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

230, or not 230? That is the EARN IT question

signal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–178 of 178 posts

Re: 230, or not 230? That is the EARN IT question

#171

Post by nybble41 »

_faux_ wrote: post #105
core-questions wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really coming more from the perspective of valuing anonymity. I'd prefer a world where you simply can't sue the guy, and have to suck it up that people say things you don't like.

You may not have thought this through. Defamation isn't people saying things you don't like. It's people saying things which are untrue, and cost you your livelihood. You could invest a lifetime in building the respect of your peers only to have it snuffed out by a competitor running a smear campaign.

Most of that is only a problem because of the underlying assumption that if it weren't true you'd sue the person saying it for defamation. Which really makes the problem worse in the cases where you can't sue, because the poster is outside your jurisdiction, you can't identify the poster, lawyers cost too much, etc.

If anyone can post anything without repercussions, who would believe it without solid evidence?

Re: 230, or not 230? That is the EARN IT question

#172

Post by nybble41 »

hawkice wrote: post #100
Der_Einzige wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proxy server usage would skyrocket if this became common - as it should.

Whoever is running the proxy can also get a subpeona. If you run it yourself the ISP will know who you are. Someone is paying to access the internet, so they probably have records.

> Someone is paying to access the internet, so they probably have records.

I doubt their complete customer list is going to help narrow down the search very much. They need to know who is paying to use the service; they don't need to know which user was responsible for a particular connection.

Re: 230, or not 230? That is the EARN IT question

#173

Post by ethbro »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #162
ethbro wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parent presumably means if the person in the moderator position ignores new cases. To which it seems like a fair response would rely more on free speech perspectives. Essentially, can it be said that the majority of the platform is used for illegal activities? Or are the illegal activities a minority of some other, lawful activities? I'd want a system where Reddit is in the clear, but CreditCardSkimmersChat is not.

> Parent presumably means if the person in the moderator position ignores new cases. Which is what they're supposed to do. They're not the police, the police are the police. > Essentially, can it be said that the majority of the platform is used for illegal activities? Or are the illegal activities a minority of some other, lawful activities? This doesn't work because it ends up prohibiting the lawful things anyway.…

> You don't want to shut it down because once you know it exists it's a honeypot

That's supposing law enforcement has viable ways to leverage knowledge of its existence into investigation and prosecution.

In a future where we have end-to-end encryption widely deployed, this isn't a trivial ask.

Criminals are lazy, sure. But write laws for the future we want, not the easiest case scenario.

Re: 230, or not 230? That is the EARN IT question

#174

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ethbro wrote: post #173
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Parent presumably means if the person in the moderator position ignores new cases. Which is what they're supposed to do. They're not the police, the police are the police. > Essentially, can it be said that the majority of the platform is used for illegal activities? Or are the illegal activities a minority of some other, lawful activities? This doesn't work because it ends up prohibiting the lawful things anyway.…

> You don't want to shut it down because once you know it exists it's a honeypot That's supposing law enforcement has viable ways to leverage knowledge of its existence into investigation and prosecution. In a future where we have end-to-end encryption widely deployed, this isn't a trivial ask. Criminals are lazy, sure. But write laws for the future we want, not the easiest case scenario.

> That's supposing law enforcement has viable ways to leverage knowledge of its existence into investigation and prosecution.

Which they do, because that's their job and they do it all day long.

We're somehow talking about both end to end encryption and moderated public forums, but those are two different things. If you have a public forum where anybody on the forum can read the messages then anybody on the forum can read the messages -- including law enforcement. So they join the forum and start investigating in all the usual ways, and get a warrant to have the ISP upstream from the site start logging its traffic so they can start locating the users and getting warrants to bug their homes etc.

When you have end to end encrypted communications, the only people who have the message are the sender and the receiver. Then there is no dedicated CreditCardSkimmersChat site, they can use any generic secure messaging software for that. But this isn't any more difficult for law enforcement than criminals who communicate in person -- you still have to come by some reasonable suspicion of them to begin with somehow, and once you have you get a warrant to install bugs, which overcomes end to end encryption because then you're collecting data at one of the endpoints.

Re: 230, or not 230? That is the EARN IT question

#175

Post by ethbro »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #174
ethbro wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't want to shut it down because once you know it exists it's a honeypot That's supposing law enforcement has viable ways to leverage knowledge of its existence into investigation and prosecution. In a future where we have end-to-end encryption widely deployed, this isn't a trivial ask. Criminals are lazy, sure. But write laws for the future we want, not the easiest case scenario.

> That's supposing law enforcement has viable ways to leverage knowledge of its existence into investigation and prosecution. Which they do, because that's their job and they do it all day long. We're somehow talking about both end to end encryption and moderated public forums, but those are two different things. If you have a public forum where anybody on the forum can read the messages then anybody on the forum can…

> Which they do, because that's their job and they do it all day long.

With varying degrees of success. Let's not pretend an encrypted-everywhere world (which includes e2e, onion routing, and other options) opens up like an oyster at the first sign of a warrant.

What would your opinion be if CreditCardSkimmersChat advertised itself as a place to meet other people involved in credit card skimming? With all conversation taken to e2e chats as soon as two people were introduced

Not constructing a pathological case here. Am really interested in how folks feel about the social responsibilities of serious encryption.

Re: 230, or not 230? That is the EARN IT question

#176

Post by andrewalan »

Are you having issues with your spouse ?? Suspect he/she is cheating and you want proof to help expose them to win any kind of court case ? We can give you access to their Whatsapp, phone logs, emails, social media and any other proposed form of communication, then you can have an idea of what’s going on and what they have been up to. We also carry out other hack related projects like credit score upgrades, clear criminal records, DMV, website database infiltration and also funding programs for those in need of loan and quick cash. This is just a few to mention, contact us via Whatsapp, text/call +1-5596340249.Thanks as we anticipate working with y’all.

Re: 230, or not 230? That is the EARN IT question

#177

Post by ViViDboarder »

Macha wrote: post #164
ViViDboarder wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t get it. If they have your number, this person can already message you.

A phone number does not proactively provide information. Should I have to use a professional suit and tie profile picture because my boss' boss might use Signal? What about LGBT people in potentially hostile environments? Etc

Profile information is only available to your contacts. Not everyone who has your phone number.

Re: 230, or not 230? That is the EARN IT question

#178

Post by core-questions »

_faux_ wrote: post #105
core-questions wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really coming more from the perspective of valuing anonymity. I'd prefer a world where you simply can't sue the guy, and have to suck it up that people say things you don't like.

You may not have thought this through. Defamation isn't people saying things you don't like. It's people saying things which are untrue, and cost you your livelihood. You could invest a lifetime in building the respect of your peers only to have it snuffed out by a competitor running a smear campaign.

So like, for example, the pernicious doxxing of anyone who dares to question the left-liberal doctrine and loses their job via doxxing and social shame? I'm glad to know you're on-side with preventing that kind of defamation and smear campaign.
Post reply on HN