n... If a radical group sets up shop on I2P, are I2P users and devs now terrorists? This is a problem. What about Monero users/devs? Veilid? Tox? Signal?

If you have real operational security concerns, your provider shouldn't know anything about you; should in fact have bilateral shielding between themselves and you to prevent either counterparty from learning stuff. That's how Signal works.