5 ms·

As an Aussie it's becoming increasingly clear that my wish to run my own servers in order to maintain some semblance of privacy is quite likely going to become

As an Aussie it's becoming increasingly clear that my wish to run my own servers in order to maintain some semblance of privacy is quite likely going to become a massive liability to my freedom, if the current state of affairs continues much longer. To be clear, by hosting a website I'm liable to "authorities" wanting to access everything anyway. By using a website in this increasingly fascist world, it becomes increasingly likely that my websites/mail servers will look "interesting", simply because I'm not "toeing the line"

microcolonel 6y ago
> To be clear, by hosting a website I'm liable to "authorities" wanting to access everything anyway In America at least, a search of this nature has to be very narrow in order to be valid, even the secret ones.
- fault_lines 6y ago
  In America, the validity of a search is rarely an impediment to carrying it out.
- hypersoar 6y ago
  This is from Mapp v. Ohio, an old Warren Court decision establishing the exclusionary rule. It has long since been hacked to the bone.
- elliekelly 6y ago
  I so wish you were right but this is very much not correct.
- caconym_ 6y ago
  If you believe this is true in practice, I've got a bridge to sell you.
  - ryan_j_naughton 6y ago
    In case any were curious of the origin of this phrase: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker
- simple_phrases 6y ago
  Court orders are a last resort. Often, law enforcement will just ask providers to kindly share the information they want access to, and the providers comply. No warrants needed.
  - microcolonel 6y ago
    Sure, but asking politely is hardly the mark of tyranny, and has nothing to do with the sort of scenario I'm replying on.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      "Asking politely" is a euphemism. The company has a desire to receive government contracts, or to not be subject to adverse regulations, and is thereby given the choice to submit or be the subject of retaliation. In reality it's an end-run around the court system. If the government officially penalized them for not complying, various parties would have standing to assert their rights. So the punishment isn't officially tied to the failure to submit, but the threat is still there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwest#Refusal_of_NSA_surveillance_requests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwest#Refusal_of_NSA_surveilla...
    - godelski 6y ago
      I think it is more complicated that. It's more like asking your neighbor to borrow some sugar. Nothing nefarious, but your neighbor might later ask to borrow your ratchet set. The concern is how strong is this relationship and if there is real quid pro quo going on. It gets gray real fast when you are your neighbor's boss and control his raises.
      - emerongi 6y ago
        Also in this case, it's not even your sugar. You're giving out someone else's sugar, so why the hell would you care?
    - wtracy 6y ago
      "Oh, your new office building looks nice. Did your construction firm get all the necessary permits? Are you sure? All of them? Oh, and I see you have a lot of new employees. A lot of them. I bet it would tie up your HR department for quite a while if the INS came by and requested documentation that all those employees are authorized to work in the US, wouldn't it? "Anyway, I've come to ask whether you could do a favor for us."
- twirlock 6y ago
  >I am literally retarded.
- cmroanirgo 6y ago
  In Australia, you currently just have to suggest a peaceful protest for a search warrant to be issued against you. There are quite a few people who've been dragged off because of this. It's my understanding that everything is collected and analysed during these searches.
whypvtcorps 6y ago
People have been hassled by tech illiterate statists for ever. People aren’t into collective action as it basically means admitting government has value, which is contrary to the propaganda model we’ve been fed for decades, so of course that ain’t an acceptable response from our cortex. Politically feckless pudding brains whose cognitive dissonance is paralyzing works out great for the fascists.
ed25519FUUU 6y ago
> is quite likely going to become a massive liability to my freedom Compounding this is the advent of “hate crimes”, or rather the utterance of forbidden words. Now a days you can be hauled off in jail in many countries simply by expressing a wrong opinion, let alone hosting a service where others are allowed to do the same.
- razakel 6y ago
  I can't possibly imagine why people might be upset by the "utterance of forbidden words" like "<insert slur>s like you deserve to be murdered by the state" and want legal protection from it.
devmunchies 6y ago
> increasingly fascist world You mean authoritarian world. Most people couldn’t name one tenet of fascism regarding finance, labor, etc. Fascism is financially left wing but socially right, which is the opposite of liberal capitalism—regardless of whether the capitalistic govt is authoritarian. yes I realize most people use it as a buzzword. And no I don’t want an authoritarian govt.
- devin 6y ago
  I urge you to read through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism before dispensing with any additional wisdom on what is obviously a very nuanced topic that depends a on great deal of context.
  - devmunchies 6y ago
    a wikipedia page? that page has like 2 quotes from actual fascists. wow so much wisdom. I've read at least 4 books on fascism, 2 of which are from 1st party sources on the topic. I've done the same for communism and anarchism (more my style). Most confusion stems from the off-limits, taboo nature of the topic and gatekeeping urging you to view "approved" sources, which are usually from critics of the topic. It's like reading Henry Ford's definition of communism... biased. It's really not that nuanced if you read what they believed from first hand sources.
grugagag 6y ago
Let them work hard even if you have nothing to hide. I'd refuse to disclose any private info up until the law requires me to. Intimidation is a trick they use to cut down on work.
- dylan604 6y ago
  Encrypt everything. We know they keep copies of encrypted data for a long time hoping for the day that breaking the encryption becomes easy for reading later. In the meantime, flood everything with mundane data, but encrypted. Make it expensive for them to keep it all, and the an absolute waste of time when they do get it decrypted.
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    Throw in some legitimate random data to really mess with them. Everybody needs some good entropy seed material.
- 0xdeadb00f 6y ago
  > I'd refuse to disclose any private info up until the law requires me to. This doesn't work as well as you'd expect. I know Queensland law requires you to unlock your phone for a cop, or you face prison time. I'd expect there's similar laws for disclosure of encryption keys. I don't know if I'm willing to "make it hard for them" if that means facing jail time.
  - cmroanirgo 6y ago
    This is true in relation to a search warrant afaik: https://www.hallpayne.com.au/blog/2019/january/mobile-phone-access-by-police/ https://www.hallpayne.com.au/blog/2019/january/mobile-phone-... >Judge North’s comments do make it clear, however, that if you answer questions where you acknowledge ownership of a mobile phone, then there is a potential for self-incrimination.
kebman 6y ago
Could the answer be encrypted hird-party de-centralized mini-services being sprinkled accross various locations through-out the world? Perhaps the "authorities" would be able to crack one such mini-service, but it would never get them all due to how it limits jurisdictional access. I'm just thinking out aloud... Does things like this already exist (outside TOR nodes, of course)?
- shakna 6y ago
  Only if it becomes ordinary to use such a service. TOR protected the spies it was made for, only because there was a substantial amount of other, less interesting, traffic. The mere act of straying outside the norm is what makes you vulnerable. Protecting the data itself is secondary to making the data seem uninteresting to begin with.
- LdSGSgvupDV 6y ago
  That's quite hard because it is lack of motivation for people to build such mini-services with risk of being sued. It is quite easy to get some illegal stuff when you host a service without review which is almost impossible for individual service provider to do. There is one way which may reduce the risk. Build your whole system in RAM including OS. When totally power off, everything is volatilized. To lower the cost of RAM, one could just put the OS and service in RAM, but let the encrypted data in drive with key in RAM/RAM-disk. The difficulty here is building a OS in RAM. There are some tricks but most of them need a host which may contribute to vulnerability.

