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

Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 184 posts

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#51

Post by kortex »

fullstop wrote: post #15
snazz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're not using DNS over HTTPS, then they're still tracking your DNS queries regardless of which server you use.

I wonder how big a hosts file could get before it degraded performance? You can still do DNS over VPN. That is, I could set up an unbound cache on a VPS and secure my traffic to that server using wireguard or openvpn. This just pushes the eyeballs out of my home and into someone else's datacenter, though.

Just set up a pihole/dnsmasq. You'll need to point that at your desired DNS (I use 1.1.1.1, but if I were more paranoid I'd tunnel it)

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#52

Post by dgellow »

diablo1 wrote: post #50

Define 'your' browsing history. Where I live you can buy a SIM card with cash, load it with credit and surf on a 3G/4G network, without having to register the SIM or attach your legal name to it in any way. I can also encrypt my phone, turn on permanent incognito mode, disable Javascript, and have uBlock Origin running to stop trackers. Good luck trying to pin my legal name to a particular website visit. Then there's…

> Where I live you can buy a SIM card with cash, load it with credit and surf on a 3G/4G network, without having to register the SIM or attach your legal name to it in any way.

Where is that? My experience in Europe and Thailand is that I have to sign documents and show a proof of identity.

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#53

Post by tadhgds »

JoeSmithson wrote: post #48
_8j50 wrote: post #3

Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms. They literally get a drone strike for having called a known terrorist or for going to a wedding other terrorists with cell phones go to. For home grown terrorism, how many school shootings happen when the people who know the shooter literally tell police/fbi beforehand about the state of the shooter. Are school s…

> Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms Shit like this is said all the time on HN with absolutely nothing to substantiate it.

I'm not really sure why you think this needs substantiation.

The logic goes like this: It would be utterly stupid for terrorist groups to rely on digital communications simply because of how well locked down the various government agencies have made it. We assume that they are not utterly stupid.

I don't think it's a crazy statement or needing further justification. I doubt terrorist groups are that sophisticated but I would assume they have plugged the simplest holes.

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#54

Post by StreamBright »

JoeSmithson wrote: post #48
_8j50 wrote: post #3

Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms. They literally get a drone strike for having called a known terrorist or for going to a wedding other terrorists with cell phones go to. For home grown terrorism, how many school shootings happen when the people who know the shooter literally tell police/fbi beforehand about the state of the shooter. Are school s…

> Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms Shit like this is said all the time on HN with absolutely nothing to substantiate it.

Do you know many terrorists who use digital communication to back your claim?

What the above is talking about well known, even privacy-aware people tend to not use digital communication that much, no facebook, or other social media, no smartphones. In the post-Snowden era, I am not sure why somebody thinks otherwise.

3 letter agencies have the means, the reason, the legitimacy, and the resources to penetrate every type of telecommunication, the worst-case just trojan the entire GSM infrastructure if necessary. The USA conducted thousands of drone strikes. What do you think drives locating the target?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-drone-strikes/

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#55

Post by surround »

diablo1 wrote: post #50

Define 'your' browsing history. Where I live you can buy a SIM card with cash, load it with credit and surf on a 3G/4G network, without having to register the SIM or attach your legal name to it in any way. I can also encrypt my phone, turn on permanent incognito mode, disable Javascript, and have uBlock Origin running to stop trackers. Good luck trying to pin my legal name to a particular website visit. Then there's…

There was a thread a few days ago that showed it’s trivial to de-anonymize a device based on location history.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23136612

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#56

Post by taneq »

isoskeles wrote: post #46
_8j50 wrote: post #3

Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms. They literally get a drone strike for having called a known terrorist or for going to a wedding other terrorists with cell phones go to. For home grown terrorism, how many school shootings happen when the people who know the shooter literally tell police/fbi beforehand about the state of the shooter. Are school s…

> Are school shooters not terrorists? They are not. Terrorism is supposed to be a political tool. Whereas school shooters are often just deranged or troubled people lashing out.

Terrorism is violence with the intention of creating fear to further a political goal. If a kid feels victimized and wants to hurt the people they feel responsible, that's not terrorism. If a kid wants to hurt bullies with the intention that it will make other bullies afraid and so reduce the overall amount of bullying in schools then that would fit the definition.

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#57

Post by anticensor »

brenden2 wrote: post #8
TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The data collected is collected en masse at the ISP level. Using incognito mode won't do anything for these searches.

This doesn't work so well when you a) disallow tracking cookies and b) don't use your ISP's DNS servers. I used to work directly with these big ISPs, and I can assure you they aren't very sophisticated. Even if they log every IP you send a packet to, and they know every domain that points to each of those IPs, they can't know exactly what you requested or which particular website you visited provided these websites u…

Come here to Turkey, we have very sophisticated multilevel tracking and censorship infrastructure (deployed but not used in full potential).

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#58

Post by baron_harkonnen »

JoeSmithson wrote: post #48
_8j50 wrote: post #3

Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms. They literally get a drone strike for having called a known terrorist or for going to a wedding other terrorists with cell phones go to. For home grown terrorism, how many school shootings happen when the people who know the shooter literally tell police/fbi beforehand about the state of the shooter. Are school s…

> Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms Shit like this is said all the time on HN with absolutely nothing to substantiate it.

I do stats for a living, and while I think it's good to back up claims with data when possible, inductive reasoning is still a validate tool for understanding the world.

The logic is that active, dedicated terrorist groups already know: "They literally get a drone strike for having called a known terrorist or for going to a wedding other terrorists with cell phones go to."

The reasoning that knowing this information you would be very careful about what you communicate over the internet is very sound to me. To convince me that this reasoning is incorrect would require an abundance of data to the contrary.

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#59

Post by KittenInABox »

lonelappde wrote: post #38
_8j50 wrote: post #3

Actual terrorists(like 9/11 type, well funded) know better than to even touch anything digital for comms. They literally get a drone strike for having called a known terrorist or for going to a wedding other terrorists with cell phones go to. For home grown terrorism, how many school shootings happen when the people who know the shooter literally tell police/fbi beforehand about the state of the shooter. Are school s…

Terrorism has been removed of its meaning since 2001. Terrorism means using violence or threat of violence to influence social or political decisions. Not everything bad is terrorism. A mentally ill person going on a murder-suicide rampage after beijg ignored by a girl is not a terrorist. A person acting in their self-interest in a way that contributes to systemic racism or oppression is not a terrorist. Hunting or t…

> Terrorism means using violence or threat of violence to influence social or political decisions.

So like the shooting of a black church by a white supremacist explicitly for the purposes of espousing white supremacy?

> Hunting or threatening people of a certain race or gender or orientation or hobby to scare them and others away is terrorism.

So like the lgbtq club shooting, or the black church, or the 1989 shooting specifically targeting women?

Re: Patriot Act amendment needing a warrant for browsing history fails

#60

Post by foob4r »

I would be surprised if many of the common public believed that warrantless searches of anyone are reasonable, while exempting federal elected officials from the same law.

Now's a good time to call you senator (if they voted against this) and tell them that they fucked up by weakening your rights and freedoms.

Then, get a VPN or better use Tor as much as you can.

Post reply on HN