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

Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

lavabit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 321 posts

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#301

Post by jlgreco »

jasonlotito wrote: post #299
jlgreco wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sensing a lot of continued hostility here. I am not sure why, since we apparently do not disagree, and since I have made it clear that I did not have any malicious intent. > I make the assumption people will ask if they are unsure or not clear. You have misunderstood me. I did not find your comment to be unclear after reading it. However my take-away from your comment was incorrect. Complaining about a loaded qu…

> I am sensing a lot of continued hostility here. There is zero in my last comment. Maybe you could highlight what statement I made that was in any way hostile. I was precise, polite, and stated clearly my position. The only one being hostile is you. > I am not sure why, since we apparently do not disagree What makes you think that? > instead of simply and civilly correcting me ("I don't think that") Why do you keep…

Listen, I'm not a robot. When I read a post, I read what is literally being said, and I read between the lines; I look for subtext, and implications. I am not going to stop doing tihs. Maybe when you write those things never exist, but I don't believe that. I'm going back with my original assumption, which is that are dodging any attempt to address the subtext and implications in your posts because you want them to go unchallenged. You are making these implications, we are challenging them, and you are dodging.

tl;dr: kelnos nails it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6520055

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#302

Post by gregw134 »

bshanks wrote: post #265
gregw134 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the idea, but I don't think people should be allowed to have unlimited up or down votes. That would encourage whimsical opinions, and would make the site reflect the opinions of the most active and opinionated users instead of the average person. I think there needs to be a way to limit the voice of each user so each person has the same amount of influence. One idea I like is to give each user 100 points to di…

This sort of scheme can cause problems with vote splitting and 'spoilers'; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect#Bush.2C_Gore.2C... , and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_clones_criteri... . For example, if 50% of voters are "for" gun control, and 50% are "against" gun control, but there are 2 very popular, well-written posts supporting gun control, and only one very popular, well-written…

Interesting post on reweighted score voting. How would that work in practice for sorting comments? Would you have people rank the top-level comments in the order they agree with?

The strategy I had in mind for comments was to create a column of arguments for and against, and to only allow users to vote on comments in the column where they've placed their opinion. That way the strongest arguments from both sides would be shown.

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#303

Post by yebyen »

kelnos wrote: post #258
jasonlotito wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe that people should have the ability to engage total privacy. They already have the ability to do this. That's not what you are asking for. What you are really asking for is: "I believe that people should have the ability to engage total privacy through any means of communication they so choose."

I believe my statement is more broad than your clarification and so I did say that, but for the sake of the argument, yes, that is indeed what I'm asking for, and I believe that's entirely reasonable. If you have the ability to send encrypted data over any particular communication channel in such a way that no untrusted third party can ever decrypt it (let's assume that it's possible), then I think that should be ent…

There is a long tradition of disallowing encrypted communication on channels that can be (are meant to be) public and snooped by the public.

See licensed Ham radio use. There's no technical restriction or necessity against (well, necessity is up for debate), but there is a legal prohibition on commercial or encrypted transmissions; I read recently that it was being discussed to change this. I guess it would have been reported on HN frontpage if this had gone through.

The argument as I understand it is that Ham bands are a shared, public resource (commons) and that their use is strongly regulated by the FCC (and presumably some international body I haven't heard of); if your communications were encrypted, you would be free to violate the rules and engage in commercial activity, which would likely make the band a lot more popular, polluted, and less available as a limited resource for amateur licensed users. It's called broadcast for a reason.

This is obviously far from the situation on the internet, but it's a fun thought experiment to imagine the global internet with similar structure of mandatory licenses for use, and without any encryption or commerce.

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#304

Post by jasonlotito »

jlgreco wrote: post #301
jasonlotito wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am sensing a lot of continued hostility here. There is zero in my last comment. Maybe you could highlight what statement I made that was in any way hostile. I was precise, polite, and stated clearly my position. The only one being hostile is you. > I am not sure why, since we apparently do not disagree What makes you think that? > instead of simply and civilly correcting me ("I don't think that") Why do you keep…

Listen, I'm not a robot. When I read a post, I read what is literally being said, and I read between the lines; I look for subtext, and implications. I am not going to stop doing tihs. Maybe when you write those things never exist, but I don't believe that. I'm going back with my original assumption, which is that are dodging any attempt to address the subtext and implications in your posts because you want them to g…

> When I read a post, I read what is literally being said, and I read between the lines; I look for subtext, and implications. I am not going to stop doing tihs.