microcolonel 6y ago

> To be clear, by hosting a website I'm liable to "authorities" wanting to access everything anyway In America at least, a search of this nature has to be very narrow in order to be valid, even the secret ones.

fault_lines 6y ago
In America, the validity of a search is rarely an impediment to carrying it out.
hypersoar 6y ago
This is from Mapp v. Ohio, an old Warren Court decision establishing the exclusionary rule. It has long since been hacked to the bone.
elliekelly 6y ago
I so wish you were right but this is very much not correct.
caconym_ 6y ago
If you believe this is true in practice, I've got a bridge to sell you.
- ryan_j_naughton 6y ago
  In case any were curious of the origin of this phrase: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker
simple_phrases 6y ago
Court orders are a last resort. Often, law enforcement will just ask providers to kindly share the information they want access to, and the providers comply. No warrants needed.
- microcolonel 6y ago
  Sure, but asking politely is hardly the mark of tyranny, and has nothing to do with the sort of scenario I'm replying on.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    "Asking politely" is a euphemism. The company has a desire to receive government contracts, or to not be subject to adverse regulations, and is thereby given the choice to submit or be the subject of retaliation. In reality it's an end-run around the court system. If the government officially penalized them for not complying, various parties would have standing to assert their rights. So the punishment isn't officially tied to the failure to submit, but the threat is still there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwest#Refusal_of_NSA_surveillance_requests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwest#Refusal_of_NSA_surveilla...
  - godelski 6y ago
    I think it is more complicated that. It's more like asking your neighbor to borrow some sugar. Nothing nefarious, but your neighbor might later ask to borrow your ratchet set. The concern is how strong is this relationship and if there is real quid pro quo going on. It gets gray real fast when you are your neighbor's boss and control his raises.
    - emerongi 6y ago
      Also in this case, it's not even your sugar. You're giving out someone else's sugar, so why the hell would you care?
  - wtracy 6y ago
    "Oh, your new office building looks nice. Did your construction firm get all the necessary permits? Are you sure? All of them? Oh, and I see you have a lot of new employees. A lot of them. I bet it would tie up your HR department for quite a while if the INS came by and requested documentation that all those employees are authorized to work in the US, wouldn't it? "Anyway, I've come to ask whether you could do a favor for us."
twirlock 6y ago
>I am literally retarded.
cmroanirgo 6y ago
In Australia, you currently just have to suggest a peaceful protest for a search warrant to be issued against you. There are quite a few people who've been dragged off because of this. It's my understanding that everything is collected and analysed during these searches.

