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

  • #21
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    Do you define anything as "criminal activity" which you don't like? Why stop there? Maybe define them as terrorists or baby-eaters. That'll stoke moral outrage, for sure!

    Violating privacy is and should be criminal in certain cases, only. Your apparent lack of nuance is not constructive.
    I think he's referring to the ability for a government to conduct unhindered, absolute espionage against its citizens in the name of combating terrorism and organized crime. This is in fact what's being discussed, not for example the police entering a suspect's home with a valid warrant. Politicians are trying to push for a system where the government can spy on anybody, for whatever reason, unhindered. They don't give a toss about your nuance. As other people like Terrablit have said, once this capability is in the government's hands, they will use it however they like. You trying to prevent them from seeing what they want to see, will be judged as illegal, "immoral", and a punishable offense.
    Last edited by board; 24 December 2021, 10:41 PM.

    Comment


    • #22
      Are you crazy? An encrypted communications app without backdoor oversight by a reputable political or corporate entity - who needs that?

      Drug dealers, terrorists and pedos to name a few. Oh, also communist agents, don't forget about them.

      It goes had in hand with the permissiveness of foss licenses, you want to build a scamming apparatus, or a death robot - foss has got you covered. Just don't forget to include the respective license files.

      Having privacy without mental discipline guarantees you end up misusing it to your detriment. It facilitates wrong think and wrong doing, by enabling you to collaborate your dirty secrets with others like you.

      It is the scourge of God's flat Earth.
      Last edited by ddriver; 24 December 2021, 11:23 PM.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by board View Post
        I think he's referring to the ability for a government to conduct unhindered, absolute espionage against its citizens
        Nothing in the post was so specific. If that's what Volta meant, that user can reply with said clarification.

        Originally posted by board View Post
        This is in fact what's being discussed, not for example the police entering a suspect's home with a valid warrant.
        That much isn't clear to me. I think certain people (perhaps even some in this thread) seem to act as though they regard the right to privacy as absolute. Victims of crime or terrorism tend to go toward the other extreme. I'd like people to focus more on the best way to thread the needle, so we don't have unjust persecution and surveillance powers being used in anti-democratic ways, but also don't completely remove these tools from the arsenal available to law enforcement and national defense.

        Originally posted by board View Post
        Politicians are trying to push for a system where the government can spy on anybody, for whatever reason, unhindered. They don't give a toss about your nuance.
        Which politicians, specifically? I'm skeptical, because that's not a very popular line to take, lately.

        What I'm more concerned about is the sort of rule-bending and "benign neglect" scenario that fostered the practices Snowden exposed. The best way to fight that is push an explicit policy that guarantees auditability and protects oversight.

        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.

        Originally posted by board View Post
        As other people like Terrablit have said, once this capability is in the government's hands, they will use it however they like.
        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.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by ddriver View Post
          It goes had in hand with the permissiveness of foss licenses, you want to build a scamming apparatus, or a death robot - foss has got you covered. Just don't forget to include the respective license files.
          LOL, no. FOSS licenses are no more or less friendly towards building killer robots than commercial software. It's not a problem those licenses are designed to solve.

          It's weird that you focus in on killer robots. I mean, why not countless other activities that harm society? Why don't you blame FOSS licenses for enabling people to build things which damage the environment or cause cancer?

          If you actually tried to legislate all the ways that FOSS software can be used, so as to avoid any potential for individual or societal harm, the license could easy be longer than the source code of the software which it covers, and would continually have to be updated by a team of lawyers. Even then, the users could just switch to some FOSS or commercial software with a different license.

          This is a good example of using the wrong tool for the job.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by ddriver View Post
            Are you crazy? An encrypted communications app without backdoor oversight by a reputable political or corporate entity - who needs that?

            Drug dealers, terrorists and pedos to name a few. Oh, also communist agents, don't forget about them.
            Journalists use encrypted communications to communicate with sources - whistleblowers who report wrongdoing because their employers refuse to change. Dissidents use encrypted communications to fight for their rights against oppressive regimes. Activists use encrypted communications to coordinate campaigns and collect evidence of the oppression of the vulnerable. People seeking political asylum will make arrangements to flee the country using encrypted communications. Many of these people would likely die without safe, secure communications. All they want to do is live freely.

            You know who also uses encrypted communications? Your government, your law enforcement, your military. At times operating without oversight. As well as criminals, who *already* have encrypted communication tools. Making a defensive tool illegal to create, purchase or operate won't stop it from being manufactured. Just look at the sales of cell phone jammers, key masters, lock picking tools and the like on ebay. Locks are actually significantly less secure than you think. Although, given that you believe security tools are for criminals, I imagine that you've never used a lock, owned a safe, or even set a password on your wireless. Because that'd mean that you're hiding something, you filthy criminal.

            I find it interesting that you mention backdoors positively. Governments have routinely advocated for backdoors in encryption. But the one constant about backdoors is that they're *always* compromised by criminals to steal data from regular citizens. You can't make a backdoor secure enough to only be used by one entity. Criminals aren't stupid. Leave a hole in your security and they'll find it. They've got endless time and no compunctions about using what they have. Bad encryption leads to widespread fraud. In the end, it's the poor who will suffer most from that.

            Backdoors and unencrypted communications aren't necessary to catch criminals. There are plenty of other means. What's more, given that law enforcement can secure a warrant given *evidence*, they'll still get caught. By anything from a MITM or spoofing attack to stingray cell towers. Thousands of questionable tools exist to help law enforcement. We just want them to use them only when they have legal grounds to do so, instead of insisting on insecure tools and hoovering up data only to have it misused by peons or stolen by hackers. Basically, we should always demand that widespread surveillance be illegal because they'll still have targeted surveillance. The only kind of surveillance that actually has judicial oversight.

