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

Edward Snowden at IETF 93

gist.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 145 posts

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#41

Post by iscrewyou »

wdewind wrote: post #38

The internet doesn't belong to vendors. The internet doesn't belong to governments. The internet belongs to the user, right? The thing is, this is literally false. The infrastructure of the internet is paid for by governments and vendors. A user wouldn't be called a user if it belonged to them... The internet is a great decentralization when compared to traditional media like television, but it's not nearly as big a…

And who pays the government to run it's operations? Same for the vendors. Who pays them? I as a consumer keeps them running.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#42

Post by jingo »

tptacek wrote: post #17

When asked about DNSSEC, which is a forklift upgrade of a core Internet protocol that has the deliberate effect of giving NSA and GCHQ control of TLS keys for hosts in .COM, .UK, .NET, .ORG, and .IO, this was Snowden's answer: Edward Snowden: So, I agree with you and I mean this is what's important about the IETF. Just because I say it, doesn't mean it's gospel. I can be wrong about an incredible amount of things. No…

"... armour the requests themselves to make sure that they don't become the new vector, they don't become manipulated."

I interpreted this to mean encrypting each DNS packet.

Maybe I misread the statement?

DNSSEC of course does not protect the contents of the packet.

Instead, DNSSEC more or less is just another CA system (or an adjunct to the existing one), running over UDP.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#43

Post by lern_too_spel »

merrywhether wrote: post #10

I'm always struck by the strange cognitive dissonance US law has for corporate whistleblowers vs governmental whistleblowers. How can you recognize the value of one while dismissing the value of the other? It's not like a whistleblower defense is a get-out-of-jail-free card either, as you must prove that what you did was actually in the public interest. It's a shame that there's no movement for reform in this area, b…

Think about it from the prosecution's perspective. He revealed one program that was legal at the time but later ruled illegal, dozens of programs that are entirely legal, and thousands of documents that describe ongoing work on specific targets that were also perfectly legal and incredibly sensitive. What he did was equivalent to the SPE hack, where the attackers dumped emails without regard to whether what they contained was illegal in any way but were certainly harmful to SPE.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#44

Post by kajecounterhack »

wdewind wrote: post #38

The internet doesn't belong to vendors. The internet doesn't belong to governments. The internet belongs to the user, right? The thing is, this is literally false. The infrastructure of the internet is paid for by governments and vendors. A user wouldn't be called a user if it belonged to them... The internet is a great decentralization when compared to traditional media like television, but it's not nearly as big a…

The internet != the infrastructure of the internet. The internet is not its wires, it's the content and the people who are part of a large global community that comprises it. Vendors and governments use the internet, but they don't and shouldn't own it.

> ...it's not nearly as big a difference as people make it seem. With how most people use it it's not far from just having more channels on your existing cable box.

You can't write emails on your TV, or do banking, or...well this is just a silly sentiment.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#45

Post by rafaelferreira »

The interview would've probably been a lot more fruitful if questions centered around what he knows about the surveillance capabilities of the agencies he was involved with, in technical detail, than asking for his opinions on technology policy, an area where he is admittedly not an expert.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#46

Post by kajecounterhack »

travjones wrote: post #26

I think it's a shame how mainstream media suggests that Snowden is a "coward" for not "coming home to face his charges." It's clear that he released confidential docs to reporters and this would be incredibly easy to prove in court, thereby landing him in prison for the rest of his life. I don't know any sane person that would surrender to this type of treatment, considering that he wouldn't be able to defend his act…

Agreed, did you see https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snow...

> If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers -- not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions.

Ridiculous. They literally don't know what "whistleblower" means.

"Go to prison because you deserve it in our clearly unjust system" ...the gall.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#47

Post by wdewind »

kajecounterhack wrote: post #44
wdewind wrote: post #38

The internet doesn't belong to vendors. The internet doesn't belong to governments. The internet belongs to the user, right? The thing is, this is literally false. The infrastructure of the internet is paid for by governments and vendors. A user wouldn't be called a user if it belonged to them... The internet is a great decentralization when compared to traditional media like television, but it's not nearly as big a…

The internet != the infrastructure of the internet. The internet is not its wires, it's the content and the people who are part of a large global community that comprises it. Vendors and governments use the internet, but they don't and shouldn't own it. > ...it's not nearly as big a difference as people make it seem. With how most people use it it's not far from just having more channels on your existing cable box. Y…

> Vendors and governments use the internet, but they don't and shouldn't own it.

And yet they do: we may play in this sandbox, but we don't make decisions about the infrastructure, we don't make decisions about the law around it etc. This is congruent to the American political and legal system.

As you pointed out, it gets more confusing when you get international, but it's informative to look into how much control the US (and West in general) has over global internet infrastructure.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#48

Post by wdewind »

iscrewyou wrote: post #41
wdewind wrote: post #38

The internet doesn't belong to vendors. The internet doesn't belong to governments. The internet belongs to the user, right? The thing is, this is literally false. The infrastructure of the internet is paid for by governments and vendors. A user wouldn't be called a user if it belonged to them... The internet is a great decentralization when compared to traditional media like television, but it's not nearly as big a…

And who pays the government to run it's operations? Same for the vendors. Who pays them? I as a consumer keeps them running.

As a single consumer you don't do anything. And that's reflected in the fact that you don't write or contribute to the policy or infrastructure of the internet. The point is that the internet is not something that is fundamentally different or outside of our culture's existing political, legal and social framework. It exists inside it and replicates most of it. We shouldn't expect it to be different. It hasn't been constructed in a way that implies it will be different either, outside of extremely superficial ways (protocols etc.).

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#49

Post by travjones »

kajecounterhack wrote: post #46
travjones wrote: post #26

I think it's a shame how mainstream media suggests that Snowden is a "coward" for not "coming home to face his charges." It's clear that he released confidential docs to reporters and this would be incredibly easy to prove in court, thereby landing him in prison for the rest of his life. I don't know any sane person that would surrender to this type of treatment, considering that he wouldn't be able to defend his act…

Agreed, did you see https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snow... > If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a j…

Exactly! I did see the response to the petition and thought the exact same thing. The government is pretty much saying, "We know what you did was just. But you broke the law, so come back to suffer in federal prison."

"In the land of the free and the home of the brave..." Haha. Ed Snowden is brave and we are freer as Americans knowing what the government is capable of when it comes to electronic surveillance.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#50

Post by franciscogarcia »

kajecounterhack wrote: post #46
travjones wrote: post #26

I think it's a shame how mainstream media suggests that Snowden is a "coward" for not "coming home to face his charges." It's clear that he released confidential docs to reporters and this would be incredibly easy to prove in court, thereby landing him in prison for the rest of his life. I don't know any sane person that would surrender to this type of treatment, considering that he wouldn't be able to defend his act…

Agreed, did you see https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snow... > If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a j…

They know what whistleblower means, they just don't agree with it. Being on power and being transparent are simply not compatible on this day and age. Unless you are dutch, pretty much the exception to the rule
Post reply on HN