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

Forced Exposure

groklaw.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 430 posts

Re: Forced Exposure

#321

Post by thaumaturgy »

stusmall wrote: post #55
sz4kerto wrote: post #7

For me, personally, this is much more sad than Lavabit shutting down. Groklaw was an icon, it has huge significance. I do not know whether this - i.e. shutting down - is a good strategy in general. It raises some awareness, it might cause some change ... but what if change does not happens? What other means of protest will we have?

My take away from this is she is doing it for her own sanity more than an act of protest. She isn't doing this with the thought that her closing down the site will help spur conversation or change minds but that she can't continue to live a happy, digital life and that the site can't function as intended with the current surveillance. She views privacy and intimacy as a crucial part of both retaining your own humanit…

Not only that, but also that she is, to some extent, responsible for also safeguarding the privacy (or at least anonymity) of people who contact her, and she doesn't feel that's possible.

Re: Forced Exposure

#322

Post by dllthomas »

lukifer wrote: post #238
tilsammans wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We -- all citizens of Western countries -- should seriously stop voting altogether. And I mean full stop. When the next election comes, nobody votes. That'll destabilize things right quick.

It is a curious quirk of psychology that a single vote for a two major parties is considered to matter, despite being guaranteed not to sway the outcome, while a vote for a third party is considered "wasted". And even curiouser, choosing not to vote at all is considered the more rational option. Here's hoping that the people eventually figure out that instant runoff can be implemented state-by-state.

"Here's hoping that the people eventually figure out that instant runoff can be implemented state-by-state."

I prefer approval, but hey, your state can have IRV and mine can have approval and thanks to the electoral college that doesn't break things!

Unless we're in the same state, in which case we'll have to agree on something I guess.

Re: Forced Exposure

#323

Post by robg »

zackmorris wrote: post #291
grellas wrote: post #256

It is really tragic that we have reached a point where something so wonderful as Groklaw cannot effectively function. Nearly 200 years ago, de Tocqueville asked why the American experiment in self-government succeeded while its French counterpart led to the guillotine, mob excesses, and ultimate tyranny and he gave a complex answer whose core was that private moral restraints in the populace served to check the unbou…

Last night Thom Hartmann interviewed Ron Paul in his Conversations with Great Minds segment. Paul's take on all of this is that what's happening is already illegal according to the constitution, but that we aren't able to enforce the law because corporations, special interests and political lapdogs write their own laws. I'm still not sure what my stance on Paul is but I like his core political belief of noninterventi…

The efforts aren't illegal, in the Constitutional sense (U.S.), so long as the searches are deemed reasonable. Two branches of government (Executive and Judicial) have generally been in agreement that searches for the purposes of National Security (very broadly defined) are reasonable. And Congress has not passed laws to the contrary. In fact, Congress has been exceedingly pliant on these issues. They've been passing laws that not only make these searches legal, but exempting Telecoms from any lawsuits for their cooperation. A different Executive (say, Rand Paul) could effect many changes on his own. But history suggests that, when given War Powers, Executives of both parties have been very careful to relinquish that authority. And Rand Paul will have a hard enough time in his own party.

Re: Forced Exposure

#324

Post by dragontamer »

rolux wrote: post #295
dragontamer wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the parent post is the #1 comment right now on this article, it is clearly hyperbole. Blatant Intimidation and Control is not what the US Government does. If you want proof, compare the US handling of the Washington Post to the British handling of The Guardian. The Washington Post and New York times have been free to publish everything. The Guardian however, just had spooks smash their computers this past weeke…

> Blatant Intimidation and Control is not what the US Government does. If you want proof, compare the US handling of the Washington Post to the British handling of The Guardian. The Washington Post and New York times have been free to publish everything. Ahem... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

Precisely.

The Post and the New York Times were free to publish this material. It has consequences of course, but none of them were levied against the Washington Post or New York Times.

The US Government does not punish the press for receiving, discussing or talking about that sort of information. Instead, it goes after the leakers. Discussion, and freedom of speech is much respected.

If anything, your link is but one more example that supports my point.

Re: Forced Exposure

#325

Post by dragonwriter »

lukifer wrote: post #238
tilsammans wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We -- all citizens of Western countries -- should seriously stop voting altogether. And I mean full stop. When the next election comes, nobody votes. That'll destabilize things right quick.

It is a curious quirk of psychology that a single vote for a two major parties is considered to matter, despite being guaranteed not to sway the outcome, while a vote for a third party is considered "wasted". And even curiouser, choosing not to vote at all is considered the more rational option. Here's hoping that the people eventually figure out that instant runoff can be implemented state-by-state.

> Here's hoping that the people eventually figure out that instant runoff can be implemented state-by-state.

