Live data from Hacker News

25 years of mass surveillance is enough

schneier.com

351–360 of 384 posts

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#351

It's a great write up thankyou. I propose we build and distribute easy to use services designed to run on our own devices, in our own homes, to take full advantage of 1st and 4th amendments, then distribute these services widely with billboards so that people have alternatives and can take advantage of these protections.

We are trying, but the interop of these self hosted services currently suck. Fediverse is hard to get in to unless you have many users or you just have to join a popular instance. Who knows what they do in this instance, and it turns back into a loop.

Fediverse doesn't actually solve a problem I have. I'm not on xitter or instabook or myspace and don't want to be. The one saas i really need is email, which is 1. Already decentralized and 2. Getting harder to self host every year due to the escalating war between slopspammers and security measures.

Signal solves the async messaging and phone surveillance satisfactorily for my "threat model".

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#352
post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just the way the US system is set up. You can't win the presidency by doing really well in the five largest states.

Yes, it was set up that way to keep slave-owning states in the union, which one assumes should no longer be an issue. I don't think you should be able to win the presidency by doing really well in the five largest states necessarily, but I definitely don't think you should be able to win the presidency by only doing well in a couple of swing states.

No, it wasn't to keep slave owning states in the union. You're confusing the 3/5th compromise with the electoral college. The reason we have 50 little elections instead of one big one is to keep the largest states from dictating policy to everyone else.

Whenever you have voting you have swing votes. That's just Democracy. If it wasn't swing states it would be swing voters nationwide.

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#353
post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average American struggles to pay rent, utilities, and food, actually. They can’t just go donate 99.999% of their wealth and still survive like billionaires could.

> The average American struggles to pay rent, utilities, and food, actually. Do you think your average Billionaire do not struggles to pay for their 500m yacht or flock of supermodels and Hollywood stars? > They can’t just go donate 99.999% of their wealth and still survive like billionaires could. They totally can. An average American worker with 12 dollars salary in terms of excess cash is way closer to Elon Musk t…

> but they can easily pay 80%, 90%, 95%, or even 98% of their incomes

Not american but I'd presume food, protection from the elements and healthcare costs arefor the vast majority higher than what's left over even if they only afford themselves the minimum no?

Where I live the absolute bottom segment of housing is proportionally more expensive and the price inflexible because smaller or shitier quite frankly doens't exist or is illegal.

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are trying, but the interop of these self hosted services currently suck. Fediverse is hard to get in to unless you have many users or you just have to join a popular instance. Who knows what they do in this instance, and it turns back into a loop.

Fediverse doesn't actually solve a problem I have. I'm not on xitter or instabook or myspace and don't want to be. The one saas i really need is email, which is 1. Already decentralized and 2. Getting harder to self host every year due to the escalating war between slopspammers and security measures. Signal solves the async messaging and phone surveillance satisfactorily for my "threat model".

I host my own mail, I really did not have any issues for around 3-4 years i've used it. As long as you get your records correct imo it is also very easy to host and use, though Google keeps sending me TLS reports every day.

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The average American struggles to pay rent, utilities, and food, actually. Do you think your average Billionaire do not struggles to pay for their 500m yacht or flock of supermodels and Hollywood stars? > They can’t just go donate 99.999% of their wealth and still survive like billionaires could. They totally can. An average American worker with 12 dollars salary in terms of excess cash is way closer to Elon Musk t…

> but they can easily pay 80%, 90%, 95%, or even 98% of their incomes Not american but I'd presume food, protection from the elements and healthcare costs arefor the vast majority higher than what's left over even if they only afford themselves the minimum no? Where I live the absolute bottom segment of housing is proportionally more expensive and the price inflexible because smaller or shitier quite frankly doens't…

> I'd presume food, protection from the elements and healthcare costs arefor the vast majority higher than what's left over even if they only afford themselves the minimum no?

Obviously no. What a hypocrisy and shifting of blame. "The minimum" you'd get if you are working for less than 20 cents per hour. When you are working for several dollars per hour, you are drowning in luxury comparing to the rest of the world and refusing to pay your fair share to other people, whose work you are appropriating.