But then you need to be prepared to be called out when you are wrong.

> which is that are dodging any attempt to address the subtext and implications in your posts because you want them to go unchallenged.

Because, honestly, their is no subtext. I don't have a firm opinion either way. Any attempt to turn the conversation in any other direction is an attempt by others to push their own agenda.

Let me be clear: I haven't made up my mind.

> You are making these implications, we are challenging them, and you are dodging.

No, that's your imagination.

> tl;dr: kelnos nails it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6520055

No. He's wrong. First, not only is he wrong because of the context of the comment, but he's also wrong in his conclusion.

Sorry, but your making assumptions that aren't true.

The only thing I've gotten out of this conversation is that you can't ask a simple question without your motive being drug into it, and that even if you question other aspects of side, it will be held against you, regardless of your opinions.

tl;dr: You're wrong.

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#305

Post by jasonlotito »

kelnos wrote: post #264
jasonlotito wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a loaded question and I'm not going to play that game.

I don't see how that's a loaded question. You called me out by saying I was suggesting that people should be allowed to have total privacy over whatever means of communication they wish. Someone else asked why you believe that privacy should be restricted depending on the means of communication. If that were a loaded question, then the questioner would be asking why you believe something that you haven't indicated th…

> But by my reading, you do actually believe that.

The problem is, my clarification and your subsequent agreement don't mesh with reality. So yes, I don't believe that people should have total privacy over whatever means of communication they wish, because I don't believe it's realistic, not necessarily because I don't believe privacy should be considered.

You actually explain it best:

> "I'm not saying that all communication channels are designed in such a way as to make that possible, but for those that are, I believe that's completely ok."

And here we have a problem. What exceptions do we allow? What's reasonable? What makes one communication method okay to not expect privacy from, and another to make it a right?

Is it the use of standard encryption methods? Is it the intent of the owner? Should it be technical capability?

So, when you say that people should be able to engage in total privacy, and I say they can do that already, my follow up is to clarify what you really mean. Clearly, I was wrong (despite you agreeing to what was said). Their are limitations on a person's rights to engage and expect total privacy.

And this might all seem pedantic, but it's really the core issue, because even you realize that not all methods qualify for a level of privacy.

Where do we draw the line, because all the discussions seem to miss that crucial mark.

So yes, when I was asked that loaded question, it's because it was assuming intent that simply didn't exist.

I've learned my lesson though. Next time, instead of trying to say only what I mean to say, I'll add a bunch of words and sentences, maybe repeat myself a few times, and state my position, despite the fact that it shouldn't matter.

Edit: In case theirs any question as to why I'm asking these things, it's because of comments like this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6519416

"All you should really have to have in order to keep a conversation private is the intentions."

Suddenly, I'm violating rights just because I happen to overhear someone talking quietly in public.

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#306

Post by dragonwriter »

kelnos wrote: post #267
codex wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The constitution of the US only guarantees freedom from unreasonable search. Reasonable search is absolutely authorized.

Agreed. I believe requiring a service provider to turn over their private SSL key, exposing their entire user base to privacy breaches, to be an unreasonable search. And that's not even really my point. I object on a higher level. If the government goes to a service and says, "I have a warrant to wiretap this user", and the service says, "sorry, we don't have the ability to give you access to a particular user's acti…

> Agreed. I believe requiring a service provider to turn over their private SSL key, exposing their entire user base to privacy breaches, to be an unreasonable search.

Requiring someone to turn something over is a seizure, not a search; if it is the only way to effect an otherwise-reasonable search, its probably also a reasonable seizure. If the recipient of the seizure order has deliberately engineered it to be the only way to effect potential searches of more limited scope, and it has broader impacts, there's really no one to blame but the recipient of the order.

> let's say one of their previous marketing points might have been that they are immune to such things

As, if such an order is legally possible, this advertising was false, I'm not sure why it should be allowed to provide them with a benefit.

