Live data from Hacker News

Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

signal.org

161–170 of 357 posts

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#161
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People forget how we got here. Whatever your philosophical stance, history has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that giving most people complete control over their device has been an unmitigiated disaster. Scams, stealing credentials, stealing money, botnets, viruses, losses of data, ransomware, etc etc etc. What is better for most people is a locked down device like an iPad where each app has to be approved and they…

People often misuse freedom. The answer to that is not to take freedom away, but to educate people on how to use their freedom, and only restrict those who have proven to be unable to handle it. Let's say your argument, that clueless users getting infected are an externality upon everyone else and thus they need to be locked down for everyone's good, is accurate (though I don't think it is). In that case, why should…

What if the "clueless" users are 99.99% of the users?

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#162

Signal should come out swinging. Here's a pitch. The Government is going to put a snitch on every phone, tape every bedroom, and listen in every evening on every home. Every doctor's visit. Every therapy session. Every pub. Every street. Every store. When the snitches phone home, what you type to your lover may get the cops sent to your home. Artificial stasi in every desktop, laptop, tablet, camera, and phone. Aroun…

Signal the messaging app/platform? A funny thing is that Signal barely works (with VPN ofc) here in China. Sending media/images is impossible. Sometimes it’s blacked out weeks on end. Everything else seems to work fine ish (again with VPN ofc).

Signal outright lies in their privacy policy. It opens with "Signal is designed to never collect or store any sensitive information." but they collect and permanently store sensitive information in the cloud (user's name, photo, number, and contacts) and in some cases they even store the contents of messages. They've steadfastly refused to update the policy even as they introduced those features deceiving users about their risks. Signal can't really be trusted at this point.

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the law really require third party? Because having on-device functions configurable by parents doesn’t seem terrible at all.

That's not what the UK is demanding. They want client side scanning malware that breaks DRM, circumvents encryption and VPNs, and bypasses other security features in order to scan everything visible on your screen.

I'm happy the UK government finally decided to outlaw DRM.

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#164

Signal refuses to answer: Why won't they release/open source all of their backend infra automation scripts/tools/etc... There's no reasonable reason why a 501(c)(3) won't put this out there to make sure there's redundancy so we could built an alternate network if they're compromised by some gag order.

Signal just can't be trusted at this point. They're probably compromised. My theory is that that's why the very first line of their privacy is a lie saying that it's designed to never collect or store sensitive data when they keep a list of your contacts forever in the cloud (and in some cases now even message contents).

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK should just be banned from modern technology until their government has evolved socially enough to respect privacy. Companies need to pull out and stay out, because that's the only way the UK government will learn a lesson.

I'm sure when this law goes through they won't stop and will shortly be lining up some even crazier surviellance tech. I'm thinking something that automatically scans your computer for porn or other things, like ripped film mp4s and sends it to the goverment to be analysed. Or perhaps little gps trackers that children are mandated to wear at all times.

Nothing will ever be enough for the anti-privacy fanatics pushing for this. They will always demand more.

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#166

Have they never heard of "the boy who cried wolf"? First of all, age verification is not mass surveillance, it is possible to verify your age without disclosing who you are to the site you're visiting, and without disclosing what site you visited to the government. There are even age verification services (and I do despise them fully, this should be a government provided service!) that use only facial features to det…

There's no such thing as private or anonymous age verification. It doesn't exist.

zero knowledge proofs exist, don't they? also it matters "private from whom, and what". You can make what sites you visit private from the government, and your identity a secret from the site, but the inverse isn't true, the government would know the identity, and the site would obviously know someone visited it.

The problem with this whole thing is the expectation of privacy online for interactions where their IRL equivalents don't have such an expectation. Even if there was no harm being done to anyone, it isn't a rational argument if you subscribe to the ideal of equal treatment under the law.

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#167

I sometimes wonder whether the people in the tech industry who worked on things like secure boot, attestation, and DRM saw this as the inevitability open source advocates always saw it as. Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means, that politicians couldn't transfer that control to themselves by political means? Did they think they could lock things down to ex…

They're ultimately employees. Their employers hire them to write the code that the employers want. If they don't write the code, employers just fire them and move on to hire some other people to write code. As much as how ethically questionable it is, it's still very rare that people would give up their jobs to defend their viewpoint.

[deleted]

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signal the messaging app/platform? A funny thing is that Signal barely works (with VPN ofc) here in China. Sending media/images is impossible. Sometimes it’s blacked out weeks on end. Everything else seems to work fine ish (again with VPN ofc).

