OneMeaningManyNames

He/Him, Anarchist/Communist Front End Developer, originally from BC, currently in coastal Albania. Perpetually looking out for my next exchange community empowerment project across the globe.

  • 3 Posts
  • 8 Comments
Joined 2M ago
cake
Cake day: Jul 02, 2024

help-circle
rss

I can’t help wondering what is up with all those people fighting in comments about encryption. You make the point time and again that having encrypted media is somehow suspicious. I see where you are coming from.

  • There are cases where people have gotten in trouble for using TOR/Signal, because it was presented to the court that “this is what criminals use”.
  • There are those Wall Street companies that got in trouble for using encrypted messengers with trading partners.

We know about these, because it makes headlines when it happens.

Yet, there are people here, in any similar discussion, not just this one, that keep telling us that encryption is useless because authorities can more easily break your bones than brute force your private key, and you are going to be in trouble just for having encrypted media.

Is that so? Remember the fuss when federal regulators wanted Apple to install backdoors to encrypted i-Phones? Why so? No no, bear with me, if you people are correct, then every person with an encrypted i-Phone should be in a watchlist? What about all these Linux laptops all with LUKS on the main hard drive, flying around?

How come we don’t hear about those people being prosecuted and brutalized every other day in all of these alternative media we are following?

Regarding encryption, I have a right to my fucking privacy and if you want to know what is in my hard drive, then you are the weird one. Now let’s discuss criminal prosecution. If the authorities have something on you and they need whatever is in your encrypted drive to convict you, then they do not have anything on you unless they break the encryption. The more people practicing encryption the less fruitful their efforts will be. Your argument amounts to little more than the very authorities slogan “if you don’t have something to hide”. More people using encryption should make it sink that not only people with something to hide will use encryption, and indeed, all these everyday, non-criminal people are already using Encryption in i-Phones and Linux without having their bones broken.

Yet you keep repeating this rhetoric, which seems to have no other purpose than deter people from using encryption.

Now let’s discuss brutality. If you live in a police state that can kidnap you and rough you up to forgo your protected right to privacy, then you don’t have a problem with encryption, but a huge political problem. In that case encryption won’t liberate you, but at the same time you have much bigger problems, and an entirely different threat model.

So the only thing you people could, in good faith, add to the discussion is “If you live in a police state, don’t rely solely on encryption, and update your threat model”. The other things you keep going on and on about are essentially a rebranded “if you don’t have something to hide” and they only seem designed to discourage people from adopting encryption altogether, and the fact you don’t let go can only mean one fucking thing.


This is a story from August 2023, and was covered in many outlets (I quote here NYT for reference only)

Federal regulators continued their crackdown against employees of Wall Street firms using private messaging apps to communicate, with 11 brokerage firms and investment advisers agreeing Tuesday to pay $549 million in fines.

Wells Fargo, BNP Paribas, Société Générale and Bank of Montreal were hit with the biggest penalties by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Together, the brokerage and investment advisory arms of those four financial institutions accounted for nearly 90 percent of the fines, according to statements released by the regulators.

Original NYT

Archived version



Some US bank got in trouble for using it internally.


Due to the nature of my work, I have been in different places over the world, building websites for different causes, usually community projects with a tech angle. Most of the funding proposals I have laid my eyes on are rife with buzzwords. Even when (either me or other devs) clean up proposals to get rid of all superfluous hype, I have noticed that middle management tends to puts those back in, or worse, they chastise us for taking them out in the first place. The argument they make is that the committees that will evaluate the proposal will need to see the buzzwords. Few things are as disheartening as seeing people having prepared a robust life cycle for a tech or outreach project, and middle management chiming in, to literally say "Great now we need to beef this up with as many buzzwords as possible". I don't know if this is supposed to mean "we will fool them with the buzzwords" or "they are fools that only understand buzzwords". If anything, I believe that the buzzword salad would make us come down as less-than-credible windbags. I just think is wrong, and if this is happening at scale, then I think lots of funding goes to crap projects, that end up being an abandoned website somewhere on the internet, just to commemorate that this project was once funded. What is your experience? What projects would you rather see be funded, be it community empowerment open-source tech or other domain?
fedilink

It makes the teeth look even better


Absolutely cool. I will have to revise all my internalized cyberpunk imagery though.


convince friends to switch to firefox from chrome

Ah yes, you reminded me of this gem https://contrachrome.com/ (It is Scott McCloud’s Webcomic against Chrome’s data mining)


Agreed. This area of skills completely evades me though. So, yes, if you have some tips on that, they will be well received.


this shouldn’t be the main argument because people don’t really care about it now but it can be a nice secondary one

I do think that recommendation algorithms are a big culprit for the widespread scrolling addiction epidemic. Smart phones and social media platforms have positioned the population in readiness to consume ads and propaganda. So, I think this is definitely among the main arguments.

Plus note people were arguably repulsed when it was leaked that Facebook performed a sentiment analysis psychological experiment on them.


The role of attrition against mainstream platforms (Discussion)
Mainstream platforms such as Meta and X have accumulated a near-universal audience that is the root of all their evil. From sentiment analysis mass experiments to propagandistic political advertising. Things are worse in third countries where they are even less moderated. So I was thinking that as long as FOSS/Privacy is just geeky and elitist they just keep doing business as usual, from enshitification to fascism. Additionally, people have moved their political posting, scheduling, discussion online, so this gives them more power. Like seeing anarchist groups on Facebook is cringe, but some insist that "that is where the mass is, perhaps we move to Instagram to get to more Zedders". Whaaaat? Questions: What tactics could be used to move people en masse away from mainstream platforms, and more generally, do you think there is a point in it?
fedilink