511–520 of 618 posts
Anybody concerned about these issues should consider donating to their favourite non profit that can have an impact that works in the area. Most HN users can afford $20/year pretty easily (others could afford $200/month and not even notice it) As they say, “Put your money where your mouth is.”
Would you name some please? Do you mean like ACLU (BCCLA in Canada)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That already exists, it's called the Internet
The issue is the internet doesn't provide the required service for individuals to find each other directly. We need DNS for everyone, not just the rich...er those bothering to register a name. Make it GUID based, and let people contact each other by GUID instead of phone number. Preferably add privacy enhancing encryption too so that only those with your public key could decrypt your GUID DNS entry to then find your…
I'd say the big problem at the moment is that people are not used to paying for service. Lots of stuff related to naming is very cheap. But if you require it to be free, then you will get bad incentives like trying to build a silo and fill that silo with ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have limited resources and so they cannot fight every single fight. Some people object to their current method of filtering. Apparently, groups tied to neo-nazi/white-supremacy are some of the ones they filter out of consideration, but they have done so in the past. Some people think the ACLU should fight specifically for such organizations to make a point that everyone, even hateful bigots, have the same rights…
> they cannot fight every single fight I think "failing to support" in the grandparent comment is too weak for some. This is Glenn Greenwald on a recent ACLU amicus brief[1]: >> This is the first time, at least to my knowledge, that ACLU is explicitly arguing in court that the First Amendment's free speech clause has been interpreted *too broadly* by courts, and are advocating *a more restrictive view* of what free s…
What if a white teacher spoke to the only black student in the room using his own version of AVE, and used his usual English for the rest of the class?
I don't know the answer, but I can understand the ACLU seeing a case where rights come into conflict and choosing a result that seems more just.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sealed sender only means Signal doesn't know who sent a particular message. They have to know who the recipient is so they can deliver it. Like forging the "From:" address on an email. Except in the Signal case the IP address/port of the sender is unique to the user and if the recipient responds then the link between the users is made. The private contact discovery depends on an Intel SGX hardware enclave on their se…
You said > The E2EE in Signal only protects the actual content of messages. > [By] (simply saving the data) Signal could get access to things like contacts and phone numbers. And the linked blog posts show that for a few years now they've been working on limiting their own access to this kind of data --- i.e. it's not as simple as just saving it (like e.g. WhatsApp is able to and most likely doing 100% of the time to…
I did not at all mean to imply that. The assertive action that Signal would have to take might involve actual work. The question is if they could be forced to do that work by the authorities of the country they operate from. I doubt that the amount of work would really factor into the legal stuff.
Signal of course might of already done the work as part of some cooperation with a national signals organization or simply because someone felt bored and contrary, but they could not admit that if they want to preserve the value of the information gathered.
The E2EE encryption part is in the end the only provable aspect of Signal Messenger. The leakage of meta information is inherent when one entity controls all the infrastructure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would go further and ask for mandatory 24/7 surveillance of elected officials for transparency and to combat corruption every time they bring up this bullshit.
In the UK the government introduced a "record of everyone's internet history" law and then exempted themselves from it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13087339
While I applaud Signal's response I expect this entire event (subpoena and response) will be provided as one of the exhibits to congress by the Department of Justice to justify their request that it be unlawful to provide such services. The DoJ will say, "See, here is this horrible crime we are investigating and because this company chose to make it impossible for law enforcement, with a warrant and a subpoena to get…
I would go further and ask for mandatory 24/7 surveillance of elected officials for transparency and to combat corruption every time they bring up this bullshit.
While I applaud Signal's response I expect this entire event (subpoena and response) will be provided as one of the exhibits to congress by the Department of Justice to justify their request that it be unlawful to provide such services. The DoJ will say, "See, here is this horrible crime we are investigating and because this company chose to make it impossible for law enforcement, with a warrant and a subpoena to get…
Why are the previous subpoenas Signal Messenger LLC has refused not sufficient for this purpose?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For anyone curious, the account was created on Dec 1 2020, and last connected this October 13th.
Am I the only one sort of bothered by the fact they shared that specific information with the world? It may not seem like much, but that was user data.
Anybody concerned about these issues should consider donating to their favourite non profit that can have an impact that works in the area. Most HN users can afford $20/year pretty easily (others could afford $200/month and not even notice it) As they say, “Put your money where your mouth is.”
Would you name some please? Do you mean like ACLU (BCCLA in Canada)