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

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

signal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 357 posts

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

#171

Post by autoexec »

ryan_n wrote: post #168
autoexec wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's an opt-in feature. https://techcrunch.com/2025/09/08/signal-introduces-free-and...

A service that advertises itself as privacy focused refusing to update their privacy policy while adding features like this seems like a pretty big dead canary.

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

#172

Post by userbinator »

cortesoft wrote: post #142
michaelt wrote: post #18

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…

I am guessing they thought "My kids are depending on me to pay our mortgage and buy food"

Or more likely these days, "I need to stay employed so I can legally stay in this country."

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

#173

Post by matheusmoreira »

itishappy wrote: post #76
michaelt wrote: post #18

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…

What defines a bad tech vs a good tech? Similar arguments can be made for most research including nuclear fusion, AI, vaccines, space, polymers, combustion engines, electric motors, semiconductors...

> What defines a bad tech vs a good tech?

Good tech empowers individuals and subverts authorities, corporations, oligarchs and governments. Bad tech subverts individuals and empowers authorities, corporations, oligarchs and governments.

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

#174

Post by userbinator »

skynotblue wrote: post #25

[flagged]

The "alternative solution to reduce crime" is called the 2nd Amendment.

Many criminals don't seem to care if they're being watched. They do still have an instinct of self-preservation, however.

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

#175

Post by dreambuffer »

madaxe_again wrote: post #49
xeonmc wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I often also wonders if ideological zealots ever thinks of this passage while pushing their agenda for control: ...and it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast could even speak and cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the…

I don’t think 1st century Rome had much in the way of digital surveillance. Or even surveillance, for that matter. Plenty of hubris, mind.

Rome had the "frumentarii", which was essentially a proto intelligence agency to do spywork for emperors.

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

#176

Post by TimTheTinker »

autoexec wrote: post #149
TimTheTinker wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those who would think of such a passage (or any biblical passage) and those who push for a total-control agenda are disjoint sets. Communism and fascism were both fueled by atheism (either explicit or functional), not a Judeo-Christian worldview. "Ohne Gott und Sonnenschein bringen wir die Ernte ein." (Without God and without sun, we will get the harvest done.) - the slogan of East Germany in 1975 when people were hu…

Christian fascism exists. In the US it's how fascism came to the country. Christofascism doesn't seem to have any problem with the absence of atheism.

that's not Christian though (in the sense that their beliefs are not scriptural and not subjected to scriptural review)... it's something else, and it's really ugly.

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

#177

Post by vivzkestrel »

- does anyone have actual studies or reports or arxiv papers or something that actually concludes that surveillance is not safety?

- how do you know that it doesnt cut down crimes or deter criminals or make identifying criminals easier?

- no seriously think of me as the stupidest person on the planet and explain to me why everyone is super duper paranoid about surveillance

- what other methods do you recommend for tracking , catching criminals, terrorists and anti social elements?

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

#178

Post by Magnusmaster »

notepad0x90 wrote: post #166
EmbarrassedHelp wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

Zero knowledge proofs exist in theory, but none of these age verification laws that are introduced use them, probably on purpose. I'm certain that every government will want to know what sites everyone visits.

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

#179

Post by stodor89 »

skynotblue wrote: post #67
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being pro-surveillance is the same thing as being pro-authoritarian unless you provide an alternate solution to prevent abuse of power.

We already have warrants, judicial oversight and public audits to prevent abuse of power. Not sure what's authoritarian about standard overt surveillance.

I, for one, totally believe the government will prevent the government from abusing the government's power. /s

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

#180

Post by socalgal2 »

trumpdong wrote: post #151
try_the_bass wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is akin to how two kinds of people respond to law. The first kind think "This is the law, we must follow it" and the other kind think "This law doesn't make sense, we must change it". What? I don't understand how this is a "two kinds of people" generalization, when the two categories aren't even mutually-exclusive? One can think a law is bad and should change, while simultaneously recognizing the rule of law a…

Then you are the first kind. Since the law will not change, you will continue to follow it.

> "This is the law, we must follow it" and the other kind think "This law doesn't make sense, we must change it".

There's zero point in changing the law if you don't expect it to be obeyed and enforced. Those positions are not opposites.

Post reply on HN