51–60 of 102 posts
That assumes they want to end censorship. Google, for instance, outright participates in political censorship, especially on Youtube - I've seen many right and alt-right youtubers disappear or get strikes for something unimportant that the left does without any repercussions. They also fired Damore for quite mild comments about sex/gender.
Why would anybody think that Amazon, Google, or Microsoft are against censorship? Recent events have demonstrated that they love them some censorship, when they do it. Witness the case of gab.ai - Google was happy to pull their app from the Play store. Microsoft didn't mind at all threatening to shut down their Azure account unless they censored a post. The Azure case is particularly amazing. I can't believe the tech…
? It was widely reported.
Why would anybody think that Amazon, Google, or Microsoft are against censorship? Recent events have demonstrated that they love them some censorship, when they do it. Witness the case of gab.ai - Google was happy to pull their app from the Play store. Microsoft didn't mind at all threatening to shut down their Azure account unless they censored a post. The Azure case is particularly amazing. I can't believe the tech…
No no no, you don't get to throw out gab.ai as an example without expanding on what they wanted censored. For those who don't know what was censored I'll link it as I will not be reposting it: https://heavy.com/news/2018/08/microsoft-threatened-gab-shut... You muddle the waters greatly when you pretend it was just some free speech issue (Newsflash: FREE SPEECH DOES NOT EXTEND TO NON-GOVERNMENT ENTITIES),
What happened is a free speech issue. Did the actions Microsoft took promote the healthy and open exchange of ideas or did they take an action in order to silence? Since Gab is largely a closed community this action wasn't so much protecting people from abuse so much as it was preventing like minded people from talking to each other. And no matter what I think about the things they said I still hold that they ought to be allowed to say them among themselves.
Why would anybody think that Amazon, Google, or Microsoft are against censorship? Recent events have demonstrated that they love them some censorship, when they do it. Witness the case of gab.ai - Google was happy to pull their app from the Play store. Microsoft didn't mind at all threatening to shut down their Azure account unless they censored a post. The Azure case is particularly amazing. I can't believe the tech…
No no no, you don't get to throw out gab.ai as an example without expanding on what they wanted censored. For those who don't know what was censored I'll link it as I will not be reposting it: https://heavy.com/news/2018/08/microsoft-threatened-gab-shut... You muddle the waters greatly when you pretend it was just some free speech issue (Newsflash: FREE SPEECH DOES NOT EXTEND TO NON-GOVERNMENT ENTITIES),
The neoconservative movement, for instance, is accused of faking evidence of WMDs in order to get us into a serious war and causing a massive death toll. That accusation is that their speech was lies in order to get us into war. But they are center-right interventionists, many of whom were liberals before 9/11. Is neoconservatism hate speech?
Pro-life protestors claim that abortions in the US have murdered approximately the population of Spain since Roe v Wade. They also point out that Denmark has eliminated babies born with Down's syndrome. Is the pro-choice position hate speech?
I think a fair minded person can draw a distinction between these things, the point of politics is coexisting with people who aren't particularly fair minded and are going to try and game the system. The idea of free speech is that the simplest way to prevent gaming is not giving them a system to game, especially not one as ambiguous and dangerous as hate speech rules.