Here's hoping that people eventually figure out that better voting systems can be implemented state by state, including non-single-winner systems where appropriate (e.g., legislative elections), and single winner systems better than IRV (which is pretty much the preference voting system that does the most to preserve the problems of majority/runoff) for the places where single winner systems are still needed, as might be the case with executive elections (or not, if you reform more than just the election system.)

Re: Forced Exposure

#326

Post by dragontamer »

samstave wrote: post #300
dragontamer wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the parent post is the #1 comment right now on this article, it is clearly hyperbole. Blatant Intimidation and Control is not what the US Government does. If you want proof, compare the US handling of the Washington Post to the British handling of The Guardian. The Washington Post and New York times have been free to publish everything. The Guardian however, just had spooks smash their computers this past weeke…

>The US Government has historically listened to the pressures of its citizenry, and changed While they may have changed tactics and methods they did not stop the nefarious activity. I think you're naive to think that protesting the USGs actions have led them to stop any of it - actually it has only led to to their attempt to obfuscate their actions. Do you recall when "The office of total information awareness" was r…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship

Does the US Government do this anymore? No, it doesn't. Period.

Historical facts fight against your argument. The US Government has permanently given up powers to respect the privacy of citizens. I can come up with more historic examples if you wish.

Re: Forced Exposure

#327

Post by samstave »

dragontamer wrote: post #326
samstave wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The US Government has historically listened to the pressures of its citizenry, and changed While they may have changed tactics and methods they did not stop the nefarious activity. I think you're naive to think that protesting the USGs actions have led them to stop any of it - actually it has only led to to their attempt to obfuscate their actions. Do you recall when "The office of total information awareness" was r…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship Does the US Government do this anymore? No, it doesn't. Period. Historical facts fight against your argument. The US Government has permanently given up powers to respect the privacy of citizens. I can come up with more historic examples if you wish.

Maybe we don't we eye-to-eye: I find your comment ridiculous.

Does the government do what exactly? You are aware they are slurping 100% of digital communications? In light of what has been confirmed by Snowden's efforts - I can't take your comment seriously.

Re: Forced Exposure

#328

Post by rolux »

dragontamer wrote: post #324
rolux wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Blatant Intimidation and Control is not what the US Government does. If you want proof, compare the US handling of the Washington Post to the British handling of The Guardian. The Washington Post and New York times have been free to publish everything. Ahem... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

Precisely. The Post and the New York Times were free to publish this material. It has consequences of course, but none of them were levied against the Washington Post or New York Times. The US Government does not punish the press for receiving, discussing or talking about that sort of information. Instead, it goes after the leakers. Discussion, and freedom of speech is much respected. If anything, your link is but on…

Please read the paragraph on Judith Miller. You must be kidding.

Re: Forced Exposure

#329

Post by dragonwriter »

robg wrote: post #323
zackmorris wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last night Thom Hartmann interviewed Ron Paul in his Conversations with Great Minds segment. Paul's take on all of this is that what's happening is already illegal according to the constitution, but that we aren't able to enforce the law because corporations, special interests and political lapdogs write their own laws. I'm still not sure what my stance on Paul is but I like his core political belief of noninterventi…

The efforts aren't illegal, in the Constitutional sense (U.S.), so long as the searches are deemed reasonable. Two branches of government (Executive and Judicial) have generally been in agreement that searches for the purposes of National Security ( very broadly defined) are reasonable. And Congress has not passed laws to the contrary. In fact, Congress has been exceedingly pliant on these issues. They've been passin…

> And Congress has not passed laws to the contrary.

Congress did, in fact, pass the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 "to the contrary", expressly prohibiting (and criminalizing) many of the types of searches (both physical and electronic) for the stated purposes of "National Security" that had been done prior to the Act.

Of course, the executive was successful in getting Congress to remove many of the restrictions in FISA in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, including retroactive immunity for private firms that had cooperated in the executive's violations of FISA, but then, if the scope of the surveillance in violation of FISA was as broad as current surveillance appears to be, it may well have been the source of the leverage to get the change through Congress.

Re: Forced Exposure

#330

Post by agilord »

nanoscopic wrote: post #231
willvarfar wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a subject I keep an eye on, e.g. freenet and off-the-record messaging. I think these systems cannot work :( If you can make a system that is immune to traffic analysis - http://williamedwardscoder.tumblr.com/post/54088903127/onion... is my own blog but I'm about to shoot it down - then you basically have an open router and the spam abuse that implies. Any reasonably anonymous system will collapse under the weight…

Your final statement here is not true. The way in which you keep anonymity with an onion system is as follows: 1. Use a central originating server for onion packet sourcing 2. Make it public who all users are 3. Have onion packet creation contain "token of receipt" for all messages along the chain. 4. Rate limit message origination from users 5. Ban users who refuse to forward encrypted packets at a steady rate 6. On…

It would be great if you could share your thoughts about this earlier.
Post reply on HN