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

Fedware: Government apps that spy harder than the apps they ban

sambent.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 302 posts

Re: Fedware: Government apps that spy harder than the apps they ban

#291

Post by DoingFedTime »

andreygrehov wrote: post #170
dandanua wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current administration has created a narrative that everything they do is good, while anything their opponents do is bad. Facts or meaning do not matter any more. I honestly don't understand how the USA has become this. This won't end well.

The apps have nothing to do with the current administration. All these permissions were already in place before the current administration. It’s easy to verify this by looking at previous versions of the apps. HN has created a narrative that everything the current administration does is bad.

An app published March 27th has no prior-administration version history. The other 7 apps in the piece span back to Obama the article treats this as a bipartisan failure.

Re: Fedware: Government apps that spy harder than the apps they ban

#292

Post by DoingFedTime »

userbinator wrote: post #166
john_strinlai wrote: post #5

> This thing also has a "Text the President" button that auto-fills your message with "Greatest President Ever!" and then collects your name and phone number. when is the onion going to go bankrupt? it has to be soon, i imagine. no way it can compete with reality at this point. (the rest of the article is a bit too depressing for me to comment on at the moment, other than saying "wow, gross")

I'm pretty sure if you text anyone, they get your number (and name, via a reverse lookup.)

A number showing up in someone's SMS inbox and a government form explicitly pairing your name to your number with no retention policy are different data collection events.

Re: Fedware: Government apps that spy harder than the apps they ban

#293

Post by DoingFedTime »

tolerance wrote: post #230
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may be true in some cases, but I disagree about that in this case. TFA links to numerous sources for it's data (e.g. https://reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/reports/723186/ for the White House app, and AFAICT exodus privacy is a legit service), and discussions around government applications that are loaded with surveillance tech (and in many cases it seems like the apps' primary, and sometimes only, purpose is…

I was referring to the graphics/animations that the GP comment mentioned. I was more confident that those were AI-generated than the actual text. Upon further scrutiny I'm having second thoughts. There are multiple cases of inconsistencies between certain claims and the sources that they linked to: > The acting IRS Commissioner, Melanie Krause, resigned in protest . No mention of that here: https://www.cnn.com/2025/0…

Every source you cited yourself confirms the reporting.

You linked the wrong CNN article, found the right one in the sidebar, and called it a lie.

The IRS commissioner resigned. Huawei is in the app, etc.

Re: Fedware: Government apps that spy harder than the apps they ban

#294

Post by DoingFedTime »

joshstrange wrote: post #8

Do these posts just get upvoted due to the graphics/animations? I find this site incredibly difficult to read with things re-playing as you scroll up and down and the articles I've read from here are often light on details. The graphics seem very AI-generated (overlapping text and other little issues) which makes me think the whole thing is from an LLM. While this post does have some interesting information, I have t…

Brave has a feature (free) that lets you hit a button and literally remove every animation if you want.

The White House app tracker list comes directly from Exodus Privacy's independent audit, verifiable by anyone. What the cards look like on mobile has nothing to do with it.

Re: Fedware: Government apps that spy harder than the apps they ban

#295

Post by userbinator »

DoingFedTime wrote: post #292
userbinator wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure if you text anyone, they get your number (and name, via a reverse lookup.)

A number showing up in someone's SMS inbox and a government form explicitly pairing your name to your number with no retention policy are different data collection events.

The telcos already know that info too.

Re: Fedware: Government apps that spy harder than the apps they ban

#296

Post by modo_mario »

modo_mario wrote: post #250
HWR_14 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all areas are equally good at growing food. That can be because of climate, soil quality, war or simply population density requiring housing and industry.

