Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNU Jami Taranis Released For Free Software Conferencing, Peer-To-Peer Communication

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by partcyborg View Post

    I was gonna say "obvious troll is obvious", but several of the above the above replies indicate perhaps it wasnt so obvious
    Yeah, you are great after the fact Figured it all out, and only after I explicitly stated it. Although, if all you make of it is trolling, then you are about as oblivious to the intent.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by ddriver View Post
      It is the scourge of God's flat Earth.
      I strongly discourage you from spreading misinformation on the shape of the Earth. It is donut-shaped.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by tildearrow View Post

        Agreed. Most criminals here in my country just use WhatsApp, and that's used by 99% of non-criminals here as well.
        I would say that most criminals in your country doesn't use either. It's a tiny portion of all criminals that have any use for secret communications. The people out robbing people, homes, stores and offices have zero need for this. The vast majority of the drug market have zero needs for this as well, none of the buyers will use it (yes there are some that buy drugs using the dark web but they are both in the minority and also using the dark web and not this tool).

        The real organized criminals like Hells Angels and Bandidos (at least over here) have always suspected that the gov can spy on them using all forms of electronics so they have outright banned the use of them, instead when Boss A wants to say something to Boss B he will simply send on of the hang rounds to deliver the message in person.

        What terrorists does or don't do I cannot comment on since I have zero experience from that part of the underworld.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Terrablit View Post

          Sounds even better for being a private citizen who shouldn't have to cope with multiple nervous, paranoid governments who believe that the only route to stability is control and surveillance.

          When surveillance is available, surveillance is the first tool used. And the people with the tools don't always follow the laws. In fact, they're often worse than criminals, since being a part of the enforcement system offers you protection from breaking its laws. Whistleblowers rarely have successful careers.

          Naive proponents of the idea that only criminals should have things that they want to hide should apply that logic to those in power before slapping it on everyone else. If the government can decide that there are things that you're better off not knowing, than so can a private citizen.

          There are many areas of the world where people can lose their jobs, their families and their lives for simple decisions like what they want to believe, who they want to love, and how they express that love in a consenting relationship. Sadly, those areas really aren't as far away as we like to pretend. Let's do our best to protect everyone by normalizing the idea that people have a fundamental right to privacy.
          Truth is, that unless you do something to catch the eye of the authorities, your privacy isn't in danger from authorities. Because manning is finite and computers filtering traffic are not really interested of dirty laundry of your broken relationship or your at-distance "pillow talk". In such case the only danger to your privacy is by commercial entities trying to make money off your data. Thinking that some org in governmental structure really cares about your sex emails and keeping those "private" is more important than catching pedophile rings or drug dealers is the true naive fantasy.. yours.

          True criminals are a problem. And they need secure way of communication to plan, coordinate and execute their dirty deeds.
          An example: https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-...-communication

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by JPFSanders View Post

            Then let me tell you that the important criminals, those with a brain, those with power, operate perfectly on plain sight and don't require any encryption to communicate. Never needed it, besides many of them are in power and commit crimes with total impunity and with help by law enforcement.

            Your idea of a criminal is that of what the media portrays as a criminal.
            "The media" - and by that, I assume you mean "reality"? Why as open source advocates do we have to talk like this? It's stereotypical and embarrassing. No, criminals do not operate with "help by law enforcement".

            You do not have permission to view this gallery.
            This gallery has 1 photos.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by ddriver View Post
              A usage license can solve any problems it needs to.
              Right. That it needs to.

              There are better & more comprehensive solutions for preventing or mitigating harmful activities that happen to utilize software.

              Originally posted by ddriver View Post
              So, according to you, foss prohibits usage that results in harming individuals or society as a whole,
              Huh? No, i said no such thing, nor does it directly follow from anything I did say.

              Originally posted by ddriver View Post
              LOL you are terrablit at getting sarcasm. We have to label is for you... But also, if you genuinely believed any of that was serious, they why in the world would you waste so many keystrokes on such a case...
              Sometimes, even a troll post can pose questions potentially worth exploring. Not speaking for Terrablit, but I replied to the part about FOSS licenses even though I figured you weren't being serious.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by aht0 View Post
                unless you do something to catch the eye of the authorities, your privacy isn't in danger from authorities. Because manning is finite and computers filtering traffic are not really interested of dirty laundry of your broken relationship or your at-distance "pillow talk".
                There's firstly the problem of someone wrongly caught up in surveillance. People have been added to no-fly lists, unable to appeal their status, and unable even to see the rationale behind them getting added. This lack of transparency and recourse is a huge problem. Also potentially fixable, but worth noting.

