OneMeaningManyNames

Full time smug prick

  • 6 Posts
  • 58 Comments
Joined 1Y ago
cake
Cake day: Jul 02, 2024

help-circle
rss

This is a cool way to protect a belief, narrowing the scope so that the refuting data do not apply anymore. Perhaps I can write a fucking essay about it, but do you have data to support this narrowing move? There is like a ton of data that the West has been invasively spying of possible threats to the status quo (from Cointelpro to undercover UK cops like recently), not just people “acting on it”. Furthermore, actions can fall under protected free speech as well, like putting up a poster, demonstrating, and protesting. So your proposal is inherently undemocratic if you roll back freedom to only protect oral expression, quite similar to a “Don’t ask don’t tell” attitude towards gay people. What you just said is simply counter-factual. Blanket surveillance is a staple of Western societies in the 21st century, and it blows my mind that there are still people oblivious to what is more or less spelled out clearly in the Patriot Act and all laws modeled after it across the globe.


There is a conceptual distinction: Encryption in transit vs. encryption at rest. You may send the packets encrypted to the server, but if they are not encrypted on the server’s file system, anyone can read them.

The real question is, why do you think governments make such a big fuss about citizens having access to military grade encryption?

There have been audits of e2ee implementations, and the algorithms used also have some objective properties. I don’t think that I have ever heard in cryptography discussions that backdoors are so widespread that the discussion is moot. I have only heard, time and time again, the opposite.

Even Apple, in this very occasion, opted to ditch the service rather than backdoor it, and in fact takes the UK to court over this. I think that the opinion that this is all for show is a tad wild, and not very well supported in this occasion.

Like every cryptology book starts with the adage “There is cryptography that prevents your little sister from reading your mail, and cryptography that prevents the government from reading your mail, and we will talk about the latter.”

https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2025/02/23/three-questions-about-apple-encryption-and-the-u-k/

On the other hand, not all implementations are created equal. Telegram was recently under fire, and there is a lot of variance in e2ee implementations in XMPP clients, IIRC.


The basic way to do this is you respond to these three questions: What am I trying to protect? From whom? What are they able to do to get there?


Perhaps this explains why all these spook impostors are so vehemently against advanced privacy and anonymity. They are signaling they are the good ones!


This is some Gestapo/Stasi shit.

Like, all queer persons must go beyond Signal/Tor level.

This extends to the physical world: Plan ahead for escape routes and survival networks.

I will come back with this angle but, REMEMBER those mfers who always said “the NSA does not target you, so asking about anything more than Signal is paranoid/futile if ever the NSA targets you”?

REMEMBER that we said that some people have advanced threat models by default? Eg feminist activists, activists in third countries, queer people?

WHO is paranoid now, that being queer, pro-Palestine, and/or climate activists can have you on the watchlist?

This development only proves my previous points that the hordes of sock-puppets spamming the Privacy forum are fucking spooks. Pooping the conversation about advanced privacy and anonymity should qualify for permabans, IMHO.


They don’t even cite the datapoints, my friend. It is a trademark infringement cease-and-desist…


> Flock Safety’s car-tracking cameras have been spreading across the United States like an invasive species, preying on public safety fears and gobbling up massive amounts of sensitive driver data. The technology not only tracks vehicles by their license plates, but also creates “fingerprints” of each vehicle, including the make, model, color and other distinguishing features. > Through crowdsourcing and open-source research, DeFlock.me aims to “shine a light on the widespread use of ALPR technology, raise awareness about the threats it poses to personal privacy and civil liberties, and empower the public to take action.” While EFF’s Atlas of Surveillance project has identified more than 1,700 agencies using ALPRs, DeFlock has mapped out more than 16,000 individual camera locations, more than a third of which are Flock Safety devices. > Flock Safety’s cease and desist later is just the latest in a long list of groups turning to bogus intellectual property claims to silence their critics.
fedilink

either Signal fans have to donate more or Signal has to start finding other monetization which if we look at other companies means selling private data.

Lo and behold, after RiseUp now Signal is accused of selling data. Well, it is well known (and audited) that Signal keeps so little metadata it is not even useful to the authorities that have subpoeana-ed it.

This is an extra-ordinary claim you have to back with extra-ordinary evidence, in order to save face.