> Where I live the absolute bottom segment of housing

That is the same as talking about "absolute bottom segment of housing in which billionaires are living". I mean, duh. Your bottom segment of housing (food, protection from the elements, healthcare) is literally a function of your bottom segment of income, it is not the "minimum".

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#356
post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Militant” trans activists? How is just using someone’s pronouns “speech control”? It’s no different than using a name. If trans people tell you who they are, just believe them, it’s not that hard. There’s nothing mythical about the ongoing trans genocide. Genocides don’t just happen in gas chambers. https://translegislation.com/ I am not going to say much more here because I’m fairly certain none of this will get th…

"Trans genocide" is a ridiculous term and insisting on it is doing us no favours (and I say this as a trans woman).

https://www.lemkininstitute.com/red-flag-alerts/red-flag-ale...

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but they can easily pay 80%, 90%, 95%, or even 98% of their incomes Not american but I'd presume food, protection from the elements and healthcare costs arefor the vast majority higher than what's left over even if they only afford themselves the minimum no? Where I live the absolute bottom segment of housing is proportionally more expensive and the price inflexible because smaller or shitier quite frankly doens't…

> I'd presume food, protection from the elements and healthcare costs arefor the vast majority higher than what's left over even if they only afford themselves the minimum no? Obviously no. What a hypocrisy and shifting of blame. "The minimum" you'd get if you are working for less than 20 cents per hour. When you are working for several dollars per hour, you are drowning in luxury comparing to the rest of the world a…

>Obviously no. What a hypocrisy and shifting of blame.

Obviously yes. Your effort to equate the ability to scale down of billionaires to people who struggle to afford a shoebox appartment and lifesaving procedures if they were to fall ill is ghoulish. "

A lot of those a bit above the minimum do indeed spend more on what were historically luxuries because those luxuries now cost a fraction of their historical price whilst housing and such has typically gotten more expensive.

>That is the same as talking about "absolute bottom segment of housing in which billionaires are living".

It is not in any way shape or form the same because billionaires can go lower.

> it is not the "minimum".

The alternative is no housing (or often moving in with parents) so i'd argue it is. i'll remind you that a tent on the sidewalk isn't exactly legal everywhere.

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#358
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, to pick what is perhaps the easiest example, wanting to abridge speech is anti-American by its very definition. It is possible to have a thing that is anti-American. So I'm not sure what good it is to reject the term altogether.

Ah, I see, it's the same as "un-American", only without being a word too onerous to use (yet) due to obvious historical implications.

I'm not sure what point your trying to make? I would also say trying to abridge speech is generally "un-American" as well as "anti-American." Are you trying to differentiate between the two terms? Or are you saying because HUAC existed half a century ago that nothing can possibly be considered un/anti-American?

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#359
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly agree with your take. The ultra wealthy are entrapped by their own minds & machines of wealth that have tight demands.

> The ultra wealthy are entrapped by their own minds & machines of wealth that have tight demands. But only within their minds. They could change their minds, donate or pay enough taxes that their billions would be distributed far and wide. Then they'd no longer be trapped. Plenty of people make the choice to stop acquiring, stop increasing their wealth, and stop having more everything (kids, houses, cars, pets, hobb…

> They could change their minds, donate or pay enough taxes that their billions would be distributed far and wide. Then they'd no longer be trapped.

They pay giant amounts of tax. The people not paying tax, or costing negative tax, are who you mean.

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#360
post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lololol ok: Biden: The Biden Administration's promulgation of a Title IX interpretation that, among other things, would have compelled certain kinds of speech: https://speechfirst.org/case/title-ix/ One example of many: it would have been a punishable offense to refuse to use someone's preferred pronouns. This is what's called "compelled speech", and it's when someone says to you, "Say $THING or else ". It's very rea…

Why are these supposedly serious violations funny to you? Most of what you cited is about what a policy might imply or what someone’s rhetoric might lead to. Also, I don’t know if you knew this, but Walz was never part of the Biden administration. Are you similarly bothered by the actual First Amendment violations the Trump administration has carried out? The White House excluded AP reporters because the AP wouldn’t…

I appreciate you engaging.

