thecrash
thecrash on Hacker News
There are indeed some really bad people out there, and some of the worst ones use their positions within institutions like police departments to avoid accountability.
I'll see your conspiracy theory and raise you one: What if the feds fund tech privacy projects specifically so that people like you won't trust them, and instead embrace privacy nihilism?
This is a known strategy of the Kremlin, by the way. They fund opposition groups which protest them, and then leak the fact of that funding so that people who are genuinely upset at the Kremlin get confused about who is captured opposition and who is legitimate.
It can be a signal in some cases, but funding sources are not a reliable way to make a conclusion about a group's motivations.
Decreases what info Signal needs to collect and retain about a user. When using an SMS verification as a proof, Signal needs to log the phone number, because if they didn't, one spammer could use one phone number to create 10^99 accounts.
When using payment as proof, they can verify that payment occurred, validate the account and then immediately forget about the transaction. One spammer would still have to pay 10^99 times to create that many accounts.
enough metaphors though. Here is what I think probably actually happened, based on the multiple accounts I've read:
"Give us the PIN for your phone"
"I don't want you to search my phone, and I want to talk to my lawyer"
"If you don't comply, you're going to be in a lot of trouble"
"Can I please just go, I don't want to answer questions or be searched"
"If you don't comply we will seize your phone and detain you indefinitely until we can unlock your phone!"
"I want my lawyer."
"Just tell us the PIN and you'll be on your way. Otherwise it's gonna be bad."
"Look if I have no choice my PIN is 1234, but I don't want you searching my phone without my lawyer present."
...
"Hey! We tried to search your phone and the phone wiped itself! You're going to prison for destruction of evidence!"
I have tested them, that's what I'm saying! The belief that the authorities are completely unrestrained in their power serves authoritarianism. Creating this belief is in fact a major priority for the current regime.
This is not to say that things aren't bad, or abuses never happen. But if people fail to exercise the actual power and rights they do have, under a mistaken belief that they have no power and no rights, then that will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You are incorrect, US border patrol can not arrest you for refusing to decrypt your phone (if you are a citizen). It is not considered obstructing a search to refuse to provide a password. This is not "autistic" speculation about legal technicalities, there are many many examples which support this. The worst they can do is seize the device.
It doesn't sound like this person pressed any buttons. They were pressured to provide a PIN or be delayed and further harassed. They obliged, and agents decided to enter it to attempt a warrantless search of the phone.
It's not stated, but probably we can assume the person didn't ask for his phone to be searched - probably he asked NOT for it to be searched, at least based on his multiple requests to talk to his lawyer.
Considering those factors, I'd say border patrol is more responsible for wiping the phone than the person.
It's important to note that there are very many Jews in the world who are not Zionist and many Jews in Israel who disagree with the Palestinian genocide.
They're not the majority, but there are still a lot of them.
Attacking civilians has always been "controversial". As a civilian myself, I would be pretty worried if this changed.
It's scary that you bring up the question of whether Rene Good was under arrest or not at the time she was killed.
As if it were legal or justified to execute people for failing to cooperate with their own arrest. It's scary because you're not the only person who believes this - many in ICE and other police agencies hold this belief, and by repeating it you encourage them to kill again.
That's the trouble though - those friendly neighborhood sites can generally be assumed to be appropriate for kids, but if we create the expectation that they must
ensure they are appropriate for certain age brackets simply by virtue of being online, those sites will cease existing.
Instead of running their own websites, they'll migrate to a platform like Facebook. That way Meta handles the burden of moderation and the legal complaints for the inevitable moderation failures.
I think this might not be true though. This is like saying a marathon runner can walk like an amputee using a prosthetic.
Just like anyone else with a disadvantage, people who aren't that smart develop diverse compensatory strategies to work around their intellectual limitations, and these can look very different from popular caricatures of "dumb guy". A stupid person is not as simple as a smart person might imagine.
This case is not important because of Greenpeace, it's important because of the implications for free speech in the US. They are not being bankrupted because they took the wrong stance on nuclear, they're being bankrupted for supposed defamation and incitement against a major energy corporation.
This is a precedent that will be used to attack all kinds of civil society organizations when they threaten the profits of major corporate interests. Including the civil society organizations which you do agree with.
