121–130 of 154 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The irony here is that they are announcing a tool to subvert restrictions in other countries, but they are following their own countries restrictions to the letter.
Right, which they're obligated to do. As a company, you're bound to follow the laws of the countries in which you do business. You have the option to direct lobbying power against laws you feel are unjust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the USSR and DDR there lived millions of people. Not everyone was abducted, the numbers are in the thousands. People fear lightening. We must not fear our government. Fear of the people who are supposed to represent you is not quite democracy. That is the point of oppression. To instill fear, not bu actually abducting and torturing half the population, just many enough to get the message across. Obey, citizen.
People should fear neither lightning (it's spelled without an e, by the way) nor the US government. At least if they are not involved nor plausibly confused for being involved with inciting terrorism. At least, if they want their fear to be a tool of survival rather than just an irrational impulse. They should fear car crashes and things like that. The US does not abduct people to get a message across, as much as you…
Yes, being abducted and tortured by the CIA is relatively speaking rarer than a car accident, but it's something entirely out of your control, and something completely avoidable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People should fear neither lightning (it's spelled without an e, by the way) nor the US government. At least if they are not involved nor plausibly confused for being involved with inciting terrorism. At least, if they want their fear to be a tool of survival rather than just an irrational impulse. They should fear car crashes and things like that. The US does not abduct people to get a message across, as much as you…
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Khalid al-Masri had better feared the US government, and probably now does. So should everyone who's a muslim or brown, apparently, as the CIA reserves the right to abduct and torture people. Yes, being abducted and tortured by the CIA is relatively speaking rarer than a car accident, but it's something entirely out of your control, and something completely avoidable.
Another "free" Google service that blinds lay people from objectively considering the cost vs. benefits of online privacy/anonymity (since "free" tends to make us act irrationally). Instead, consider paying the equivalent of a cup or two of coffee and buy yourself a real VPN subscription. Even if you must get yourself a free VPN, consider someone other than Google, a company that already has so much data on your digi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a valid issue, in that it's vile the way the US Government sometimes behaves, but that is not a realistic concern for 99.999999% of the world population.
I think it's a valid concern for more than 70 people.
And sure, today's bogeyman is terrorism. What will tomorrow's bogeyman be? During any time of social upheaval you can expect those in power to attempt to maintain their power. We are fast approaching obsolescence of a vast majority of human labor. What social ideas will spring out of that and how will the powers that be respond to a threat to their power? We've sat watch as the ultimate system of control was created around us; it's only a matter of time before it is unleashed on us completely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google is a long-time NSA collaborator. The risks of what they could share with them should always be scrutinized.
I don't think collaborator is a good term here, it is implying they are secretly giving up US citizens for some evil nefarious purposes to the government. I'd label them as a US based company that is complying with US law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Much more useful than the engadget link. Thanks!
Why isn't there a link to this from the Engadget article? That is useless and shoddy. Do they not know how the internet works, or have a single shred of common sense?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why isn't there a link to this from the Engadget article? That is useless and shoddy. Do they not know how the internet works, or have a single shred of common sense?
It's almost as if they care more about traffic than informing their readers.
> "If someone from a country with limited internet access installs uProxy, they can get a friend from the US to authorize them to surf the open web using their connection. " In effect, they would also be sending all their sensitive, potentially illegal traffic to be read and copied by the american NSA agency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%2... People proxying illegal traffic through the U…
If I'm trying to avoid the Syrian secret services, then maybe NSA surveillance is the least of my concerns. This is a peer-to-peer proxy so you don't have to proxy with a friend in the USA. uProxy should be equally useful in avoiding US secret services (though Google's site doesn't highlight this use case).
Also important: can you choose what to allow to pass through your connection? Can I rule out the case of someone accessing a child porn site through my connection?
If I were to run such a proxy, I'd only allow HTTPS or ssh traffic that I cannot possibly decrypt even if I wanted to, so I can't be held accountable for what I proxy.
Same is probably true for the other end: if I were to rely on someone unknown out there proxying my connection, I'd strongly prefer my entire connection to be encrypted, and my identity hard to trace. Else my proxying peers might happen to be exactly the people I'm trying to hide from.