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

Ghost Call – Secure, Encrypted, Anonymous Calling

ghostcall.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 73 posts

Re: Ghost Call – Secure, Encrypted, Anonymous Calling

#31

Post by lambada »

Squale wrote: post #26
ncza wrote: post #2

Site seems dead. Is it free software? What differentiates it from Signal/TS?

Ok on Tor but no https so anyone could get your number/password and steal your identity http://hc3sz3i2rb5dljqq.onion/ Edit: my bad it's late...of course there is no risk of mitm as it's a tor service, so no risk of bad exit node -_-' sorry guys

That's not how Tor Hidden Services work. They're encrypted end-to-end (well, from your node to the host of the Hidden Service. So accessing via that address leaves no room* for anyone to get your number/password or steal your identity.

* (Usual caveats about that being the correct .onion address, about the encryption not flawed etc)

Re: Ghost Call – Secure, Encrypted, Anonymous Calling

#32

Post by jfmercer »

xbryanx wrote: post #13

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I used to use this quote all the time too...until I realized it originally meant something entirely different. http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-ben...

It never ceases to amaze me how much the mythology surrounding the Founding Fathers really boils down to taxation.

Re: Ghost Call – Secure, Encrypted, Anonymous Calling

#33

Post by afarrell »

jessriedel wrote: post #18
xbryanx wrote: post #13

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I used to use this quote all the time too...until I realized it originally meant something entirely different. http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-ben...

I don't see how it means something entirely different. At most, Franklin and the other founding fathers had a more expansive notion of liberty than is now common. Both the sanctity of private property and the right to privacy are aspects of that sort of liberty.

Is private property really still sanctified when so much of our wealth has come from robbery, slavery, and rents extracted under intimidation?

Re: Ghost Call – Secure, Encrypted, Anonymous Calling

#34

Post by afarrell »

jessriedel wrote: post #18
xbryanx wrote: post #13

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I used to use this quote all the time too...until I realized it originally meant something entirely different. http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-ben...

I don't see how it means something entirely different. At most, Franklin and the other founding fathers had a more expansive notion of liberty than is now common. Both the sanctity of private property and the right to privacy are aspects of that sort of liberty.

Is private property really still sanctified when so much of our wealth has come from robbery, slavery, and rents extracted under intimidation?

Strong property rights are very useful to a healthy economy, but sanctified?

Re: Ghost Call – Secure, Encrypted, Anonymous Calling

#35

Post by olefoo »

andrewchambers wrote: post #27
amelius wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that true? I hear bitcoin is gaining market share, and it is the antithesis of anonymity.

I think you are confusing anonymity with something else. Bitcoin is entirely anonymous, but all transactions are public. You can create as many wallets and keys as you want, and you don't have to tell anyone you own them.

This only allows you to stay anonymous if you can get your money out of bitcoin anonymously. Whether by buying dollars/yen/whatever on an exchange or purchasing goods and services.

And it's damn hard to buy a yacht anonymously regardless of the unit of account the transaction is done with.

Re: Ghost Call – Secure, Encrypted, Anonymous Calling

#36

Post by slg »

jessriedel wrote: post #18
xbryanx wrote: post #13

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I used to use this quote all the time too...until I realized it originally meant something entirely different. http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-ben...

I don't see how it means something entirely different. At most, Franklin and the other founding fathers had a more expansive notion of liberty than is now common. Both the sanctity of private property and the right to privacy are aspects of that sort of liberty.

The biggest problem is the quote is now used to set up a false dichotomy between safety and liberty when it was originally more about balancing short and long term priorities. Franklin was simply making a quip about the legislature considering the deal from the Penn family. He meant something along the lines of "people who give up their rights to self governance for temporary safety don't deserve either to govern themselves or be protected" He was basically responding to the potential deal with "do you think we are stupid cowards?" or a slightly more eloquent version of "do you think I was born yesterday?"

Re: Ghost Call – Secure, Encrypted, Anonymous Calling

#37

Post by jessriedel »

usefulcat wrote: post #29
jessriedel wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how it means something entirely different. At most, Franklin and the other founding fathers had a more expansive notion of liberty than is now common. Both the sanctity of private property and the right to privacy are aspects of that sort of liberty.

I think the point is that the context is fundamentally different: "In short, Franklin was not describing some tension between government power and individual liberty. He was describing, rather, effective self-government in the service of security as the very liberty it would be contemptible to trade. Notwithstanding the way the quotation has come down to us, Franklin saw the liberty and security interests of Pennsylv…

This is a vastly better article, and actually makes a reasonable case. Thanks.

Still, I don't think it's fair to say the context is "fundamentally different". In Franklin's situation, the trade-off was to give up a degree of the colony's self-governance (with power taken by the unelected governor) in order to get safety from the war being fought on their frontier. Yes, in his case it wasn't so much personal (individual) liberty as it was the notion of colonial self-governance. But I don't think it's so vastly different as to say the quote's original meaning has been greatly distorted.

Here's the original letter:

http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=6&p...

Re: Ghost Call – Secure, Encrypted, Anonymous Calling

#39

Post by themartorana »

afarrell wrote: post #34
jessriedel wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how it means something entirely different. At most, Franklin and the other founding fathers had a more expansive notion of liberty than is now common. Both the sanctity of private property and the right to privacy are aspects of that sort of liberty.

Is private property really still sanctified when so much of our wealth has come from robbery, slavery, and rents extracted under intimidation? Strong property rights are very useful to a healthy economy, but sanctified?

Depends on how fundamentalist libertarian you are. Private property is the heart of libertarianism. Theft, trespassing - almost all laws that govern do so to protect private property which comes in many forms - including, but not limited to - your body, your person, your family, your house, your possessions.

Re: Ghost Call – Secure, Encrypted, Anonymous Calling

#40

Post by jessriedel »

slg wrote: post #36
jessriedel wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how it means something entirely different. At most, Franklin and the other founding fathers had a more expansive notion of liberty than is now common. Both the sanctity of private property and the right to privacy are aspects of that sort of liberty.

The biggest problem is the quote is now used to set up a false dichotomy between safety and liberty when it was originally more about balancing short and long term priorities. Franklin was simply making a quip about the legislature considering the deal from the Penn family. He meant something along the lines of "people who give up their rights to self governance for temporary safety don't deserve either to govern the…

I still don't see the problem. It is a well known argument that liberties are tend to ratchet down (never up), so that any time you give up your liberties for some new threat (say, terrorism) you are making a short-term/long-term trade off.

The biggest difference was just the Franklin was talking about self-governance rather than individual civil liberties, both these are obviously closely connected. I think your version ("people who give up their rights to self governance for temporary safety don't deserve either to govern themselves or be protected") is very compatible with the sense in which this quote is used by modern civil liberties proponents.

Post reply on HN