111–120 of 282 posts
When X is illegal, only the criminals will have X. Replace X with basically anything.
When not only the criminals have X, then X is not illegal.So, here's my take on all this 'surveillance is good for you'. It more or less proves (to me at least) that the government(s) and the various secret services have absolutely no idea who to monitor specifically. So instead of targeting their operations they want to monitor all of us, just in case something of interest pops out that then allows them to focus their attention. It's a pretty scary thought: just imagine, a…
Accepting that means we can throw those wasted resources at things that have a better chance of working - throw the tech that detects copyright infringements at detecting pro-ISIL sites, and use DCMA-style tactics to take them down. Fund new research to put effective bomb and weapon detectors into every doorway. Because protecting borders doesn't work either (crunchy on the outside, soft on the inside). Build schools, instead of bombing them. Stop selling weapons to the very people that shouldn't have them. Teach politicians to value non-American lives as much as American ones. Stop honouring violent death, and honour the deaths of people who move humanity forward instead.
There's an endless stream of ideas of what we could do, if only we actually wanted it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So politicians and intelligence services calling for encryption want, institutionally, to keep people safe. How can tech companies do that without breaking or backdooring encryption? That's the real problem to solve, and the first person to figure out how to do that will be way ahead. I don't think this is a technical problem, and I don't think it's our responsibility to solve it. If the US wants to stop terrorism…
Anyone care to enlighten me as to why I'm being downvoted?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He is defending a corrupt institution which has repeatedly lied, tortured and murdered. Also,what he wrote is wrong, chances are not better than even that some random issue is a certain way because of some complex technical reason, most decisions in DC are made through the lens of politics, ask anyone who works in policy and they will say the same.
I might even agree with you. But that's no reason to resort to name-calling. Attack the reasoning, not the person.
The OP wrote is wrong, just plainly wrong, he also dismisses out of hand the real concerns of state overreach.
I've seen astro turfing on HN before, unfortunately mods seem more interested in sweeping such incidents under the rug than being upfront with the community.
Or perhaps HN really isn't very sophisticated if his comment gets top spot, but more than likely comments in politically sensitive topics are heavily manipulated.
EDIT: then link me to where mods have an open discussion with the community concerning government astro turfing. And tell us what is occurring to mitigate such incidents.
So, here's my take on all this 'surveillance is good for you'. It more or less proves (to me at least) that the government(s) and the various secret services have absolutely no idea who to monitor specifically. So instead of targeting their operations they want to monitor all of us, just in case something of interest pops out that then allows them to focus their attention. It's a pretty scary thought: just imagine, a…
So, here's my take on all this 'surveillance is good for you'. It more or less proves (to me at least) that the government(s) and the various secret services have absolutely no idea who to monitor specifically. So instead of targeting their operations they want to monitor all of us, just in case something of interest pops out that then allows them to focus their attention. It's a pretty scary thought: just imagine, a…
> It more or less proves (to me at least) that the government(s) and the various secret services have absolutely no idea who to monitor specifically. So instead of targeting their operations they want to monitor all of us, just in case something of interest pops out that then allows them to focus their attention. Except that most of the recent terror attacks have involved at least one person known to the authorities.…
Edit: Some more on that: the best way to attack a high-tech society is using low-tech means and vv. We're totally blinded by our trust in technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I might even agree with you. But that's no reason to resort to name-calling. Attack the reasoning, not the person.
An apologist is one who defends a particular view, I really am struggling to understand what you intending to express. The OP wrote is wrong, just plainly wrong, he also dismisses out of hand the real concerns of state overreach. I've seen astro turfing on HN before, unfortunately mods seem more interested in sweeping such incidents under the rug than being upfront with the community. Or perhaps HN really isn't very…
There you go again. I know for a fact that the mods take these things very seriously and are very upfront about it to the community, of which I am a member.
So, here's my take on all this 'surveillance is good for you'. It more or less proves (to me at least) that the government(s) and the various secret services have absolutely no idea who to monitor specifically. So instead of targeting their operations they want to monitor all of us, just in case something of interest pops out that then allows them to focus their attention. It's a pretty scary thought: just imagine, a…
they would be better off trying to stop what causes these terrorists from wanting to attack us...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best backdoor to encryption has always been social. Talk the right way to the right people... and it doesn't matter what type of security you have. Isn't that the entire purpose of agencies like the CIA? It just bothers me when privacy is treated as a negative thing, for the greater good or not. Encryption is a tool to create privacy. The ability to create privacy should be a point of pride as not everyone has th…
Except encryption provides a level of privacy that has never before been possible. Could you imagine a physical padlock that was unable to be cracked, cut, or circumvented in any way? It is easy to see how that would scare law enforcement. Imagine your job is to keep people safe. Now envision a kid strapped to a bomb inside a shack and the only thing preventing you from breaking in and saving that kid's life is that…
Clever locksmiths will always be able to make powerful padlocks using that research.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except encryption provides a level of privacy that has never before been possible. Could you imagine a physical padlock that was unable to be cracked, cut, or circumvented in any way? It is easy to see how that would scare law enforcement. Imagine your job is to keep people safe. Now envision a kid strapped to a bomb inside a shack and the only thing preventing you from breaking in and saving that kid's life is that…
That's a good analogy, but the padlock has already bolted! Information about the uncrackable padlock is widely available. Bad guys will always be able to get these padlocks from the black market. The question is whether we want the good guys (i.e. us) to have the padlocks too.