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

331–340 of 430 posts

Re: Forced Exposure

#331

Post by [deleted] »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #317
bengrunfeld wrote: post #286

Without sounding trollish, I believe there is a need for a completely new 'transfer of information' protocol that is as immune as possible to NSA (or other agency) snooping. She's right, the internet is broken. So rather than posting endless articles about how it sucks, and suffering heart-breaking tragedies like Groklaw shutting down, why don't we build something new, something truly beautiful, by which I mean somet…

I2P. It's been built. I've been asking for years for people to start adopting it. Nobody has been interested. http://www.i2p2.de/

[deleted]

Re: Forced Exposure

#332

Post by dragontamer »

samstave wrote: post #327
dragontamer wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Office of Censorship would delete and manipulate documents to aid in the war propaganda effort in the 1940s. Its pretty different than what is going on today.

Re: Forced Exposure

#333

Post by bengrunfeld »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #317
bengrunfeld wrote: post #286

Without sounding trollish, I believe there is a need for a completely new 'transfer of information' protocol that is as immune as possible to NSA (or other agency) snooping. She's right, the internet is broken. So rather than posting endless articles about how it sucks, and suffering heart-breaking tragedies like Groklaw shutting down, why don't we build something new, something truly beautiful, by which I mean somet…

I2P. It's been built. I've been asking for years for people to start adopting it. Nobody has been interested. http://www.i2p2.de/

I think they'll start listening now. Will look over it. Thanks.

Re: Forced Exposure

#334

Post by ef4 »

mpyne wrote: post #262
cookiecaper wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, GPG is not bollocks. Barring a major unforeseen discovery, RSA cryptography will easily stand up to five years' retention. If you're worried, use a long keylength. I've been using 4096-bit keys for over a year now and there's no noticeable performance hit for regular comms on my computer. On my phone, 4096 is noticeably slower than 2048, but it still works fine (probably about a 5-10 sec operation to de…

More to the point though, is that forcing the NSA to work on a specific message is computational power that they can't use to oppress the populace at large. I know PJ is quite private (and probably rightfully so after the private investigators that were sicced on here during the SCO trials), but I was still shocked to read about this. Imagine if the New York Times and Washington Post had shut down in the 1940s, 50s,…

> More to the point though, is that forcing the NSA to work on a specific message is computational power that they can't use to oppress the populace at large.

This, precisely.

Too many people throw up their hands because it's impossible to be 100% surveillance proof. But you don't need to be. If we can make surveillance orders of magnitude more expensive, we win.

Re: Forced Exposure

#335

Post by dragontamer »

rolux wrote: post #328
dragontamer wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fair enough. Although I still argue my point: the Press is free to publish what it wants. Judith Miller was charged with contempt of court for failing to reveal her source. She was not charged with what she wrote.

If the best example of US Government censorship is Judith Miller, then my point remains very strong. No one in the US is stopping freedom of speech. At best, you can get arrested for failing to uphold a subpoena, which is a known fact anyway.

---

Furthermore, despite the whole affair, not a single report of Spooks coming in to destroy computers, or otherwise try and stop the publication of those events. (As has been seen in the UK right now, with the whole Guardian thing going on).

Re: Forced Exposure

#336

Post by md224 »

dragontamer wrote: post #292
robg wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you comment on the difference between the 1st and 4th Amendment? It seems the current issues we face are reducible to the broadest interpretations of "reasonable" searches under National Defense claims from the Executive branch. It's hard for me to see how the Public has much recourse here. Even if they were to convince their representatives to pass new laws, this still seems like a fight between the other two br…

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…

> History of the US is a sobering example, of the Government constantly giving up powers in favor of its citizens. Need I remind people of the Office of Censorship in 1940s, where Government agents read every single mail that was going across the mail system? Need I remind people of COINTELPRO in 1960s, the program the FBI used to spy on Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr?

Imagine you're in a relationship with someone, and they abuse your trust. You call them out on it, and they agree to stop. Then later they start abusing your trust again, in a different way. You call them out on it and they stop. And this keeps happening.

Would you praise them for continually "giving up" their power over you when asked? Or would you consider yourself to be in an abusive relationship?

I just think it's a bit strange to view a succession of abuses of power as the government continuing to "permanently" reduce its power. How many more scandals do we need before the government has "permanently" reduced its power to the point where we won't need any more "permanent" reductions?

Re: Forced Exposure

#337

Post by subdane »

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…

I agree with everything here and in the original post. What isn't clearly explained is how/why the government's behavior is prohibiting the continuation of Groklaw.

Re: Forced Exposure

#339

Post by brianpgordon »

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…

> Many people today do not even give pause over the idea that the government claims huge amounts of unchecked power, whether it is to fight terrorists or to expand social programs

These are vastly different issues. Providing social programs doesn't infringe on anyone's rights except by taxation, which the government is constitutionally entitled to perform to any degree it wants. In contrast, the tactics employed to supposedly fight terrorism often impact rights which are protected by law.

Re: Forced Exposure

#340

Post by crusso »

jacquesm wrote: post #37

Holy crap. Groklaw? I'd never for one second thought that the fall out from the NSA debacle would reach so far as to cause Groklaw to be shut down. PJ feels extremely genuine here, she is definitely not using this as an excuse. Wow. There is something very unhealthy in the air or in the water these days. Lots of people seem to be totally immune to the consequences of rampant surveillance and frankly bizarre powers ex…

2013 is fast shaping up to be a year of notoriety

Bruce Willis said it best. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD94dVu8lqQ

I really hope that people look not only into the current list of abuses, but also into the whole nature of government that _inevitably_ led to this point.

Band-aids and spin doctors are not going to make these problems go away. At best they'll just make the problems go further underground so that we don't hear about them as often in the news.

Do you think the NSA is looking to cut back its authority or is it looking to prevent public awareness of this kind of thing in the future?

Post reply on HN