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

Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 342 posts

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#331

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

katbyte wrote: post #327
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would government employees to not talk about sex, their partners, their bedrooms, and all manner of topics to 5-9 year old kids.

So you don’t want female teachers to mention their husbands? Or their partner is male? Or that marriage even exists? Because that would be the equivalent.

YES. I don't any teachers to mention anything that isn't part of my child's direct education. How is this so difficult to understand? Go talk to an adult.

The children are not the teachers friends. Leave them alone.

I don't care who their partner is, neither does my child. No one cares. Maybe we should ask why government employees aren't keeping stronger boundries when around children?

Also... Seriously? You aren't fooling anyone with these absolutely convoluted hypotheticals. No one is going to jail for saying "that's my ". It's an weak case when you need to reach outside of reality.

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#332

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

mrguyorama wrote: post #259
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would government employees to not talk about sex, their partners, their bedrooms, and all manner of topics to 5-9 year old kids.

That bill would penalize the teacher if their gay significant other brought their forgotten lunch to school, the kids asked "who was that", and the teacher attempted any answer. It has nothing to do with sex. Republicans in florida have quite clearly criminalized same sex couples doing normal things.

That's a very specific hypothetical. How based in reality is it?

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#333

Post by gcanyon »

dools wrote: post #317
gcanyon wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"lawlessness" "outside of society" The clear implication of your original statement was that it is possible to not owe society anything by not taking anything from others. To do that requires a level of self-sufficiency that only a very small fraction of people possess.

No, I said: “For many, society doesn't provide any advantages and so they choose non-compliance and all the consequences that come with it.” So what I mean is you can choose to live outside of society, meaning not complying with laws. That is lawlessness, it’s a life of crime. Living as a sovereign citizen outside of any legal structure in such a way that you neither depend on any legal structure nor do you infringe…

And I’m saying that people who do that are ethically compromised in general, and dishonest if they think they are “outside of society” while still benefitting from mains electricity, mass-produced goods, etc.

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#334

Post by dools »

soulofmischief wrote: post #328
dools wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of organised crime syndicates who live outside of society. They sometimes get caught by law enforcement and sometimes they get caught by rival gangs. I didn’t say you can live outside of society peacefully in such a way that everyone will just leave you alone but a life of crime is a choice available to everyone.

This is a naive perspective. The reality is it's not available , but gets forced upon entire classes of people as the only viable option, and leads to a lifetime of economic and emotional struggle.

But it’s still a choice right? Like a life of crime may be the lesser of two evils but even that is a choice.

People for whom the system offers no advantages are far more likely to make that choice.

My original point is that the current state of the law is not some grand moral absolute, it’s just how things happen to have worked out based on a bunch of decisions made by a bunch of people.

You can choose how to react to that up to and including breaking the law. The degree to which you do that can determine your consequences.

Also sometimes the bear eats you and you’re just unlucky.

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#335

Post by pravus »

gcanyon wrote: post #291
pravus wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a judge ordered you to unlock your phone and hand over all your messages, you’d probably be sour but you should also be morally ok with complying. No. It is not my moral obligation to obey the orders of other human beings. Ever. If you want this to be a moral issue you must first prove that there is a moral basis for compliance and I've yet to hear one. Pointing a gun to my face and telling me what to do doesn't…

> It is not my moral obligation to obey the orders of other human beings. If you are prepared to live without everything "other human beings" offer you, then sure -- but you're not prepared to do that. So you must reach some sort of agreement with "other human beings" even if that means obeying the occasional "order".

> If you are prepared to live without everything "other human beings" offer you, then sure -- but you're not prepared to do that. So you must reach some sort of agreement with "other human beings" even if that means obeying the occasional "order".

I don't obey their orders. If I cooperate with another entity I do so on my own terms. I am only morally accountable to myself and must reckon with any consequences of my actions that might reflect harm upon me. I have agency.

So yes, I must operate in an ordered system but at no point am I morally obligated to another actor.

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#336

Post by wasimanitoba »

didntcheck wrote: post #118
edrxty wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider technology to be an extension of mind. I'm not ok with the police literally cracking open my skull and probing my brain, not just because of the invasive torturous nature, but because it's an invasion of the very state that forms my existence. Similarly, the bits of my mind that I offload to other places.

Yeah, I think a good question to distinguish the different philosophies here is: if we had a perfect lie detector, would you support defendants being compelled to use it, with adverse assumptions for refusing?

Only if we could restrict the questions to the facts of the case, but my phone has a lot of unrelated personal stuff on it and so does my brain.

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#337

Post by bombolo »

tptacek wrote: post #308
kaliqt wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the best ways to test for backdoors though? Phoning home I get. But what about just breaking in because there's a backdoor left in for when "they" single you out for persecu- I mean investigation.

You read the compiled artifact. It's not complicated. Source code gives you valuable added context about programmer intent, which is helpful to understand how a program is structured, but you can't trust that intent if you're looking for surreptitious code anyways, and you don't need to to work out what the program is doing.

A normal app is about 20 megabytes minimum. Have fun reading.

It could be very well obfuscated.

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#338

Post by bombolo »

TillE wrote: post #152
NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it be unfair of me to rephrase as, "It is possible to do this ridiculous, difficult thing that doesn't even always work in order to get some insight into a situation which would be trivial if the source were available with reproducible builds"?

Reverse engineering is not onerously difficult if you have the right tools, some experience, and a decent grasp of assembly language. It's only really annoying if you can't use a debugger.

And don't forget to know everything about cryptography and security to actually spot the issues!

All in all with 15yrs of training you can start the task :D

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#339

Post by tptacek »

bombolo wrote: post #337
tptacek wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You read the compiled artifact. It's not complicated. Source code gives you valuable added context about programmer intent, which is helpful to understand how a program is structured, but you can't trust that intent if you're looking for surreptitious code anyways, and you don't need to to work out what the program is doing.

A normal app is about 20 megabytes minimum. Have fun reading. It could be very well obfuscated.

First: almost nothing is ever obfuscated.

Second: when you read source code, do you start at the lexicographic first .c file and just read downwards? No? Neither do reversers.

Re: Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism

#340

Post by katbyte »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #331
katbyte wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you don’t want female teachers to mention their husbands? Or their partner is male? Or that marriage even exists? Because that would be the equivalent.

YES. I don't any teachers to mention anything that isn't part of my child's direct education. How is this so difficult to understand? Go talk to an adult. The children are not the teachers friends. Leave them alone. I don't care who their partner is, neither does my child. No one cares. Maybe we should ask why government employees aren't keeping stronger boundries when around children? Also... Seriously? You aren't f…

you do realize what you are saying right? and how dumb of suggestion it is or were your teachers growing up robot automatons who were not people?

and you do realize that marriage and relationships ARE part of education? history english etc. at what age do kids learn about what a husbands or wife is and what is marriage? because that is the same age they should learn about same sex relationships.

> I don't care who their partner is, neither does my child

lots of people do. lots of parents want their kids to not be exposed to the fact same sex couples exist, hence the don't say gay bill. and afterwards schools pulling all library books because the mere mention of a same sex couple in one is enough for them to be sued under the bill.

you are correct no one will go to jail. but school districts can be sued, which means they will not hire gay teachers because of the simple risk one parent gets upset and racks up a legal bill for them

THAT is why its so bad, how is that so difficult to understand for you?

Post reply on HN