            There's not a 100% expectation of privacy in modern society, but we should expect that our right to privacy in communication and in our homes be respected as long as we're not taking advantage of others. And we should expect that law enforcement be required to provide substantive proof to external oversight before violating that right.

            Originally posted by ddriver View Post
            Having privacy without mental discipline guarantees you end up misusing it to your detriment. It facilitates wrong think and wrong doing, by enabling you to collaborate your dirty secrets with others like you.

            It is the scourge of God's flat Earth.
            Are you an idiot? Do you only not murder people because you have no privacy? Do you turn into a serial killer the moment you lock your front door? Are you frantically stuffing merchandise into your pants when you go into a changing room at a clothing store? Are you studiously avoiding camping to reign in your bestial nature? Have you removed all the curtains in your house, lest you murder? I'm assuming you've thrown out all your clothes, too, since hiding your deviant skin means your body is 90% up to criminal mischief when hidden from sight.

            Please. Most of the undisciplined would be little more than a mild nuisance with privacy. They're more likely to pick their nose and watch porn than plot a conspiracy. Discipline and morality have very little to do with each other. As shown by the various rapes that occur in the military by our very disciplined troops.

            While a person may be more inclined to anti-social behavior if they feel that they're not being watched, most people still have a bottom line. People who are inclined to anti-social behavior will be compelled to do it anyway - regardless of whether there are witnesses. In fact, many of the worst thefts of the last century have occurred during the day time, in the presence of others by executives and management. The largest form of crime is wage theft. Another large one is civil forfeiture. Both occur out in the open. As does the theft of civil rights and communal property through the efforts of lobbyists. Many of your legislators sell you out for less than $30K of lobbying bribes. And those "campaign donations" are public record. And let's not get into spam emails and calls, many of which arrive at least partially via unencrypted channels and are completely unpenalized. Spam calls in the US mostly arrive because telecoms have resisted regulatory efforts to force them to update systems in order to cut off scammers. Thousands of people get scammed out of millions of dollars every year over the telephone network. Unencrypted.

            Even going into violent crime, I just saw a story where a person shot out a drive-thru window at Taco Bell in Illinois for getting their order wrong. They didn't need WhatsApp for that. and the police didn't even need to read her emails to find out about it. Most of the crimes people are worried about aren't occurring because they can't be spied on. Assault, DV, theft, murder - most of it occurs in person and not online.

            Don't be a obtuse. Although, since you mentioned a flat earth, that might be a lost cause.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by coder View Post
              LOL, no. FOSS licenses are no more or less friendly towards building killer robots than commercial software. It's not a problem those licenses are designed to solve.

              It's weird that you focus in on killer robots. I mean, why not countless other activities that harm society? Why don't you blame FOSS licenses for enabling people to build things which damage the environment or cause cancer?

              If you actually tried to legislate all the ways that FOSS software can be used, so as to avoid any potential for individual or societal harm, the license could easy be longer than the source code of the software which it covers, and would continually have to be updated by a team of lawyers. Even then, the users could just switch to some FOSS or commercial software with a different license.

              This is a good example of using the wrong tool for the job.
              A usage license can solve any problems it needs to.

              If I said "environment damage", you'd probably ask "why not killer robots". I just named a couple of things to set the theme, if it was a comprehensive list, I'd probably label it as such. And yes, you can blame foss for permitting every bit of harmful activity.

              So, according to you, foss prohibits usage that results in harming individuals or society as a whole, yet at the same time we have this huge industry of foss icons that do society insurmountable harm using foss code to facilitate and implement their commercial predatory businesses. So maybe foss prohibits harmful actions, but it simply doesn't enforce it in any way, in which case what's the point?


              Originally posted by Terrablit 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...
              Last edited by ddriver; 25 December 2021, 05:10 AM.

              Comment


              • #27
                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...
                You also argued for backdooring encryption on a tech forum, and are acting like there aren't any legitimate uses for encrypted communication. And you seriously said "communist agents" - as if that's a major threat. That pretty much means I stop assuming you know what you're talking about. Best to treat it all seriously and rip it apart, lest someone else catch what you've got.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by Terrablit View Post

                  You also argued for backdooring encryption on a tech forum, and are acting like there aren't any legitimate uses for encrypted communication. And you seriously said "communist agents" - as if that's a major threat. That pretty much means I stop assuming you know what you're talking about. Best to treat it all seriously and rip it apart, lest someone else catch what you've got.
                  That's a great way to waste your life and not make a difference

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by ddriver View Post
                    That's a great way to waste your life and not make a difference
                    The past couple of years have taught us all that misinformation has a cost in human lives. Combating that is a public service to the community, the nation and the world.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by ddriver View Post
                      Are you crazy? An encrypted communications app without backdoor oversight by a reputable political or corporate entity - who needs that?

                      Drug dealers, terrorists and pedos to name a few. Oh, also communist agents, don't forget about them.

                      It goes had in hand with the permissiveness of foss licenses, you want to build a scamming apparatus, or a death robot - foss has got you covered. Just don't forget to include the respective license files.

                      Having privacy without mental discipline guarantees you end up misusing it to your detriment. It facilitates wrong think and wrong doing, by enabling you to collaborate your dirty secrets with others like you.

                      It is the scourge of God's flat Earth.
                      I was gonna say "obvious troll is obvious", but several of the above the above replies indicate perhaps it wasnt so obvious

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X