Signal outright lies in their privacy policy. It opens with "Signal is designed to never collect or store any sensitive information." but they collect and permanently store sensitive information in the cloud (user's name, photo, number, and contacts) and in some cases they even store the contents of messages. They've steadfastly refused to update the policy even as they introduced those features deceiving users about…

> in some cases they even store the contents of messages

I hadn't heard this before. Doesn't that kind of defeat the entire purpose of using the app?

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#169
post #86

Have they never heard of "the boy who cried wolf"? First of all, age verification is not mass surveillance, it is possible to verify your age without disclosing who you are to the site you're visiting, and without disclosing what site you visited to the government. There are even age verification services (and I do despise them fully, this should be a government provided service!) that use only facial features to det…

> it is possible to verify your age without disclosing who you are to the site you're visiting, and without disclosing what site you visited to the government. I can't believe people are really okay with a system where you have to show your real face to access websites. Cameras on phones went from a novelty to a government mandate so you can be observed. There are various other potential methods to verify one's age,…

> The only permitted ones require your to link your real-life identity. This is a huge boon to the intelligence services and law enforcement.

Then let's talk about THAT!! why is that not the discussion instead of "nah, we'll find a solution some other day, for now, let's not solve anything"??

> Even among the few permitted verification methods,

These laws are still being debated, what's permitted has not been decided, why is Signal not advocating for a privacy friendly alternative. Why are our options lose all privacy to the most horrible people ever who will do us harm versus let the children suffer!

> You may have to trust a company you never heard of before.

Why do I have to? Why can't the government itself issue something as simple as a timestamp CA certificate signature for a secret that expires every few weeks, requiring facial/ID verification directly with the government to generate a new secret? the site only needs to verify that the signature is correct. a signed token you show random sites. and this is the most naive idea i brought up for discussion without things like zkp even considered. Lawmakers aren't being told by the likes of Signal "there is a better way to do this, let's discuss" they're being told "ignore what all the scientists, research, law enforcement, social workers are telling you so we can watch porn in secret".

> For thirty or so years we had client-side optional Parental Controls, and it worked fine.

It absolutley did not work fine! the toll of human suffering is inexcusably abominable! I shudder in confusion between whose head i should rip off or why this damn planet hasn't been burned down to ashes already at the very thought of all that has been perpetrated using this technology. The internet multiplied and empowered many things, chief amongst them is human cruelty and apathy.

> For thirty or so years we had client-side optional Parental Controls, and it worked fine....

Save your breath, even amongst those who genuinely wish to do well, they have employees and user generated content they can't keep up with. There is no excuse for this. Forget about the tiny span in human history that is the past 30 years. How many people died of industrial accident at the begining of the industrial revolution, how many people died because of car accidents before all the car safety and traffic laws were in place. Take that and multiply that by like a billion and that might come close to painting a fair picture of the internet. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The internet isn't special, it's just a tool, a technology that connects people. Except billions are connected, and now they can abuse and harm each other across national borders , timezones and continents and maximize their profit from it.

HN and tech-world in general is like any other industry that caused massive suffering until it was regulated. I keep making the same simple comparison of a stripper IRL vs live cam porn over the internet, and no one in this thread even wants to attack that simple example that I picked because it isn't overly sensationalized and universally accepted that laws should force strip clubs to check IDs in any country on the planet. I didn't bring up pedos, human trafficking, revenge porn and so much more in between. and that's just the sexual dramatic stuff, not the seemingly harmless stuff that is easier to brush away and dismiss.

People can see your face and make decisions when they interact with you IRL, they can't over the internet. The problem is huge and the fact that the internet has been young and unregulated does not excuse looking the other way.

I can't believe I'm defending politicians' (however ill intended) agendas against HN/tech-world. but here we are. If things progress this route, I would even cheer as everyone (self included) loses any semblance of privacy or democracy because the alternative was these masses keeping looking the other way at human suffering instead of finding sensible middle grounds, especially when the tech is there. This is insane to me! things crypto-bros (both kind!) have been trying to make main stream like zkp and homomorphic encryption and so much more can actually solve a critical fault of the internet, and the choice is to just let people suffer instead of risking a potential slipper slope.

Re: Surveillance is not safety: A statement on the UK's latest threat to privacy [pdf]

#170

I sometimes wonder whether the people in the tech industry who worked on things like secure boot, attestation, and DRM saw this as the inevitability open source advocates always saw it as. Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means, that politicians couldn't transfer that control to themselves by political means? Did they think they could lock things down to ex…

> Did they think

Pretty sure they didn't do a lot of thinking.

Post reply on HN