Why would anybody think that Amazon, Google, or Microsoft are against censorship? Recent events have demonstrated that they love them some censorship, when they do it. Witness the case of gab.ai - Google was happy to pull their app from the Play store. Microsoft didn't mind at all threatening to shut down their Azure account unless they censored a post. The Azure case is particularly amazing. I can't believe the tech…
No no no, you don't get to throw out gab.ai as an example without expanding on what they wanted censored. For those who don't know what was censored I'll link it as I will not be reposting it: https://heavy.com/news/2018/08/microsoft-threatened-gab-shut... You muddle the waters greatly when you pretend it was just some free speech issue (Newsflash: FREE SPEECH DOES NOT EXTEND TO NON-GOVERNMENT ENTITIES),
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No no no, you don't get to throw out gab.ai as an example without expanding on what they wanted censored. For those who don't know what was censored I'll link it as I will not be reposting it: https://heavy.com/news/2018/08/microsoft-threatened-gab-shut... You muddle the waters greatly when you pretend it was just some free speech issue (Newsflash: FREE SPEECH DOES NOT EXTEND TO NON-GOVERNMENT ENTITIES),
I really hate this meme; Randall did the world a great disservice by missing the point and putting it in a format which spread like wildfire for smug people to quote until the end of time. Free speech is a principal which extends farther than a very limited right in US law -- it's not a rule, it's not prescriptive, it's not afforded by any law -- it's an ideal. I don't in any way deny that you can find people who con…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wrote about this last year: https://fightthefuture.org/article/the-new-era-of-corporate-... It's easy to side with CloudFlair when they go against a site like The Daily Stormer (Which is so out there it might just fall into Poe's Law). The fact is that most decent hosting is only available in a handful of industries. Even the CF CEO has had misgivings of his decision and it gets us into a really questionable space.…
It's actually worse than there being only a couple of big providers. The problem is that the same sort of people who are trying to shut down sites through legal pressure tactics against Amazon, Google etc are absolutely happy to use illegal tactics too. In particular once sites are booted off large providers onto smaller ones or self hosted sites, that's when the DDoS attacks start. Infowars already saw one, for inst…
Federated / p2p systems like Mastodon? Non-Web-proper sites based on Dat and IPFS?
/*
If I were an adviser to the conspiracy theorists' insidious world government, I would suggest that pressure on non-consenting opinions be put carefully, to securely remove them form the normal mass Web, but not too strong as to push the normal users away from the (controlled) Web, to harder-to-control media. One way to achieve this is to allow some mild fringe content, and actively demonize any serious non-consenters, so that they'd look way off the chart to general public, thus "worthy" of being censored out.
*/
That assumes they want to end censorship. Google, for instance, outright participates in political censorship, especially on Youtube - I've seen many right and alt-right youtubers disappear or get strikes for something unimportant that the left does without any repercussions. They also fired Damore for quite mild comments about sex/gender.
If Chinese government was only censoring racists / misogynists / homophobes, I'm sure less people wouldn't have a problem with that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely not. Full MITM proxies are required to inspect traffic. Inspecting SNI is ineffective against the majority of threats including blocking botnet traffic.
How so? If I as the MITM (non-decrypting) proxy intercept the request, look at the SNI to ensure it’s on my whitelist, and then do my own DNS lookup and open my own TCP connection to that IP and relay the traffic between the two, what’s the attack vector?
I'll base my response on your description of how you think this device would work rather than your confusing term "MITM (non-decrypting) proxy".
A1. Alice sends a TCP SYN to 1.2.3.4 port 443 Presumably you intercept this, and synthesise the appropriate SYN-ACK pretending to be from 1.2.3.4 port 443 which Alice ACKs
A2. Alice sends an SSL/TLS ClientHello. It has some parameters you may not understand, and a SNI which says good.example which is on your whitelist
A3. You DNS lookup good.example, the response suggests 5.6.7.8, so you TCP connect to port 443 of 5.6.7.8 and play back Alice's ClientHello and try to stitch things together in your NAT layer.
Meanwhile
B1. Bob sends a TCP SYN to 9.8.7.6 port 443 Presumably you intercept this, and synthesise the appropriate SYN-ACK pretending to be from 9.8.7.6 port 443 which Bob ACKs
B2. Bob sends an SSL/TLS ClientHello. It has some parameters you may not understand, and a SNI which says bad.example which is NOT on your whitelist
B3. You drop or reset Bob's connection, he cannot connect.
Commentary #1: With the imagined comprehensive whitelist AND a following tail wind this doesn't give you anything better than just whitelisting the IPs in a conventional Firewall. Why spend all this extra money? Why involve TLS at all? It's complicated, but what for?
Commentary #2: This ClientHello may not work when redirected to some other IP address. In reality there's a good chance you just cause a fallback and things are pointlessly slower, but in principle it may just not work at all.