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

YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 701 posts

Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”

#541

Post by dragonwriter »

the_pwner224 wrote: post #481
kowdermeister wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you don't need to verify your true identity, such rule would be totally pointless even if it were there.

For a number of years now you have to give a phone number to make an account. Doesn't need to be a one-to-one mapping, but it still connects the accounts. It can be evaded by using multiple phone numbers, but if you're working that hard to not be violated by Google then chances are you aren't using Google in the first place.

> For a number of years now you have to give a phone number to make an account. Doesn't need to be a one-to-one mapping, but it still connects the accounts.

Even if the number is required (a sibling comment challenges that), it only connects your accounts if you only have one phone number, or all the phone numbers you have and use for Google accounts are publicly (or privately but through Google) tied to your identity. Otherwise it does not, to Google, connect the accounts.

Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”

#542

Post by corndoge »

notafraudster wrote: post #397
Liquix wrote: post #117

Emperor G built a beautiful walled city, inviting everyone in, encouraging them to paint their houses whatever color they like. A year later, Big G banned blue houses. If you didn't like the rules, you were more than welcome to build your house outside the city and paint it whatever color you like. Only most people don't leave - blue is just one color and they weren't very interested in it anyway. Besides, the city i…

Let me retell your story from my perspective. Some random guys built a beautiful walled city inviting everyone in, encouraging them to paint their houses whatever color they like. Before the walled city, almost everyone was homeless, and the few people who had houses were rickety and constantly needed upkeep. (Before YouTube, most people couldn't do video sharing, and tech-savvy people could but it was more complicat…

Except this is about hacking videos not white supremacy videos

Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”

#543

Post by whatshisface »

wvenable wrote: post #401
whatshisface wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was accusing the parents of aiding a conspiracy to stage a fake shooting. I can imagine being a parent who has just lost a child, only to be told that I was lying, and that my child either never existed or was still alive. It's a real ideological litmus test - exactly how turned can your stomach get before you call for an exception to free speech?

Lets be clear with terms here; I wouldn't call for an exception to "free speech" even for Alex Jones. He has every right to say whatever he wants short of outright threats, etc. But I certainly don't think anyone should be forced or required to give him a platform for which to broadcast his speech.

I'm glad you brought up the platform distinction because I've also been thinking about that one.

I could deny Alex Jones a soapbox in my yard, because it has little value and there are plenty of others. If there are only two soap boxes in the world and I coordinate with the owner of the other box to silence somebody, then I have become functionally indistinguishable from the government for the purpose of free speech, thereby taking on the same duty they have to not shut it down.

Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”

#545

Post by aiyodev »

A government is an organization that governs. Any organization that polices it's customers/users beyond what the law requires them to is acting as a government. YouTube crossed that line a long time ago. Like home owners associations, YouTube is a government and should be forced by courts to recognize constitutional protections of civil liberties.

Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”

#546

Post by darkpuma »

013a wrote: post #462
britch wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this changes the idea that the slippery slope is a silly argument. Aren't we evaluating these things on their own terms now? It's definitely possible to have a YouTube that is harsh on calls to violence but allows cyber-security instructionals. We're not sliding down the slope just yet. We took a step too low and need to climb back up. edit: I should not have used "we" above, since only Alphabet control…

It is possible to have a Youtube like this. Its also possible to have a Youtube that allows porn, or a Youtube that exclusively hosts videos from large media companies because its too risky to allow random people to upload any of these things. All of these are possibilities. Some of them are more likely than others. But you want to know the least likely possibility? The one with chances so unrealistically impossible…

> " given enough time, the markets will take care of it. "

And death finds all murderers in the end, but why wait for that? I prefer we actively hunt them down, to limit the damage they can do.

See also: Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.

Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”

#547

Post by CM30 »

taurath wrote: post #326
Liquix wrote: post #117

Emperor G built a beautiful walled city, inviting everyone in, encouraging them to paint their houses whatever color they like. A year later, Big G banned blue houses. If you didn't like the rules, you were more than welcome to build your house outside the city and paint it whatever color you like. Only most people don't leave - blue is just one color and they weren't very interested in it anyway. Besides, the city i…

It'd be real nice if we could make an expeditionary force and start setting up more cities outside, to continue the analogy. At the moment, most groups wanting to leave the city contain too many undesirables, but eventually there'll be enough critical mass. What does that look like? At first - an ecosystem of services, packaged together, rather than piecemeal. Firefox, duckduckgo, an open calendar. I don't think it m…

The solution to alternative communities having too many 'undesirables' is pretty simple; you focus on a specific niche/field that YouTube or whatever doesn't do well, then build up from there.

