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

Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 409 posts

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#281

Post by Longlius »

ipv6ipv4 wrote: post #87

This is the lasting legacy of Apple’s CSAM photo scanning debacle. Apple mainstreamed the concept, demoed the dystopian tool, and legitimized the discourse of this dystopian insanity. Apple executives should be ashamed of their direct role in this.

This has been a fight going back to the 90s at least when consumers first got their hands on high-grade encryption and the US government tried to backdoor it. It failed. And it has consistently failed whenever the alphabets try to bring it back up here.

I'm assuming the Brits just don't care as much about privacy.

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#282

Post by javajosh »

derefr wrote: post #26
semiquaver wrote: post #4

Governments seem to want to have it both ways. As new technologies are introduced they assume that capabilities and practices available to analogous predecessors must remain available to them (e.g. wire-tapping phones => undermining cryptography) but they don’t feel the same way about public benefits or rights associated with other technology that is being replaced (anonymous cash transactions => ???) It also seems l…

> but they don’t feel the same way about public benefits or rights associated with other technology that is being replaced When the government creates a law within recorded history — something like a wiretapping law — then the spirit of the law is well-known at time of creation. Usually, that "spirit" is that it's created to explicitly grant a capability to the government to do a thing for the benefit of the public u…

>weren't thinking about anonymity

"You don't know what you got till its gone." - Joni Mitchell

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#285

Post by immibis »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #174
semiquaver wrote: post #4

Governments seem to want to have it both ways. As new technologies are introduced they assume that capabilities and practices available to analogous predecessors must remain available to them (e.g. wire-tapping phones => undermining cryptography) but they don’t feel the same way about public benefits or rights associated with other technology that is being replaced (anonymous cash transactions => ???) It also seems l…

All kinds of advantages go to one sides benefit. Can we set up an automated monitor on all the traffic cams and licence plate readers and facial recognition systems just to catch cops and politicians breaking laws or just to track their movements and associations the way they do to everyone else? Can we access the same cam footage that the state uses to accuse you of something, to clear you instead? Only occasionally…

What if a group of volunteers started tracking the movements of Tory politicians using these same fully legal methods?

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#286

Post by PartiallyTyped »

vasco wrote: post #269
PartiallyTyped wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you are born into generational wealth, you are by construction a Prole. If you need to or had to work for a living until you could afford not to, then you are a Prole. Whether you choose to "betray" this class - and fight in support of the people who make the rules, the slave owners, those who play god without permission - is a different thing.

Only dummies think in classes. People are people.

A class defines a set of people with some shared characteristic. In this case, this class contains about > 99.99% of the humans that have ever existed.

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#287

Post by I_am_uncreative »

ciabattabread wrote: post #128
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society should require that the spirit and purpose of any law be included as a preamble to that law's text and be used in the interpretation, application, and future adaptation of that law. I agree, and it mostly is. I'm pretty sure it is always recorded when a congressman speaks about a bill, plus they always show dissenting opinions of the SCOTUS. However, one major problem is that language changes with time. Words…

> I think all laws should have an expiration date, and have to be debated, and possibly reworded again and again over the generations. Until “thou shalt not kill” gets held hostage by a senator who wants a subsidy for a coal mine. Exempt those kinds of laws - murder, theft, false witness? Congrats, you have a de-facto theocracy.

Isn't that kind of the point of the Common Law though? Murder is often not defined in statute and simply has a Common Law definition.

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#288

Post by javajosh »

It's a strange thing, today's world. There exists, right now, a realized panopticon in suspension. The only reason we don't have one is that we don't want one.

Sometimes I think that politicians wait for a time when weighty things are on the table to erode our rights. Who is going to be a one-issue voter for something barely understood? And yet, in terms of governance, what issue is more important than this?

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#289

Post by PartiallyTyped »

Eisenstein wrote: post #257
PartiallyTyped wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mind pointing out where that was stated or implied? Anything and everything I do is to satisfy my own curiosity and desires, but that's only because I got lucky. Everyone who didn't get lucky, well, they have to slave away in jobs that may not be fulfilling, or are menial, etc; and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Other people's lives are meaningless then, but not yours. Got it. PS: Have you ever considered how paternalistic your view is?

I have never claimed nor implied that their lives are meaningless (point where). On the contrary, because everyone's life is meaningful and important, they shouldn't have to slave away or do scutwork just to survive. This is what I am advocating for.

I want people to live, to be free, to enjoy the same things I am. This is literally the opposite of paternalistic.

I am also not a tankie if that's what you concluded from my first remark.

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#290

Post by walterbell »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #264
rootusrootus wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For completeness, read the anti-federalist papers too. The collective opinion of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay is just one point of view.

I guess I don't get why the arguments against the Constitution of the time would be useful for "understanding the intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights"?

For the same reason patch reviews can lead to code improvement.
Post reply on HN