3 ms·

Here's some 'Truth' for you: your post is indicative of the exact kind of thinking that leads people to demand back doors on encryption in the first place. "I

by Retra 11y ago

Here's some 'Truth' for you: your post is indicative of the exact kind of thinking that leads people to demand back doors on encryption in the first place. "I think the solution to all of this starts with creating alternative means to access encrypted networks. You should be able to key into the someone's computer without doing any crypto work for the privilege. Once crypto comes with back doors, and the keys our in our hands, freedom will blossom and terrorist protections will fade away." Maybe if your solution were in any way practical or realistic, or if you -- the layman -- knew the difference between how to actually solve a problem and merely proposing fantastical solutions, we wouldn't need this discussion in the first place.

nickysielicki 11y ago
You can fuck right off with the personal attacks, mate. You're wrong, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Wireless_Metropolitan_Network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Wireless_Metropolitan_N... https://guifi.net/en https://guifi.net/en http://www.gowasabi.net/ http://www.gowasabi.net/ https://networkbogota.org/ https://networkbogota.org/ https://wlan-si.net/en/ https://wlan-si.net/en/ https://freifunk.net//en/ https://freifunk.net//en/ And that's not even mentioning telecom cooperatives and municipal ISPs that are popping up. > Maybe if your solution were in any way practical or realistic > fantastical solutions The broader point was about the idea that the average American doesn't see computer networks as something that can be local, and how that might affect how they interpret computer communication in the context of the first amendment. And (I think, at least) that would be an interesting point in its own right. But it doesn't have to be, because this is reality, and it's a recent development due to new software and hardware developments. And it's growing. So fuck off.
- Retra 11y ago
  New networks popping up in no way protects anyone from having their network regulated by the government, particularly if they start interfacing with and replacing the existing networks.
  - nickysielicki 11y ago
    I'm not suggesting it prevents regulation in-and-of itself, but that it will make federal regulation untenable by breaking down the misconception that computer networking is necessarily geospatially agnostic. If local communities have their own physical networks running internal services, and if average people start using them, I think they'll start seeing computer networks as able to be more than one homogenous cyberspace. Federal regulation doesn't seem so out-of-place when your connections are presumably going all over the world. But if you drop that assumption, I think smaller governments will want autonomy. (I also want to apoligize for my tone above. Not necessary and not conducive to conversation.)

by Retra 11y ago

nickysielicki 11y ago

You can fuck right off with the personal attacks, mate. You're wrong, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Wireless_Metropolitan_Network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Wireless_Metropolitan_N... https://guifi.net/en https://guifi.net/en http://www.gowasabi.net/ http://www.gowasabi.net/ https://networkbogota.org/ https://networkbogota.org/ https://wlan-si.net/en/ https://wlan-si.net/en/ https://freifunk.net//en/ https://freifunk.net//en/ And that's not even mentioning telecom cooperatives and municipal ISPs that are popping up. > Maybe if your solution were in any way practical or realistic > fantastical solutions The broader point was about the idea that the average American doesn't see computer networks as something that can be local, and how that might affect how they interpret computer communication in the context of the first amendment. And (I think, at least) that would be an interesting point in its own right. But it doesn't have to be, because this is reality, and it's a recent development due to new software and hardware developments. And it's growing. So fuck off.

Retra 11y ago
New networks popping up in no way protects anyone from having their network regulated by the government, particularly if they start interfacing with and replacing the existing networks.
- nickysielicki 11y ago
  I'm not suggesting it prevents regulation in-and-of itself, but that it will make federal regulation untenable by breaking down the misconception that computer networking is necessarily geospatially agnostic. If local communities have their own physical networks running internal services, and if average people start using them, I think they'll start seeing computer networks as able to be more than one homogenous cyberspace. Federal regulation doesn't seem so out-of-place when your connections are presumably going all over the world. But if you drop that assumption, I think smaller governments will want autonomy. (I also want to apoligize for my tone above. Not necessary and not conducive to conversation.)