That's how Twitch took off. Started off being gaming focused, became a bit more open to other content later on. Same with Discord compared to say, Reddit or Twitter or Slack or what not.

The reason most alternatives attract the wrong audience/don't reach critical mass is because their marketing is always focused on the freedom of speech/privacy/whatever angle. That's attractive to a certain audience (those who are being censored more often on existing platforms), but not to the general public.

So you aim your new privacy/decentralised/free speech focused platform at gamers or sports fans or software engineers or what not, and then slowly open it up to the general public/all topics. Like how Facebook started out being aimed specifically at college students.

Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”

#548

Post by PavlovsCat »

paulmd wrote: post #359
whatshisface wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may be applying an uneven standard by wanting to ban the speech that turns your stomach, but not the speech that turns the Corporate Overlord's stomachs. You could argue that hacking videos encourage computer crime - the counterargument would be that there are plenty of reasons to talk about something other than to actually encourage people to do it. In fact, Alex Jones' defense in one court case he was in was th…

The US is one of the few countries that believes in a radical, unlimited right to free speech. Most other countries, it is not tolerated, and this has not lead to a slippery slope. Claiming that the families of shooting victims are actually "crisis actors" would not be tolerated under British forms of slander/libel law; Nazi apologism/fetishism or rallying is not tolerated under German laws. These societies aren't ju…

Yeah, like when that German youtuber called out the total mishandling of several important issues by a major political party, and was slandered by some newspapers and stalked by journalists hanging out on his street. Said video is a fully sourced, well researched thing that calls out the insanity around the environment and other things. For example, the fussing about with coal, to save the measly 20k jobs that are in that sector, while just recently 80k jobs were lost due to cuts for spending on renewables. Or Ramstein airbase being used for US drones, and how that just gets shrugged off. Not even a shred of "tinfoil" (the slur that made blind obedience hip), all just very, very appalling facts.

He also got a lot of support, it's not like all media and all politicians attacked him. But those attacks also happened, including a person who dreamed herself future chancellor (at least as far as young people are concerned, she can completely forget that now) musing about whether it should even be "allowed", to just point out the list of hardcore failings before an election: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX3Mz8pdFCs

Yes, we are better for Neonazis not being allowed to run around with swastikas, and I agree that many Americans don't quite get that, but there's plenty of dystopian-in-spe bullshit to be found, and that's not even getting started on the UK. At any rate, the laws that forbid displaying swastikas to glorify Nazism etc. weren't just decided nilly-willy, because "obviously" that had to be done. They took that decision seriously and discussed it in-depth, so exactly the opposite for these rationalizations for censorship by self-styled SV shepherds.

Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”

#549

Post by TecoAndJix »

kegn wrote: post #162
gen3 wrote: post #15

Does this mean that all the reverse engineering videos, con talks, prof of exploit demos, CTF walkthroughs', and fuzzing tutorials will be removed? What about videos showing me how to use tools like Twistlock? Will they be exempt, but videos about burp be banned? What constitutes a "secure" computer system? Side note, I guess its time to fire up youtube-dl. Are there any channels that need to be archived? I normally…

I think ippsec recently set up a mirror for himself where you can download all of his videos, but his videos on youtube are tremendous help on my way to OSCP. He does walkthroughs of boxes hosted on hackthebox shortly after they retire. It's a shame to see this type of content at risk of being blacklisted.

He is the first one I thought of when I read this! He has been so helpful on my journey as well

Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”

#550

Post by yellowapple »

harshreality wrote: post #357
ac29 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

But they are not instructionals on how to commit crimes. They are instructionals on how to bypass security systems, and that may or may not be a crime depending on your relationship with the entity controlling the security system. The same argument could be used to ban any videos showing weapons being used (target practice or demonstration dummies) or any martial arts. Because who knows whether viewers will use that…

Importantly: understanding how to bypass security systems is an implicit dependency of understanding how to defend oneself against your own security systems being bypassed by others. Instead of allowing ordinary people to educate themselves on how they might go about defending themselves against cybercrime, YouTube has effectively decided that "nah, it'd be better for the common folk to be entirely helpless to cybercriminals".
Post reply on HN