Some of the jurors had financial ties Energy Transfer, the district is heavily conservative and economically dependent on the oil industry. The deck was massively stacked against Greenpeace at trial.
Energy Transfer had previously attempted other suits which failed to get any traction because the claims are essentially Trump-style conspiracy theories about who is "pulling the strings" and "paying for" a massive decentralized protest movement.
But they got lucky on this one. One of the advantages of having so much money you can just burn it on questionable lawsuits until one succeeds.
It's weird that you won't come out and say what you think is "going on" though. I've given the explanation that the vast majority of people waving Mexican flags in LA would give: they are expressing that they're proud to be Mexican, or of Mexican heritage, and are sick of being treated like they're less than other people because of that heritage.
What is your explanation? I suspect that it's something along the lines of: "people waving foreign flags are signaling their intention to invade the US", but that you don't want to say it overtly because it's obviously a racist talking point from right-wing media.
> I consider myself quite liberal, but waving a Mexican flag at these events just makes me think you can fuck right off with that bullshit.
I'm confused, you consider yourself quite liberal but you think it's bullshit for Mexicans in the US to celebrate their heritage?
Your concerns about a majority oppressing a minority are well-founded, but a system where people vote for career politicians don't seem to be moderating this problem - if anything it's exaggerating it.
If you trust the general population to vote a marginalized person into office in order to push legislation which benefits that marginalized community, why wouldn't you trust the general population to pass that legislation directly?
The only explanation I can think of is that you think that professional political representatives will have better ideas than the general population.
Unlike Apple, Google's main business isn't selling hardware, nor do they use hardware as the chokepoint for controlling their ecosystem.
It could change in future devices, but currently there's not much stopping you from doing whatever you want with your Pixel's software.
Your problem statement is effectively "I want to share access to my documents very informally with people who don't care to have any security practices, but still keep them secure"
There's another way of sharing in cryptpad though, which is for each user to create an identity/account.
Once those you're collaborating with have accounts, documents and folders can be shared by granting access within cryptpad's UI. No secrets have to be circulated.
Builds are signed by the software publisher, not the Play Store. So the store alone couldn't corrupt releases, it would need collaboration by the publisher. (Google does have a service for app developers where they keep and manage your signing keys for you, but it's not required)
While the bike is stationary there's limited options for moving the bike relative to your body. While the bike is moving, you can make small steering adjustments which move the bike left or right relative to your body, which helps re-balance the body-bike stack. The faster forward you're moving, the faster these steering adjustments take effect.
> because they do non-free parts now they are likely to make more of it non-free later, is that the argument
Yes, that's one indicator of how the incentives are structured, though there are other factors to consider too - mostly regarding where the money comes from and who is involved in the decision-making.
Perhaps you find it dystopian that people make predictions about future behavior and use them to inform their decisions about who to trust. It's very common though, and is the basis for the concept of reputation.
Or semi-automated scammers trying to claim the ad revenue from videos for themselves.
It has to do with the way power and incentives are configured within the project, and therefore what can be expected of the maintainers in the future.
For some people/use cases, the threat of developers rug-pulling a tool you depend on is not a big deal as long as it's good right now. But in many situations the tool which has less features but also less incentive to rug-pull wins out.
It's both. Free software is a more efficient mode of production because it maximizes the exchange of ideas about how best to build software. It's also a more libertarian mode of consumption because it maximizes freedom of choice for users.
This is what the Tor Browser is designed to do, and it does it very well (all in userspace no less). The main drawback is that some sites don't render as nicely and occasionally a site simply doesn't work.
As you point out, decades ago privacy was a widespread social value among everyone who used the internet. Security through cryptography was also a widespread technical value among everyone (well at least some people) who designed software for the internet.
Over time, because security and cryptography were beneficial to business and government, cryptography got steadily increasing technical investment and attention.
On the other hand, since privacy as a social value does not serve business or government needs, it has been steadily de-emphasized and undermined.
Technical people have coped with the progressive erosion of privacy by pointing to cryptography as a way for individuals to uphold their privacy even in the absence of state-protected rights or a civil society which cares. This is the tradeoff being described.
By mistakenly declaring the existence of certain packages at scale, the model causes those packages to be created and published. What initially seemed like a hallucination was in fact hyperstition...