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

Be anonymous

kg.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 260 posts

Re: Be anonymous

#141

Post by d0gsg0w00f »

imnotlost wrote: post #138
d0gsg0w00f wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, big pharma over does it sometimes but remember that people truly need these drugs sometimes and they are prescribed by well intentioned doctors. I don't think you can compare a legitimate business publishing public accounting figures, operating within the law, subject to policy by elected officials with the illicit drug trade who's supply chains operate in the dark. These supply chains are probably responsible…

Re. big pharma, imagine how weary the roughly 400k families of people who dies feel. "Three major drug distributors and the pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson have agreed to a $26 billion settlement with states to resolve thousands of lawsuits over the country's opioid crisis, officials announced Wednesday." https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/4-companies-near-26-bil... None of these executives were anonymous or…

In that vein you have to also prosecute alcohol distilleries, tobacco companies, fast food companies, casinos, lotto companies, ice cream makers, and any other company that makes something that people struggle to control their own consumption. And we do, that's why we have government. At least you have a recourse when these companies operate within the law.

Re: Be anonymous

#142

Post by ssklash »

I think the point about most people not choosing anonymity at all is a bit misleading. It assumes that these people are making a reason, informed choice, and going ahead and living the way they do. I don't think that's the case.

Most "normal" people, and even many tech people, don't know what companies like Google and Facebook are capable of. If you showed someone exactly what information of theirs was collected, for how long, the predictions they could make with it,and god knows what else is being done with it, I think many people would change their behavior. But they don't know, and this is not an accident.

Most people do not even know what the business model of Facebook and Google are. If you ask, they'd probably say something like "oh they're an email company" or "they help me share photos of my grand kids" or god-forbid, they're "helping connect people connect". Both are surveillance-based, personal information-driven ad companies. That's it. No amount of Google X or Android or Gmail or Libra or FB Live or any other program will change what their business is. And they will never, ever admit to this.

Re: Be anonymous

#143

Post by Thorrez »

NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #134
Thorrez wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Or you can just be a known drug lord, launder billions of USD through a respected international bank, no one goes to jail, small fine, Are you referring to some specific drug lord? Who?

Pfizer?

That's not the normal definition of "drug lord". Also, was Pfizer involved in money laundering?

Re: Be anonymous

#144

Post by syntheweave »

ethbr0 wrote: post #108
titzer wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should just assume a "real phone" is rooted by the FBI and functions to track your movements 24/7, accurate to the meter, is capable of remotely enabling mic/camera and all sensors, including WiFi, accelerometer, GPS, etc. Because even if it isn't, the software on it already (system software, apps, everything) already does a massive amount of snooping, distilling, and uploading. The feds "enabling" targeted surve…

I'd argue that real anonymity requires disconnection from digital networks in this age. I.e. cash, rural, paper letters for last mile The internet is by definition centralized and the government has privileged access, from a surveillance perspective. Luckily, the number of people who really need this level of anonymity (i.e. I am wanted by every world government as a top priority) is pretty low.

Going analog is really more of an obscurity play than an anonymity one. In which case, you can go online and simply aim to be obscure, to never raise alarms, position oneself as a predatory target, or announce oneself as a threat. Explicit, true thoughts get pushed out to alt accounts, private diaries and the like. You may even allow some degree of linkage to take place, a "if you worked that hard to get here, you know exactly what you were doing" signal. I've done that for years.

I think this is the only way to feel truly at ease with the state of things, really. Keeping a whole self in public or in private is asking a bit much.

Re: Be anonymous

#145

Post by Thorrez »

imnotlost wrote: post #135
Thorrez wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Or you can just be a known drug lord, launder billions of USD through a respected international bank, no one goes to jail, small fine, Are you referring to some specific drug lord? Who?

https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2013/investing-n... My point being, this went on for a long time before they got "busted" and the bank people knew who they were dealing with. They didn't have to use crypto or tor or whatever to stay anonymous. They just used cash, everyone knew each other. They probably had dinners with coke and champagne. And when they did get "busted", somehow no one goes to prison, the…

Some of the actual drug lords did get arrested:

>Since 2009, the investigation has resulted in the arrest, extradition, and conviction of numerous individuals illegally using HSBC Mexico accounts in furtherance of BMPE activity.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/hsbc-holdings-plc-and-hsbc-ba...

Re: Be anonymous

#147

Post by ethbr0 »

syntheweave wrote: post #144
ethbr0 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that real anonymity requires disconnection from digital networks in this age. I.e. cash, rural, paper letters for last mile The internet is by definition centralized and the government has privileged access, from a surveillance perspective. Luckily, the number of people who really need this level of anonymity (i.e. I am wanted by every world government as a top priority) is pretty low.

Going analog is really more of an obscurity play than an anonymity one. In which case, you can go online and simply aim to be obscure, to never raise alarms, position oneself as a predatory target, or announce oneself as a threat. Explicit, true thoughts get pushed out to alt accounts, private diaries and the like. You may even allow some degree of linkage to take place, a "if you worked that hard to get here, you kn…

The way I look at it is a matter of attack surface and attack distance. Digital vastly increases both.

You have layers and layers of technology in even the simplest modern computers, and core network infrastructure subject to tapping or worse.

And much of this that can be done from anywhere on the planet.

Analog requires physical proximity, a strength and a serious inconvenience. But it also has the property of being legacy, in that you are now immune to state of the art digital methods, and susceptible to older ones that may be out of institutional memory and practice.

Re: Be anonymous

#148

Post by pc86 »

cellis wrote: post #38

As careful as some of the things he suggests are...if you're truly wanted by a state-level actor or sufficiently motivated attacker, you won't be able to hide by simply using VPN and Tor. Especially if you're running something with many transactions like AlphaBay. You would need to obfuscate quite a bit more: - if you're using VPN traffic but most people "around" you aren't, you're a suspicious node; your ISP could e…

Do you think it's fair to say that if you need to be anonymous/hidden from state-level actors that you need state-level support?

Re: Be anonymous

#149

Post by ethbr0 »

chihuahua wrote: post #131
ethbr0 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FBI has "like a 99.96% conviction rate"?

99.96333 (repeating of course)

https://www.justice.gov/usao/resources/annual-statistical-re...

I get 93.22% for defendants in US District Court in 2019. And 93.16% for 2018. (Edit: Fixed some math & dates)

Edit: Found the referring agency line item. 91.12% for FBI-referred in 2019, 91.34% in 2018.

If you're going to quote statistics, don't just pull them out of thin air. The government is required to report this stuff, you know?

Re: Be anonymous

#150

Post by pc86 »

panqueque wrote: post #133
coolspot wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You thought this through too well. Probably should be traced back, put in a list and investigated just for this comment.

Don't worry, we're all on the list already.

Kind of makes the concept of lists pointless, doesn't it?
Post reply on HN