The alternatives were suggested briefly in the segment, not the site. Oliver pointed to the site those people who can’t ditch Meta right now.


it’s going to hurt Meta’s bottom line eventually

Just hurting Meta’s bottom is good enough for me


He only now was able to catch up with all the news with Meta moderation from a month ago. He is only a couple weeks back on air.


Remember “Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption”? You can’t get stuff like this in stores!



I think is some in-joke having to do with Facebook moderation. Or his typical goofassery with domain names. Can’t help you there.


John Oliver launches “Make yourself less valuable to Meta” website, suggests Signal, Mastodon, Pixel
John Oliver cited a 5000% rise in search queries related to leaving Meta and deleting accounts. Among the topics mentioned in the analysis, attention was drawn to early Facebook's naivete with regard to moderation requirements, the constitutional framework, and a history of governmental interference. Oliver debunks common right-wing "cry censorship" talking points, as well as the objective difficulty of moderation endeavors, and how direct threats by Trump may have influenced Zuckerberg's turnaround. Oliver went on to suggest Signal, Mastodon, Bluesky, and Pixelfed as alternatives that "do not seem as desperate to fall in line with Trump". For those reluctant to completely ditch Meta, Oliver revealed a [new site](https://johnoliverwantsyourraterotica.com/) with step-by-step instructions to "make yourself less valuable to them". The guide was a collaboration with the EFF, and includes settings' tweaks for Facebook and Meta, whose 98% of revenue comes from micro-targeting ads, the host previously cited, to increase privacy, and recommends Firefox, Privacy Badger, as "other measures" to take in order "to block advertisers and other third parties from tracking you". The [segment](https://invidious.jing.rocks/watch?v=nf7XHR3EVHo) culminated in a mock advert, in which the new Meta's approach to moderation is coined as "Fuck it", and hints to racism, internet scams, and calls to genocide running rampant on Meta's platforms. The clip reminds the origins of Facebook as a site to "rank college girls by hotness", and its implication in genocide in Myanmar, which was more thoroughly discussed in an Oliver's [previous](https://invidious.jing.rocks/watch?v=OjPYmEZxACM) special on Facebook in 2018.
fedilink

Lavabit

Connection to Edward Snowden

Lavabit received media attention in July 2013 when it was revealed that Edward Snowden was using the Lavabit email address Ed_Snowden@lavabit.com to invite human rights lawyers and activists to a press conference during his confinement at Sheremetyevo International Airport in Moscow.[16] The day after Snowden revealed his identity, the United States federal government served a court order, dated June 10, 2013, and issued under 18 USC 2703(d), a 1994 amendment of the Stored Communications Act, asking for metadata on a customer who was unnamed. Kevin Poulsen of Wired wrote that “the timing and circumstances suggest” that Snowden was this customer.[17] In July 2013 the federal government obtained a search warrant demanding that Lavabit give away the private SSL keys to its service, affecting all Lavabit users.[18] A 2016 redaction error confirmed that Edward Snowden was the target.[2]

source

But what is the status now? Also, I think in the years to come the jurisdiction will also play a role. If the service is in the soil of a country that can subpoeana the encryption keys, then nobody is really safe.


*The Right:* The market should be free to decide.

*The Market:* Decides

*The Right*: OUtrAgEOuS


Safer.

Well, they handed out activists’ metadata in the past, for the French authorities. In their position of an e2ee provider who controls both ends as a default, they are in a position where the can fuck people over. This is exactly what Snowden described as someone pointing a gun at you while saying “Relax, I am not gonna use it against you.”

So much for safety.

Ah, and my original point was: it is either safe or unsafe, the word saf_er_ means nothing during a genocide.





Have a look at this analysis. The author shows that this is a very weak response to the deeper underpinnings of the “nothing to hide” argument. After all, you cannot argue people’s personal preferences.

I think one of the ways to go, with everything happening right now, is that Meta can infer who is gay and/or had aborted a pregnancy and hand these predictions over to an ultranationalist secret service. So, your personal indifference to privacy amounts to a genocidal police state for your fellow citizens.


Very good paper indeed. Some of the arguments made (eg risks from data aggregation) can be found in more mature form in legal analyses of the EU’s GDPR.


