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

U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

inventati.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

711–720 of 776 posts

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

#711

Post by nonethewiser »

inigyou wrote: post #162
nonethewiser wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I support PKK because I run an IPFS node and I'm sure at least one person connected to PKK has uploaded at least one thing to IPFS at least one time. What's with you and your obsession with PKK? You probably support them too through some equally convoluted mechanism, but you're all over this thread saying anyone with any connection must be terminated.

PKK is the reason cited for sanctioning A/I.

>I support PKK because I run an IPFS node and I'm sure at least one person connected to PKK has uploaded at least one thing to IPFS at least one time.

That does not break the law. Knowingly providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization does.

If you can show specific details of you knowingly providing material support of a labeled terrorist organization please share.

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

#712

Post by nonethewiser »

mindslight wrote: post #627
nonethewiser wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is the absolutely perfect Supreme Court case that ruled against your theory. Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/1 There is a law (18 U.S.C. § 2339B) that says you cant knowingly provide material support for designated foreign terrorist organizations. A law firm wanted to provide financial support and legal services to some, including the PKK (the same group A/I wa…

As I said to your first comment: positive arguments rooted in what is aren't terribly compelling when the government has gone off the rails (unfortunately). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49480377

Can you elaborate? The positive argument being that the law and judiciary disagree with you? The court decisions was 15 years ago when Obama was president btw.

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

#713

Post by nonethewiser »

inigyou wrote: post #583
hammock wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know much about this, but are you considering “material support or resources” the same thing as speech?

The government is saying that hosting someone's speech is material support, so yes, they are.

Where does it say that?

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

#714

Post by innocent_name »

gaudystead wrote: post #424
filoleg wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the reason why the 4 is tolerated but the 8 got axed is that 4 is a honeypot and 8 wasn't That's certainly a take. My personal take is that 4chan actually complies with the US laws, specifically the ones around promptly removing+reporting any illegal content that the US cares about (e.g., terrorism threats/CSAM/etc.), and 8chan doesn't. Out of curiosity, what makes you consider 4chan to be a honeypot, as opposed to…

Regarding the honeypot allegations, I'm guessing they're referring to the connections between 4chan's founder, Christopher Poole, aka "moot", and Jeffrey Epstein: https://www.ms.now/opinion/jeffrey-epstein-4chan-chris-poole

Michael Tracey, we really need you here...

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

#715

Post by drgo »

foul wrote: post #134
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?

It is not unprecedented, but a lot of fools lauded moves like this when these kind of instruments were used with barely a legal net around them against islamic terrorism or cybercrime. I'm not crying for no Al-Qaeda or 8chan, mind you. In this very year UN and ICJ officials have been targeted in a similar fashion though. When the pax americana ends like this, I don't know what else is needed for EU and Asia to raise…

There is an endless supply of fools that can be hyped to become the next US president

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

#716

Post by mafuy »

impossiblefork wrote: post #706
A1kmm wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No. With dummy messages you are guaranteed that traffic analysis will not be possible. I don't think that's true. There are two possibilities: If you're proposing that dummy messages are in addition to normal messages, then dummy messages add noise to the signal, but over a long enough time, for known noise distribution, it is possible for the signal to be statistically significant. That depends on there being enou…

No, you always send a dummy message the appointed time. If you have a real message, or a network maintenance message, that substitutes for a dummy message. You never send messages other than at the appointed time. Delayed or dropped messages won't matter, since you only send a message at the appointed time. So the network is literally indistinguishable from one where you have sent no messages to all participants and…

Do messages have a visible receiver address of any kind? In that case, you're out of luck. The only way to do make this statistically sound would involve an insane amount of messages, rendering it impossible.

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

#718

Post by t-3 »

ipaddr wrote: post #537
toast0 wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not sure what to make of this. What was their rate of last minute cancellations? I suspect people in that circle frequently change plans, sometimes at the last minute, so having changed plans on that day would be unremarkable had that day itself been unremarkable. Not to mention the first plane hit at at 8:46 am. Looking at details, none of these seem remarkable, and wouldn't have been remembered or written about i…

[flagged]

No it wouldn't. Parents accompanying children to their first day of school is pretty normal and sometimes required, especially for the fancy private schools someone like Lutnick probably sent his kids to.

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

#719

Post by logicchains »

dpc050505 wrote: post #117
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?

Monero is delisted from exchanges in Canada because the anonymity makes it impossible to comply with anti-money laundering regulations. It makes it a lot harder to acquire the coins or to turn them into liquidity. The government is also going hard against encryption with law c-22, which will make Signal stop providing service in the country.

>It makes it a lot harder to acquire the coins or to turn them into liquidity.

Not really, unless exchanges don't let you withdraw coins into your own wallet? It's trivial for someone to buy another coin like BTC/ETH then use it to purchase Monero via defi.

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

#720

Post by ben_w »

inigyou wrote: post #595
SmashDan wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Pirate Bay has had legal issues, been raided and taken down in the past. Has 4chan has any issues like this?

The UK fined it £520,000 but has no way to enforce it.

In fairness, this at most tells you the UK court system isn't party to any honeypotting.

Despite the memes, the UK is not the 51st state, which is both why it was able to make the fine (1st Amendment doesn't have jurisdiction over the UK) and why it's not able to enforce it (the UK doesn't have jurisdiction over 4chan).

Post reply on HN