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#307

Post by anoncowherd »

l33tbro wrote: post #37

I'm so sick of being sickened. I hate that this is becoming the norm and we can't do anything about it. I hate to spit cliches, but is this where my tax dollars go? For me, govt and internet should almost be like church and state. Where is the data around foiled terrorist plots? I just can't stomach the obtuse logic that we need to pay our taxes to employ these virtual minders. This is not what the internet is about.…

> I'm so sick of being sickened. I hate that this is becoming the norm and we can't do anything about it.

There's only one thing you can do "about" it: Get the fuck out of the USSA while you can. Yes, this is a radical idea, but you can't deny it's starting to make a lot of sense.

Seriously. You personally can't affect what's happening all around you. Voting doesn't change anything. Writing to "your representatives" (hih!) doesn't change anything.

So what's left? You can't do anything about what's happening to your country and, by extension, you. But what you can do, is remove yourself from harm's way and go somewhere else.

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#308

Post by 300bps »

jasonlotito wrote: post #182
kbenson wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's perfectly valid, since those examples were first trotted out prior to that with no argument. If it's so obvious why we should treat those as special cases, it should be trivial to explain why.

> That's perfectly valid, since those examples were first trotted out prior to that with no argument. Except the burden lies with those wanting to add a right to privacy to the list of rights we have. The right to privacy simply doesn't exist. There is a right against unreasonable search and seizure. But that's hardly a right of total privacy. > If it's so obvious why we should treat those as special cases, it should…

The right to privacy simply doesn't exist.

You've posted at least a dozen responses in this thread and it is plain you have no idea what you are talking about in almost every one of them. Are you unfamiliar with the 14th Amendment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_Uni...

the Due Process Clause is also the foundation of a constitutional right to privacy. The Court first ruled that privacy was protected by the Constitution in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

I guess we could forgive you for not being aware of the 14th Amendment - it's not cited much. But it was the basis of Roe v Wade, arguably the most famous Supreme Court case ever:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion

Sticking with Wikipedia - they have a whole article on the Right to Privacy. As related to the United States:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy#United_States

The U.S. Supreme Court has found that the Constitution implicitly grants a right to privacy against governmental intrusion.

It is unbelievable that someone like you will post a dozen responses to people filled with such unbelievably false statements. It is no wonder people are downvoting you.

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#309

Post by jlgreco »

jasonlotito wrote: post #304
jlgreco wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Listen, I'm not a robot. When I read a post, I read what is literally being said, and I read between the lines; I look for subtext, and implications. I am not going to stop doing tihs. Maybe when you write those things never exist, but I don't believe that. I'm going back with my original assumption, which is that are dodging any attempt to address the subtext and implications in your posts because you want them to g…

> When I read a post, I read what is literally being said, and I read between the lines; I look for subtext, and implications. I am not going to stop doing tihs. But then you need to be prepared to be called out when you are wrong. > which is that are dodging any attempt to address the subtext and implications in your posts because you want them to go unchallenged. Because, honestly, their is no subtext. I don't have…

> "But then you need to be prepared to be called out when you are wrong."

I really don't think that I am not. You had me convinced that I was wrong for a while there.

I think your latest reply to kelnos, while completely misunderstanding his point, actually confirms my suspicion about what you actually think. I'll let kelnos and you hash this out though; I'm out.

Re: Lavabit SSL Cert Revoked

#310

Post by indymike »

anoncowherd wrote: post #307
l33tbro wrote: post #37

I'm so sick of being sickened. I hate that this is becoming the norm and we can't do anything about it. I hate to spit cliches, but is this where my tax dollars go? For me, govt and internet should almost be like church and state. Where is the data around foiled terrorist plots? I just can't stomach the obtuse logic that we need to pay our taxes to employ these virtual minders. This is not what the internet is about.…

> I'm so sick of being sickened. I hate that this is becoming the norm and we can't do anything about it. There's only one thing you can do "about" it: Get the fuck out of the USSA while you can. Yes, this is a radical idea, but you can't deny it's starting to make a lot of sense. Seriously. You personally can't affect what's happening all around you. Voting doesn't change anything. Writing to "your representatives"…

Actually, I'd rather try and help fix the USA. It's a pretty nice place and a lot of really good people live here.

Those people deserve a lot better from their elected government. Maybe the right answer is to have more people that care run for office. I'd love to help get some makers into congress and start fixing the problem.

Post reply on HN