Suggesting Matrix as a channel for silly “keep-in-touch” group chats after occasional meet-ups and o
I recently came up with a new way to get people involved in Matrix. You know how people tend to make new group chats to keep in touch with people they met under specific circumstances, like holidays or conferences etc. Some people even have specific group chats from their gym or sports team. I thought this can be an opportunity to spread Matrix. You can recommend going on Matrix when this moment comes up, and help people get set up on the spot. Or if you are friends you can just pop over and say "let's set you up for this group chat I have going." Don't get me wrong, it might sound shady and weird at times, especially if you seem too eager to interact with their phones. But in principle I think it might be a time and place that people might be motivated to procrastinate less, and be more likely to use it. After all such group chats are always silly. Downsides I already forsee - Don't forget to make them store the secret key somewhere safe, where they will also remember storing after the hangover. - You have to be well-prepared, know exactly what client and homeserver you will point people to, create the group chat yourself, and have the QR-code handy. - You have to avoid talking points about all the technical advantages **and privacy** aspect, and stay with the silliness, so choose a client that has an abundance of pre-installed stickers.
fedilink

No one is attempting to prove bleeding P->Q here.

If P -> Q and P, then Q

Sure, and when ~P^Q, then P->Q is still not false, and you can further use it in a proof, in the context of other given statements.

This was never presented as a method to show that P->Q, which arguably can only be shown with data.


With all due respect, get your head out of your arse and read this from what I posted:

While modus ponens is one of the most commonly used argument forms in logic it must not be mistaken for a logical law; rather, it is one of the accepted mechanisms for the construction of deductive proofs that includes the “rule of definition” and the “rule of substitution”.

Emphasis is mine. I cannot scream hard enough to get this simple message across to your flipping head. You are reading it wrong, and if you had done one class of prepositional calculus you would have known, therefore you haven’t.

As for your foundationalist pursuits, most of science advances without getting back to the foundations, just as calculus was in practical use long before it was formally proven. So you see a person (OP) struggling with basic conception and composition of his argument, let alone the formal expression, and you raise the bar to the level of logical foundations of mathematics? If not dishonest, this is utterly unproductive.







Quine is the most sane person among your lot. And righteously followed by Thomas Kuhn.

Given A and given B, with literally nothing else, prove A -> B.

That was never the task at hand. You are projecting your belief system so hard you cannot even parse the arguments at a functional level. Yet, after an hour or so, suddenly 4 more vote me down, and only in this particular thread. (Since the rest of the comments in the whole post are unaffected, even mine? What the fuck did you go to your philosophy of science SimpleX chat and called for back up?

Pathetic.

For the last time The truth table does not mean that A->B is “proven”. Obviously you have never done propositional calculus on pen and paper, because this misconception is literally worse than OP’s ravings.

You postmodernist you

I stand by the comment. Bringing up Gödel in polite conversation should go straight to the site-wide banable offenses.

Good luck!

This attempt to patronize is futile. You proved you were in bad faith, and I wish not to continue this discussion.


We want to prove A -> B ergo given A and B, A -> B.

Still failing to see that we aren’t proving A -> B, but getting its truth value within a proof.

OP brought propositional logic to a relativistic conversation. My goal was show why that’s a bad idea.

I think your goal was the equivalent of what any postmodernist does in deconstructing any given field:

  • “Nothing is real”
  • “you can’t prove the first axioms within the system”
  • “it is all in the historical context”
  • “No truth statements are possible”

By the same coin, all the other logical fallacies go out of the window, together with boolean logic and what have you. Even the valid ones.


It’s now an axiom that A and not B cannot be

How so?

Remember, we started with the assumption we could prove A -> B by negation, not that A -> B was guaranteed.

It is rather that the fact that people who do have something to hide will probably use encryption cannot be refuted by an instance of someone using encryption without having something to hide.

We waved our hands and said there’s no way for that to happen.

This is textbook modus ponens, sorry if you find that disturbing.

you are assuming some sort of framework that allows you to build these truth tables from real life

This is unproductive and eventually relativistic. I can’t fathom how you dare bring advanced topics of math/logic fundamentals in a discussion like this. We are talking the kind of stuff that takes 200 pages to prove 1 + 1 = 2, and why it is not correct, or absolute. What is the purpose of that level of meta in a discussion about flipping privacy?