                The second problem is when someone tries to use government surveillance systems for political purposes. Don't forget that Watergate was about the sitting President of the USA using the FBI to spy on political opponents. This actually happened.

                Third, if/when nothing is forgotten, anything from your past can be cherry-picked and perhaps taken out of context to use against you. Potentially at some time in the future, when existing safeguards have been broken down. This is why it's important to limit the scope and duration that surveillance records are retained, especially for those not suspected of doing anything wrong.

                Originally posted by aht0 View Post
                Thinking that some org in governmental structure really cares about your sex emails and keeping those "private"
                Oh, but indeed government surveillance has been abused by individuals for non-government purposes. We already know of some instances where this happened, such as by police offers against ex-girlfrieds/ex-wives. There are surely more that we don't know about.

                Also, bad things can happen without intent, and people can get lost in a bureaucracy. I'm not arguing against bureaucracy, but national government is big & complex and it's possible for people to get lost in the bowels of the system.

                All of that is to argue for transparency and auditability. We need to eliminate the possibility for government surveillance to be used without leaving a track-record that can eventually be linked up to all the details of the case, so there can be accountability in the case of abuses and so that accidents can more easily & efficiently be remedied.

                Originally posted by aht0 View Post
                True criminals are a problem. And they need secure way of communication to plan, coordinate and execute their dirty deeds.
                An example: https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-...-communication
                Yup. This proves that plenty of criminals were at least smart enough to use an app they thought was secure.

                Here's another link about that "Anom" app, if anyone is interested:

                https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...stralia-crime/

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  Which politicians, specifically? I'm skeptical, because that's not a very popular line to take, lately.
                  I don't remember the names exactly, but these were Scandinavian politicians proposing such a law in the name of fighting crime. Obviously, they didn't say we get to spy on you for any reason. It's always accompanied with some kind of seemingly valid justification, but the effect is basically the same.

                  Originally posted by coder View Post
                  I'm not smart enough to have all the answers, but I can at least see the solution that maximizes freedom across society is not the one that provides uncompromising privacy to the individual. There are tradeoffs to be made, and we do ourselves a disservice not to acknowledge that.


                  Yes, the potential for abuse cannot be ignored. That's why it needs auditability that can't be circumvented, which will preserve transparency and accountability. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
                  I don't think anyone would argue against there being a balance, unless you're an anarchist of course. However, this does not entail that we accept any anti-privacy policy by the government because they known best, and they need to fight crime. This is ridiculous, as grownups we must have a basic understanding of what our rights are, and we must know when things go too far.

                  The problem is that governments around the world are going too far. It's everything from installing cameras in public spaces, powered by facial recognition, to hacking people's devices, to surveilling exactly where people's money go, to forcing ISPs to save logs, and on and on it goes. This is a reality today, in the West, and it's definitely not acceptable.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by board View Post
                    However, this does not entail that we accept any anti-privacy policy by the government because they known best, and they need to fight crime. This is ridiculous, as grownups we must have a basic understanding of what our rights are, and we must know when things go too far.
                    Yes, of course.

                    Originally posted by board View Post
                    The problem is that governments around the world are going too far. It's everything from installing cameras in public spaces, powered by facial recognition, to hacking people's devices, to surveilling exactly where people's money go, to forcing ISPs to save logs, and on and on it goes.
                    None of those examples is necessarily a problem, provided there are controls on how the data is used and how long it's retained.

                    What I see is a broken discourse where abuse of surveillance technology isn't motivating fixes, but rather fueling an arms race that has some potentially very negative side effects.

                    Right now, there doesn't seem to be a big downside to increasing privacy. However, we should think ahead to when there's another big mass-casualty terrorist attack. History tells us that will cause the pendulum to swing too far in the other direction. So, we'd best focus on policies, techniques, and technologies that can be used to preserve the privacy of the innocent, without unduly protecting those criminals and terrorists who do the greatest harm. Otherwise, we risk both great harm and great loss of privacy.

                    P.S. In the US, it would be nice also to address surveillance by corporate actors. As the Cambridge Analytica scandal showed, this can lead to great societal harms, by itself.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by aht0 View Post
                      Truth is, that unless you do something to catch the eye of the authorities, your privacy isn't in danger from authorities.
                      All you have to do these days to get on the list of pretty much any government is to say something like Xi Jinping is a fat Pooh the Bear.

                      They'll suddenly make sure you can't sell or buy anything from/to China and anyone doing anything with China, just like they did to Lithuania. And the Germans said "yes sir pooh the bear!"

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X