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

Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

whispersystems.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 258 posts

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#241

Post by burkaman »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #197
burkaman wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When has assassination ever accomplished what the assassin wanted? Most successful political movements, at least in recent history, do not involve killing anybody.

The assassination of JFK & RFK put Johnson into power. Power mongers pulled all kinds of schemes from there. The assassination of MLK per testimony in court case was intended to stop overthrow of U.S. government by masses tired of their shit. That didn't happen. Numerous witnesses to various things in intelligence misconduct never lived to say it in court. Those things are still debatable due to missing information.…

As I said in another comment, this thread was about how average people could influence politicians. Government-sponsored assassinations are a different discussion.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#242

Post by burkaman »

nickff wrote: post #201
burkaman wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's sad, politics are supposed to change. Obviously you can be sad at specific changes, but the idea that political decisions in general can change is a good thing.

So we went from a time when tracking or reading your communications (mail) was unconstitutional to the present, where the government can track you, listen in on you, and record all of your (electronic) communications 'just in case' they might want to check what you've been doing. Doesn't leave me inspired with optimism.

I'm only responding to "Political decisions simply don't stand. It's terribly sad." I'm sure we can all think of many examples of good political changes. In fact, I think most people would agree that good political changes vastly outnumber bad ones. Blaming current problems on the entire nature of politics seems a little overly broad. We would not be better off if we froze all politics forever in whatever your favorite year was.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#243

Post by nickpsecurity »

burkaman wrote: post #241
nickpsecurity wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The assassination of JFK & RFK put Johnson into power. Power mongers pulled all kinds of schemes from there. The assassination of MLK per testimony in court case was intended to stop overthrow of U.S. government by masses tired of their shit. That didn't happen. Numerous witnesses to various things in intelligence misconduct never lived to say it in court. Those things are still debatable due to missing information.…

As I said in another comment, this thread was about how average people could influence politicians. Government-sponsored assassinations are a different discussion.

Assassinating the most corrupt officials on a regular basis could have similar influence. They'd know they could pull schemes for money but would die past a certain point of damage to the people or elimination of their end of constitution. It works similarly.

It would just be harder as they'd have (a) lots more security, (b) most police going after whoever killed them while simultaneously ignoring whatever the politicians were doing, and (c) media protecting them since corruption works to media owners' benefit as well.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#244

Post by jacalata »

gnarbarian wrote: post #240
tremon wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there are no objective conclusions in politics, and asking for such is shutting the door to any useful progress. Ideally, a good political solution is one where all involved parties "feel" that they have realized more of their demands than the others -- not one where one party gets all the spoils based on winning 51% of an artificial binary vote. I feel (part of) the reason your society is in political gridlock i…

The challenge I proposed is intended to be an objective exercise otherwise it's pointless because everyone can feel however they want. Here are some examples of how both a gun and encryption can be used for the same end goal. X can secure a financial transaction X can stop a thief from obtaining my credit card information X can stop someone from forcibly obtaining my identity X can stop an attacker from obtaining pri…

Encryption means I can leave my private data unattended and be confident nobody will read it. That was easy.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#245

Post by gnarbarian »

jacalata wrote: post #244
gnarbarian wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The challenge I proposed is intended to be an objective exercise otherwise it's pointless because everyone can feel however they want. Here are some examples of how both a gun and encryption can be used for the same end goal. X can secure a financial transaction X can stop a thief from obtaining my credit card information X can stop someone from forcibly obtaining my identity X can stop an attacker from obtaining pri…

Encryption means I can leave my private data unattended and be confident nobody will read it. That was easy.

Cool! Do you now better understand the rationale of gun rights advocates?

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#246

Post by jacalata »

gnarbarian wrote: post #245
jacalata wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Encryption means I can leave my private data unattended and be confident nobody will read it. That was easy.

Cool! Do you now better understand the rationale of gun rights advocates?

No, I understood it pretty well earlier thanks. It's nice if this exercise helped you though.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#247

Post by gnarbarian »

jacalata wrote: post #246
gnarbarian wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool! Do you now better understand the rationale of gun rights advocates?

No, I understood it pretty well earlier thanks. It's nice if this exercise helped you though.

At least you learned something about making an objective argument.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#248

Post by jbmorgado »

dredmorbius wrote: post #186
moxie wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://fortune.com/2016/08/29/clinton-campaign-signal/

Since GP risks flag death: the implication was that Hillary Clinton would seek to have Signal shut down, or more specifically: target Moxie directly. Moxie's link shows her campaign is in fact relying on the service.

While the GGP idea was just misinformed and basically outright dumb, it doesn't mean that just because a politician chooses to use a tool or a person a a given time then they will protect that person or tool in the future. The world is full of examples in the contrary.

Bottom line, just because Hilary's campaign is using Signal, it doesn't mean that in the future her administration won't gag them or make legislation available in order to use them so spy on their own citizens.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#250

Post by jacalata »

gnarbarian wrote: post #247
jacalata wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I understood it pretty well earlier thanks. It's nice if this exercise helped you though.

At least you learned something about making an objective argument.

nah, I'm still right where I started - arguments that ignore emotional impacts are great little learning exercises but pointless if you are trying to achieve something in the real world. Good luck out there.
Post reply on HN