Pregnancy, abortion seeking, sexual orientation of clergy, being trans, all have become matter of life and death level reasons for caring about privacy.

Ah, another one: insurance company might profile you as XYZ subcategory and discriminate against you.

“Yes but you know what data brokers are hiding from you?” I haven’t tried this one, but I will.


In modus ponens you have four cases:

A B A -> B
a 0 0 TRUE
b 0 1 TRUE
c 1 0 FALSE
d 1 1 TRUE

Here, A is “Having sth to hide”, and B “Caring about encryption”. Obviously case b says that although people having something to hide seek out encrypted methods of communication, it is logically accepted that there might be other reasons, even unknown. A more silly example is this: the grass is wet does not necessarily means it has rained. There might be other reasons. But this does not mean that rain does not make the grass wet.

To sum up, the OP could have just said that. It does not change anything anyway. You can’t beat a propaganda apparatus with this “fallacy talk”.


It is widespread propaganda to make everyone who uses private and encrypted tooling as potential criminals. Encrypted chat is not sth clean cut kids do. Simple as that. It is a pushed narrative by those who don’t want encryption.

Everytime a superficial opinion is so strong that is robust to constant debunking and perpetually reprises, it is typically a propaganda apparatus at play.

Having said that, your attempt to appeal to logic is utterly futile, and also in this particular instance, done badly. Mostly because of the imbalanced and non-sequitur rendering the text unintelligible.


This is some BS. What the OP haplessly tries to say is simply modus ponens. What Gödel are you talking about.


tries to frame itself as it is for traditional Christian values

Nazi Germany had a complicated relation to religion. Although promoting relations with Protestant clergy in the pre-war period, there were conspiratorial tendencies in the Nazis either Nordic-washing Christianity or looking toward some kind of self-styled supremacist paganism, which was popular with the SS top leadership.

In the end of the day I don’t think it even matters though. The American Christian-nationalists are the structural equivalence of the Islamic State in that they want to undo secular political entities and unravel modern institutions. It doesn’t matter if some of them belong to some sinister cult. They will do as much evil, and they are not different from mainstream 1930’s Nazism for that matter.

this one is easy to attack

Exactly. Trans representation was as bad as it already were, and then instead of some positive news coverage what you’ve got? Like 700% upward vilification and stigmatization, with the support of many center and center-left media, and huge institutional and billionaire support.

Man I am telling you, there is another Holocaust in the making and people will not believe it happened when it is over.

That book you suggested by this professor On Tyranny is indeed a compulsory reading at this point for every person caring for Western democracy.


Of his own personal experiences Ionesco wrote:

University professors, students, intellectuals were turning Nazi, becoming Iron Guards, one after the other. At the beginning, certainly they were not Nazis. About fifteen of us would get together to talk and to try to find arguments opposing theirs. It was not easy…. From time to time, one of our friends said: “I don’t agree with them, to be sure, but on certain points, nevertheless, I must admit, for example, the Jews …,” etc. And this was a symptom. Three weeks later, this person would become a Nazi. He was caught in the mechanism, he accepted everything, he became a rhinoceros. Towards the end, only three or four of us were still resisting.

Replace Jews with trans and you have a discussion we only have too often with fellow “leftists”.


E2EE by default and decentralized (if I’m not mistaken)

You are not mistaken, Jami is both.


See, I am not the guy who will stop thinking for myself because experts say there is no evidence of sth. I am not saying that there is real time eavesdropping at all times, but I have not seen convincing arguments that a working microphone cannot be used for pushing ads by simple and widely available mechanisms. In fact, the sheer amount of people who complain about this should be considered evidence in itself, especially when they never had thought of a given topic before discussing it with someone. I have considered phone proximity and shared IP address but they don’t seem to make an exhaustive explanation. I think that some stories point to Meta doing this extensively, and that disallowing microphone access for Meta products alleviates the effect. Many privacy communities I believe they are infested by spooks and trolls pushing disinformation narratives, and one of them is that phones are NOT listening as a smart thing to say and/or believe. I might as well think that this is itself can be related to the redacted part in the rationale to ban Tik Tok. Having said that, I think that the only feasible to do this technically is by a regularly updated list of keywords, rather than other ways that would leave a processing or networking footprint.



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

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