OneMeaningManyNames
Full time smug prick
- 6 Posts
- 58 Comments
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.”
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.
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.
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.
John Oliver launches “Make yourself less valuable to Meta” website, suggests Signal, Mastodon, Pixel
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]
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.
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.
Suggesting Matrix as a channel for silly “keep-in-touch” group chats after occasional meet-ups and o
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.
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”.
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.
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.