whypvtcorps 6y ago

People have been hassled by tech illiterate statists for ever. People aren’t into collective action as it basically means admitting government has value, which is contrary to the propaganda model we’ve been fed for decades, so of course that ain’t an acceptable response from our cortex. Politically feckless pudding brains whose cognitive dissonance is paralyzing works out great for the fascists.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

> is quite likely going to become a massive liability to my freedom Compounding this is the advent of “hate crimes”, or rather the utterance of forbidden words. Now a days you can be hauled off in jail in many countries simply by expressing a wrong opinion, let alone hosting a service where others are allowed to do the same.

razakel 6y ago
I can't possibly imagine why people might be upset by the "utterance of forbidden words" like "<insert slur>s like you deserve to be murdered by the state" and want legal protection from it.

devmunchies 6y ago

> increasingly fascist world You mean authoritarian world. Most people couldn’t name one tenet of fascism regarding finance, labor, etc. Fascism is financially left wing but socially right, which is the opposite of liberal capitalism—regardless of whether the capitalistic govt is authoritarian. yes I realize most people use it as a buzzword. And no I don’t want an authoritarian govt.

devin 6y ago
I urge you to read through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism before dispensing with any additional wisdom on what is obviously a very nuanced topic that depends a on great deal of context.
- devmunchies 6y ago
  a wikipedia page? that page has like 2 quotes from actual fascists. wow so much wisdom. I've read at least 4 books on fascism, 2 of which are from 1st party sources on the topic. I've done the same for communism and anarchism (more my style). Most confusion stems from the off-limits, taboo nature of the topic and gatekeeping urging you to view "approved" sources, which are usually from critics of the topic. It's like reading Henry Ford's definition of communism... biased. It's really not that nuanced if you read what they believed from first hand sources.

grugagag 6y ago

Let them work hard even if you have nothing to hide. I'd refuse to disclose any private info up until the law requires me to. Intimidation is a trick they use to cut down on work.

dylan604 6y ago
Encrypt everything. We know they keep copies of encrypted data for a long time hoping for the day that breaking the encryption becomes easy for reading later. In the meantime, flood everything with mundane data, but encrypted. Make it expensive for them to keep it all, and the an absolute waste of time when they do get it decrypted.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  Throw in some legitimate random data to really mess with them. Everybody needs some good entropy seed material.
0xdeadb00f 6y ago
> I'd refuse to disclose any private info up until the law requires me to. This doesn't work as well as you'd expect. I know Queensland law requires you to unlock your phone for a cop, or you face prison time. I'd expect there's similar laws for disclosure of encryption keys. I don't know if I'm willing to "make it hard for them" if that means facing jail time.
- cmroanirgo 6y ago
  This is true in relation to a search warrant afaik: https://www.hallpayne.com.au/blog/2019/january/mobile-phone-access-by-police/ https://www.hallpayne.com.au/blog/2019/january/mobile-phone-... >Judge North’s comments do make it clear, however, that if you answer questions where you acknowledge ownership of a mobile phone, then there is a potential for self-incrimination.

kebman 6y ago

Could the answer be encrypted hird-party de-centralized mini-services being sprinkled accross various locations through-out the world? Perhaps the "authorities" would be able to crack one such mini-service, but it would never get them all due to how it limits jurisdictional access. I'm just thinking out aloud... Does things like this already exist (outside TOR nodes, of course)?

shakna 6y ago
Only if it becomes ordinary to use such a service. TOR protected the spies it was made for, only because there was a substantial amount of other, less interesting, traffic. The mere act of straying outside the norm is what makes you vulnerable. Protecting the data itself is secondary to making the data seem uninteresting to begin with.
LdSGSgvupDV 6y ago
That's quite hard because it is lack of motivation for people to build such mini-services with risk of being sued. It is quite easy to get some illegal stuff when you host a service without review which is almost impossible for individual service provider to do. There is one way which may reduce the risk. Build your whole system in RAM including OS. When totally power off, everything is volatilized. To lower the cost of RAM, one could just put the OS and service in RAM, but let the encrypted data in drive with key in RAM/RAM-disk. The difficulty here is building a OS in RAM. There are some tricks but most of them need a host which may contribute to vulnerability.