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

Twitter is being sued for letting Saudi spies inside the company

protocol.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 86 posts

Re: Twitter is being sued for letting Saudi spies inside the company

#71

Post by CheezeIt »

yardstick wrote: post #41
CheezeIt wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the big problem. It’s absolutely insane that tech companies can’t keep foreign nationals and people with foreign ties from sensitive positions.

I know what you are trying to say, but for many people outside the US, Facebook is a foreign tech company. What makes US nationals any better in safeguarding sensitive data/access about the companies customers than people from UK or Canada or Germany or Norway or Australia or New Zealand etc? Should a tech company silo its data and operations so each country has its own independent unit? No, too infeasible and defeat…

Well, the U.S. Government isn’t likely to steal IP from American companies. For things like customer data or encryption secrets, it’s also perfectly reasonable to avoid hiring former spooks.

Re: Twitter is being sued for letting Saudi spies inside the company

#72

Post by thaumasiotes »

d23 wrote: post #65
thaumasiotes wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is "the state secretly compels them to do things" different from "they are secretly controlled by the state"?

As another commenter suggested: it's absurd beyond parody and a flagrant abuse of language to conflate being a "front" with being compelled by a third party (especially one with legal authority) to do some action(s). Being a "front" suggests an entire business model created by and built around propping up that third party such that the two are indistinguishable actors on everything but the surface level.

> Being a "front" suggests an entire business model created by and built around propping up that third party such that the two are indistinguishable actors on everything but the surface level.

No. One party being a front for another party suggests that the two are indistinguishable actors on everything but the surface level, or more accurately that any action taken by the first party might be better viewed as being "really" taken by the second party, that any information given to the first party is also being given to the second party, etc. It does not suggest that fronting for the second party is the only thing the first party does, or that the first party was created to serve the purposes of the second party.

Taking an example out of the dictionary, it would be unusual to claim that a massage parlor serving as a front for prostitution is obviously, by its nature as a "front", unwilling to provide massages.

Re: Twitter is being sued for letting Saudi spies inside the company

#73

Post by Ekaros »

9387367 wrote: post #55
sneak wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More importantly: stop giving your phone number and GPS position to services. Your phone number is the same as your home address, because it is linked to same in a million databases.

How much do you trust Strava or Garmin with your data?

I don't need to. The GPS device from Garmin I have has no mobile connectivity. So it doesn't send data.

Re: Twitter is being sued for letting Saudi spies inside the company

#74

Post by Ekaros »

tester34 wrote: post #51
yardstick wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in any of the games I’ve played. Why not use use m for million and b for billion? That’s the standard that everyone understands.

hmm, it's the same as e.g "Y2K problem" >The Year 2000 problem, also known as the Y2K problem, Millennium bug, Y2K bug, Y2K glitch or Y2K error, - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2000_problem https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/39370/what-does-k-me...

At least k stands for kilo, well known prefix for 1000 in sane systems. m or M also works for both million and mega. Albeit not perfect. After that everything breaks down...

We really should use more of SI units like Mg and Gg... Even Tg...

Re: Twitter is being sued for letting Saudi spies inside the company

#75

Post by graperapist1480 »

denton-scratch wrote: post #61
graperapist1480 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you can just sue for discrimination though? That is common. It is considered legally dangerous to have an all white (or, less fantastically, 30% Jew 30% Asian 20% white 0% hispanicblack), but the mode of enforcement would be employment or hiring discrimination, not this...

"Discrimination" is what sensible people do all the time. It means "distinguishing things that are different", and if you don't discriminate, bad stuff is likely to happen. For example, it can be bad for your digestion if you fail to discriminate between a hamburger and a house-brick.

yeah I’d rather hire 7 skilled and well oiled Jews than an “equal opportunity” ratio mixture of 4 whites : 1 black. but there is a “civil rights act” and a lot of creative, anti-hegemonic jurisprudence enduring that my militant ascetic coding-Shtel will never be a reality. :(

Re: Twitter is being sued for letting Saudi spies inside the company

#76

Post by graperapist1480 »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #54
sneak wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Front suggests secret ownership/control. More likely is that they are simply compelled by the state to spy, willingly or not.

