Live data from Hacker News

Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

blog.cryptographyengineering.com

151–160 of 244 posts

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#151
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Description of my life. I was telling people for years what is going on, not from position of daydreaming, but what I would be able to pull off. I got back everything from tin foil hat to "I have nothing to hide". Snowden changed that and I am gratefull to him for exactly that... And for one more sentance, that is a work of pure genius: “Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing…

> “Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” I find this sentence interesting because it is very specific to the American public. I am European and personally I care a lot more about privacy than free speech, and America's obsession with free speech boggles my mind. It might hav…

There is absolutely no divide. The concept of a right to (almost) unrestricted freedom to criticize the government comes straight out of Western European legal norms that were in fashion around the founding of the United States, and have continued to remain in fashion since.

No Western-style democracy observes a right to absolutely unrestricted freedom of speech, because it conflicts in obvious ways with other rights. We cannot, for example, incite people to a riot, or yell fire in a crowded theater, or go on the radio and accuse our boss of murdering children. The restrictions against Holocaust denial in Germany (for example) aren't different in kind. Europeans enjoy broad freedom to publish whatever they want about their government, critical or otherwise.

This is in stark contrast with China, Russia, most countries under some form of religious rule, and most dictatorships, where criticizing the government will get you tortured to death or sent to a labor camp at worst, and severely fined and blacklisted from government service at best.

The "median Western European" may have a more nuanced view on the right to free speech than the median citizen of the United States, but I'd attribute that to a superior education system and decades of trying to undo structural economic injustice rather than a cultural divide (which is complete nonsense, honestly).

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#152
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libel laws aren't anti free speech at all. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences* *Unless it's from the government in which case it's absolute.

"Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences." It sounds like a quote from "Animal Farm", doesn't it? I am free to say anything I like, but if I say the wrong thing, I get punished for it. Also, "some are more equal than others".

I mean civil consequences. If someone says something I dislike, and I disassociate with them, that's a consequence. Nobody should ever be jailed for their speech and that's what it's designed to protect against.

Libel is special because it's purely a civil matter and usually has to prove malicious intentions.

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Before Snowden, if you spoke about these issues, you were dismissed as paranoid. I’ve been telling people for years, but nobody listened. Now everyone knows it’s true, but still nobody seems to care…

>Now everyone knows it’s true, but still nobody seems to care… That just about sums up every bad act. Lots of people were aware of all the bank fraud and toxic loans leading to the 2008 real estate bubble, no one cared leading up to it, and no one cares now. The Googles/Facebooks/amazons are collecting and doing unsavory things with your data, whether you ever used their services or not (shadow accounts), no one seem…

Well it might have contributed to GDPR, which is a step in the right direction.

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who defines incitement? Who defines ethnic or racial hatred? Is it incitement of racial hatred to post a joke video of your dog performing a Nazi salute?

> Is it incitement of racial hatred to post a joke video of your dog performing a Nazi salute? Why did you post it? Because you know it's controversial and would create engagement. If the nazi salute wasn't controversial (and rightfully considered hate crime) you would have ignored it. BTW the first amendment does not condone hate speech. Because even USA understands that there is a limit on everything.

The first amendment doesn't condone hate speech, nor does it disallow it

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't have the transcript - did he say that 'he' couldn't or that Facebook couldn't? Or that other agencies, facilitated by Facebook couldn't?

For example, he said at one point: > No, we don’t see any of the content in WhatsApp, it’s fully encrypted It's clear he's speaking about his company. Given Snowden, it would be monumentally stupid to make such a bare faced lie to Congress if they were reading, or facilitating the ability to read, unencrypted content. Especially as he could have chosen not to say anything so specific. Congressman Schatz was talking a…

What he said there was they don't see, not they can't see.

What he also didn't say there was whether others routinely saw with Facebooks help.

Not saying they do, just saying he didn't strictly say they didn't.

He may of also being talking in the context of using content for advertising, not surveillance.

Finally a lot of intelligence gathering is just based on who has talked to who kind of networks in the first instance, rather than content because:

1. Content can be obfuscated, but not the connections

2. Easier to store and navigate

3. Less noise

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech is not responsible for WWII at all?! You forget that Hitler's ideas were popular at the time - that's why he was elected. Slowly but surely it was the free speech of Jews, their very ability to combat the incoming tyranny before it was to late, was clamped down on. As such, censorship was quite popular. Free speech levels the playing field between government and people.

I think he intended that unadulterated free speech is not necessarily the most important of the rights. I think freedom of the press and freedom of association come before that. In fact the first thing Mussolini did when he won the election (not without the help of violence, verbal but more importantly physical, like Hitler also did after him) was to abolish the free press and make all the other parties illegal.

1) Freedom of the press is a subset of freedom of speech.

2) Verbal 'violence' is a fallacy. It doesn't exist.

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#157
post #66

Oh yeah : - Before Snowden, if you spoke about these issues, you were dismissed as paranoid. - After Snowden, if you dismiss these issues, you are dismissed as hopelessly naive... Oh, also - considering all this - you can bet that Intel's Management Engine has likely been backdoored by the NSA, so using Intel's processors is not recommended, especially if you're a non-US company... (industrial espionage !) https://bl…

Yeah, we'll just go ahead and use x86 processors from AMD, another US company, which are surely not backdoored...

AFAIK, the equivalent of IME is not present in all AMD processors, only (maybe) those with integrated graphic chips ? But overall, yeah, Europe should just create their own chip industry, it's too critical to leave it to others...

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#158
post #97
post #63

I have often wondered why everyone simply doesnt use Pidgin OTR ... or OTR for every communication

Because the UI/UX is terrible, and XMPP is not mobile friendly at all

Being ugly and functional is fine with me. Pretty and exploitable seems a bit silly as a reason for use. Pidgin does so much more than xmpp

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#159
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Before Snowden, if you spoke about these issues, you were dismissed as paranoid. I’ve been telling people for years, but nobody listened. Now everyone knows it’s true, but still nobody seems to care…

Description of my life. I was telling people for years what is going on, not from position of daydreaming, but what I would be able to pull off. I got back everything from tin foil hat to "I have nothing to hide". Snowden changed that and I am gratefull to him for exactly that... And for one more sentance, that is a work of pure genius: “Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing…

I was actually more positive than reality, for a better "quip" - I still had a discussion where the other person pushed the "I have nothing to hide" angle as recently as last month ! And that persons' grandparents died in Auschwitz... (Thankfully, this seems to be much more rare in the "tech" circles ?)

Re: Looking Back at the Snowden Revelations

#160
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libel laws aren't anti free speech at all. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences* *Unless it's from the government in which case it's absolute.

"Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences." It sounds like a quote from "Animal Farm", doesn't it? I am free to say anything I like, but if I say the wrong thing, I get punished for it. Also, "some are more equal than others".

I can insult the president, house, senate, justices, and all the others in government. And not only that, I can 'peacably assemble', and 'petition for a redress of grievances'. Those are all rights in the 1A alongside free speech.

Compare that to: Poland, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, and Saudi Arabia.4 are European and 2 not. Yet it is a criminal charge if you do. And in Saudi Arabia, it's a terrorist charge.

Post reply on HN