Several things:

> Walz was never part of the Biden administration.

I made a claim about the scarequotes(left), not about the Biden administration specifically. You asked about Biden. They were going for succession, you know!

> Are you similarly bothered by the actual First Amendment violations the Trump administration has carried out?

Yes

> AP reporters not allowed

The executive has leeway here, it's not clear exactly how much. Biden wasn't inviting Breitbart in, for example. That a judge found something doesn't mean much, supremes finding something would be meaningful.

> Targeted pro-Pal students

Specifically, pro-Pal foreign students. The Americans are right now in the process of figuring out when their rights apply to foreigners and when they don't. Often, the fed's tack is: we ask you at the border if you support terrorist organizations. If you say "yes", we don't let you in. Turns out you support HAMAS. That's a terrorist org, it's on our list. You lied. Goodbye! So in many cases it's not about speech per se, but rather whether you lied to the feds. And if the "unconstitutionality" thing here holds up, well then...I guess USA decided free speech applies to foreigners in the country. But until very recently that was a murky issue. Maybe still is, idk.

> Perkins Cole

"Liberals" do the same thing. Look at Biden pressuring for debanking of crypto people [https://www.forbes.com/sites/tonyaevans/2025/12/06/feds-bowm...]. Or jawboning Meta. I think it's less salient when left does it because they have captured the majority of institutions. So it looks like business as usual. It looks "legit". Except...it's just Blue enacting its will through e.g. the Fed, or whoever it is that regulates banks.

>Canceled grants

Here, I'm an expert! I'm an academic who has been negatively affected by all this. What some district court judge found is irrelevant, so I'll ignore that (just in case: district court judges are small potatoes and their rulings do not have precedential value). What I will say is: the situation had gotten WAY out of hand. The feds were funding a bunch of batshit crazy stuff that was CLEARLY just fraud and woke virtue-signaling. A lot of good stuff got canceled too, which is sad. That good stuff probably had batshit crazy woke signaling in their grant write-ups because that's the only way you could get funded! Which is sad. Should the admin have used a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer? Yes. Should the humanities be getting much less funding and producing far fewer graduate students? Yes. Even graduating from a top (~Harvard) program, humanities graduate students have something like a 10-25% chance of a "real" (professorship) job. And that might be Northwest Arkansas State Community Daycare College.

> Harvard

Harvard was made an example of. Fair? No. Did they break the law A LOT, just like everyone else? You betcha! Did they definitely discriminate in favor of Pal against Israel? Yes, certainly did. Did the admin handle it in the smartest way possible? Definitely not.

> Trump actually did bad things, not "might"

You have to understand: the "speech" climate in academia has been so, so bad for ten years - and that's because of the "liberals", not Trump and co. It's been insane. The speech restrictions were REAL. People got FIRED. Many more people KEPT QUIET ABOUT REAL SCIENCE THINGS FOR FEAR OF PUNISHMENT. Things are better now, crazier but better. You can talk kinda. The institutions are still >80% captured by Team Blue, but there is a breath of fresh air. A waft. One needn't be fearful all the time.

And I should say as well: the "thou shalt speak the wokeness" thing is, for most disciplines, merely an academic exercise. Lip service. You're a physicist: so what? "Trans women are women". Okay, fine, whatever - I believe it, I don't, I support it, I don't, it has nothing to do with fermions.

But imagine you study humans, and human behavior: suddenly, everything has real stakes. "Black people and white people are different!" --> fired. "Evolution is real and it affects behavior systematically" --> fired. Carole Hooven, for instance (driven out, not fired - cheaper that way).

One final word:

There is an extremely important difference between the tantrums of the present administration and the tack that Biden and Friends were taking. The present administration shows no signs of trying to make its infringements permanent and systematic. The previous group was trying to do precisely and exactly that. Which is much, much scarier to me.

Post reply on HN