Maybe it's too malthusian of a view but I think a big issue to contend with is that some people should not be as populated as they are and there's no push against it from either government or the dominant economic systems. And yes that includes the controversial poor population hotspots of africa that have grown super rapidly beyond multiples of what the land can provide But also just the same places like arizona wit…

some places*

Re: Fedware: Government apps that spy harder than the apps they ban

#297

Post by zimpenfish »

dnautics wrote: post #289
zimpenfish wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, it would have alleviated famine in 43 countries for one year and if your response to that is "but that's not ending world hunger and I will not do it", you really need a long hard look at yourself. But then again, Musk is going to turn out to be one of the great mass killers of world history with his destruction of USAID. Why would he spoil that by helping some folks?

where do you draw the line? Suppose someone had a program that spent 6 trillion dollars that fed 10 people for one year. Would you then say "you need to take a long hard look at yourself". Not keeping people dependent on a program for just one year is exactly the point that Musk was trying to make. Solve the fucking problem, don't put a very expensive bandage on it. > But then again, Musk is going to turn out to be o…

> where do you draw the line?

Well before someone comes out with a ludicrous bad faith hypothetical.

> Suppose someone had [ludicrous bad faith hypothetical]

Whoops.

> Solve the fucking problem, don't put a very expensive bandage on it.

That only works for the most trivial of problems. Anything complex will need expensive bandages until a complex solution can be worked out and, more importantly, implemented correctly.

> maybe you need to take a long hard look at yourself.

I have, many times, and that's how I turned from a bad faith edge lord posting this kind of hypothetical drivel defending the indefensible for years into a slightly less problematic member of society. And I will continue to take long hard looks at myself to try and improve further.

> Suppose yanking USAID prompts the creation of a more efficient, more local solution that feeds more people.

Again a bad faith hypothetical but let's assume this does happen - great! That would be grand. It still won't take away from Musk being responsible for one of the biggest mass murders in history.

Re: Fedware: Government apps that spy harder than the apps they ban

#298

Post by njwi332 »

nostrademons wrote: post #83
SimianSci wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Own a monopoly - Inherit your fortune - Run a criminal enterprise Using just these three filters alone, you encompass more than 99% of all billionaires in existence. The amount of billionaires who do not fit into these categories can barely occupy a family sized vehicle. The criteria here suggesting that there is a specific sociopathic personality requirement to being a billionaire as each category can be argued as…

I've been thinking that you can divide businesses on two axes, Scalable - Many customers | Short-term/ Ponzi Scheme | Monopoly Long-term/ Transactional -------------------------------------- Relational Contracting / | Consulting / Retail etc | Therapy etc | Non-scalable - Few customers And mathematically, only businesses at the top of the graph are capable of generating a billion dollars. Hence, if you are looking to…

Well, your point somewhat stands but there are many examples of retail, contracting and consulting companies in excess of a billion dollars.

Re: Fedware: Government apps that spy harder than the apps they ban

#299

Post by SequoiaHope »

hackyhacky wrote: post #126
SequoiaHope wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks very different from the outside than it does from the inside. We are all subject to this.

Does it though? I don't see Canadian or Swiss or Slovak propaganda regularly reminding us that their country's leader is the "greatest ever."

The question was about North Korean propaganda and American propaganda. Both are powerful and hard to see when you are immersed in them. That some countries do not take the same approach makes this no less true. However there are other forms of propaganda. What I did not mention was that I am vegan. Only when you stop eating meat do you see how immersed in it we are. The pervasiveness and shared assumptions are there. Whether it’s who to hate or what to spend money on or what to eat. In the US the real propaganda is the stuff both parties agree on.

Re: Fedware: Government apps that spy harder than the apps they ban

#300

Post by dnautics »

zimpenfish wrote: post #297
dnautics wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

where do you draw the line? Suppose someone had a program that spent 6 trillion dollars that fed 10 people for one year. Would you then say "you need to take a long hard look at yourself". Not keeping people dependent on a program for just one year is exactly the point that Musk was trying to make. Solve the fucking problem, don't put a very expensive bandage on it. > But then again, Musk is going to turn out to be o…

> where do you draw the line? Well before someone comes out with a ludicrous bad faith hypothetical. > Suppose someone had [ludicrous bad faith hypothetical] Whoops. > Solve the fucking problem, don't put a very expensive bandage on it. That only works for the most trivial of problems. Anything complex will need expensive bandages until a complex solution can be worked out and, more importantly, implemented correctly…

> It still won't take away from Musk being responsible for one of the biggest mass murders in history.

i dint particularly like musk. i would say he is shitty. your moral compass is fucked up.

Post reply on HN