How is "the state secretly compels them to do things" different from "they are secretly controlled by the state"?

I am secretly controlled by the state because they force me to pay taxes. We are all IRS assets in their quest to build a global American tax-base imperial seat of power.

Re: Twitter is being sued for letting Saudi spies inside the company

#77

Post by graperapist1480 »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #72
d23 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As another commenter suggested: it's absurd beyond parody and a flagrant abuse of language to conflate being a "front" with being compelled by a third party (especially one with legal authority) to do some action(s). Being a "front" suggests an entire business model created by and built around propping up that third party such that the two are indistinguishable actors on everything but the surface level.

> Being a "front" suggests an entire business model created by and built around propping up that third party such that the two are indistinguishable actors on everything but the surface level. No. One party being a front for another party suggests that the two are indistinguishable actors on everything but the surface level, or more accurately that any action taken by the first party might be better viewed as being "…

so when google releases its 13th chat app, that’s really the CIA doing it? Netflix’s chaos monkey program is ackthuallee an intelligence scam to attack your distributed systems from within?

Re: Twitter is being sued for letting Saudi spies inside the company

#78

Post by thaumasiotes »

graperapist1480 wrote: post #77
thaumasiotes wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being a "front" suggests an entire business model created by and built around propping up that third party such that the two are indistinguishable actors on everything but the surface level. No. One party being a front for another party suggests that the two are indistinguishable actors on everything but the surface level, or more accurately that any action taken by the first party might be better viewed as being "…

so when google releases its 13th chat app, that’s really the CIA doing it? Netflix’s chaos monkey program is ackthuallee an intelligence scam to attack your distributed systems from within?

How did you go from

> It does not suggest that fronting for the second party is the only thing the first party does

to

> Netflix’s chaos monkey program is ackthuallee an intelligence scam to attack your distributed systems from within?

You're trying to interpret me as saying literally the opposite of the plain text of my comment. Work on your reading comprehension.

But yes, when Google releases its 13th chat app, there are good reasons to view that as being a CIA chat app with Google branding.

Re: Twitter is being sued for letting Saudi spies inside the company

#79

Post by graperapist1480 »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #78
graperapist1480 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so when google releases its 13th chat app, that’s really the CIA doing it? Netflix’s chaos monkey program is ackthuallee an intelligence scam to attack your distributed systems from within?

How did you go from > It does not suggest that fronting for the second party is the only thing the first party does to > Netflix’s chaos monkey program is ackthuallee an intelligence scam to attack your distributed systems from within? You're trying to interpret me as saying literally the opposite of the plain text of my comment. Work on your reading comprehension. But yes, when Google releases its 13th chat app, the…

> more accurately that any action taken by the first party might be better viewed as being "really" taken by the second party

your comment was basically contradictory. As is this new one - google meet and google duo is a “CIA chat app”? Why?

What does that mean? Is someone previously on the Google Duo team a CIA officer? Is the leader of the team an asset? What design decisions are CIA adjacent? Where is this happening

Re: Twitter is being sued for letting Saudi spies inside the company

#80

Post by thaumasiotes »

graperapist1480 wrote: post #79
thaumasiotes wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you go from > It does not suggest that fronting for the second party is the only thing the first party does to > Netflix’s chaos monkey program is ackthuallee an intelligence scam to attack your distributed systems from within? You're trying to interpret me as saying literally the opposite of the plain text of my comment. Work on your reading comprehension. But yes, when Google releases its 13th chat app, the…

> more accurately that any action taken by the first party might be better viewed as being "really" taken by the second party your comment was basically contradictory. As is this new one - google meet and google duo is a “CIA chat app”? Why? What does that mean? Is someone previously on the Google Duo team a CIA officer? Is the leader of the team an asset? What design decisions are CIA adjacent? Where is this happeni…

> google meet and google duo is a “CIA chat app”? Why?

> What does that mean?

It means that the app may be used to advance CIA goals. It means that the CIA has control of the app along any dimension you're worried about. This is the nature of obfuscated relationships. If you're worried about something, and it's likely to be true, you need to assume that it is true. In this case, the assumption is justified. If you're not worried about something, you don't need to make the assumption that it's true. Since it doesn't matter, you can afford not to have a position on it.

Post reply on HN