10 ms·

I strongly believe we have lost the war for privacy and security (against state level actors) already. Once the net adopted the platform model, we were screwed.

I strongly believe we have lost the war for privacy and security (against state level actors) already. Once the net adopted the platform model, we were screwed. Platforms are as easy to regulate, as for example the telephone companies were back in the days. They were easily forced to comply with wiretapping demands of the government. The moment a central platform controlled (most of) our communication and was able to provide security to the users by using encryption, legislators realized the danger and also the solution. They would just need to force these central hubs with laws as they did back in the day. Legislation was/is needed to break users' encryption and give government the access to all communication that was lost with modern forms of communication and encryption. So on one hand, it is "just" a return to a previous state of affairs. On the other hand, given for example today's methods of automatically listening in and transcribing voice to text, this would be a way more massive intrusion and control mechanism.

Freak_NL 6y ago
> They were easily forced to comply with wiretapping demands of the government. Of some governments. If you are not one of the five (or whatever) eyes, you probably won't get your hand in WhatsApp's panties; much to the annoyance of those governments (e.g., the Dutch government which in its current incarnation seems to have developed a dislike for end-to-end encryption as well). For American citizens to be spied on by their on government is an affront, but at least it's a government you can vote for. China sidesteps this issue completely by using home-grown platforms like WeChat of course.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  > China sidesteps this issue completely by using home-grown platforms like WeChat of course. How is that different from what the US does? It seems to me an error to think that US companies are somehow the default, and any other country using its own services is sidestepping the issue.
  - Freak_NL 6y ago
    It's not that different, only that China was acting in response to the status quo of US companies dominating this global market. For most users outside of the US those companies are the default; China excepted. By 'default' I don't mean to imply that this is desirable or healthy though.
    - StavrosK 6y ago
      I'm not very up to date on the history of WeChat, was it launched as a reaction to US services or did it just grow organically?
      - zepto 6y ago
        It grew ‘organically’ in China where the US services were not allowed to operate.
  - jariel 6y ago
    "How is that different from what the US does?" ? They are quite different. Facebook is a social network. On occasion, with a warrant approved by an independent Judiciary, an agency may request on a case by case basis, information relating to a specific concern for which there are specific indications warranting a search - much like the search of your car or home. WeChat is a control, censorship and surveillance network. - WeChat, like >90% of Chinese companies, has CCP party apparatus that work within the company who overview protocol to ensure loyalty to the CCP agenda. The US 'equivalent' would be the CIA having staff at Facebook to intercede in policy decisions and to make sure 'The Man in the White House' has his policy objectives met. - WeChat censors everything. If you, right now, start saying something negative about Xi, it will likely get censored by one of the massive army of censors. The US equivalent would be 100% of Facebook posts going through a 'large office in Virginia' where President's political operatives oversee censorship. - WeChat censors anything they want, for whatever reason. Winnie the Pooh comparisons to Xi? Banned. References to Tiannamen or Hong Kong protest? Banned. The US equivalent would be Facebook banning all memes mocking Trump, and of course, banning any and all activity related to BLM, social justice, protests, any kind of history that contradicts the ruling American party's official view of the world. - WeChat is used used to identify networks of civil antagonists. Have you said something about 'Hong Kong'? Well, you're friends are going to be tagged and more likely monitored. The US equivalent would be government operatives sifting through the Facebook DB all day, using that information to monitor your friends messages, because you said 'Black Lives Matter'. - WeChat is used for a host of other things including payment etc. meaning the breach of privacy is considerably more significant. Everything you buy, everywhere you travel etc. tracked and monitored at all times. [1] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2016/10/which-messaging-apps-best-protect-your-privacy/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2016/10/which-me...
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  > China sidesteps this issue completely by using home-grown platforms like WeChat of course. Chinese avoid the problem of being spied on by their government?
  - tieze 6y ago
    I read this as 'China took a direct route to spying'.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    China avoids the problem of figuring out how to spy on US-controlled Internet services, by making their citizens use domestic products instead.
fsflover 6y ago
> I strongly believe we have lost the war for privacy and security (against state level actors) already. Once the net adopted the platform model, we were screwed. This is very pessimistic. People still can understand the dangers (and are understanding) and switch to decentralized platforms, which by the way are actively being developed: https://joinmastodon.org https://joinmastodon.org.
- tokamak-teapot 6y ago
  And will just be banned and blocked
  - HappyDreamer 6y ago
    And (more pessimistic future) you'll go to prison if you install such an app, or visit a website that tells you those apps exist. Already happened in some countries. B.t.w. someone wrote long ago here at HN that the 2nd amendment about weapons, nowadays should be about cryptography instead. Maybe: > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to [use end-to-end encryption], shall not be infringed.
  - zaarn 6y ago
    Well, if a mastodon instance admin decides to ban you, that's their personal decision. You can go to another instance. If another user blocks you, that's on them but you have no right to push your messages into another user's home system. If all else fails, you can host your own. It's ultimate free speech as intended and as someone who hosts a mastodon instance, it's a system that works pretty good, there is no noticeable hatespeech in my federated timeline. edit: I might have misunderstood the GP, but I'll let the comment exist. Banning mastodon in the US is a non-concern since it's a french open source development.
    - scrollaway 6y ago
      I think that same logic applies to companies though so it's just shifting the problem over. But I think GP might have meant banned at a government level?
Quarrelsome 6y ago
these are all just battles though and all that losing these battles does is pass more and more power to the technical class. I know where I'm watched and how not to be watched, I know how to very easily hide the odd activity. The average citizen no longer gets that for free and it really sucks for them but remember that's what this has always been about, trying to improve the lot of the average, not us. We're fine because we know and can do. So its elliptic curve time for messengers but everyone that "knows" will get some European or underground US piece of software on their phone via an unofficial app store.
zoobab 6y ago
2020, still a nightmare to make 2 computers both connected to the internet talk to each other. One day IPv6 will get rid of the platforms.
- mjevans 6y ago
  Actual competition for ISPs / access provision is required for this. All consumer ISPs still ban "servers" on their pipes; this is a clear sign of insufficient competition.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    My consumer ISP allows me to host servers. I can add on a static IP for a few bucks a month and as long as I don’t break any laws they’re cool with it. Previously I had “business class” internet but that is just the name of the plan. Anywhere there was cable I could get business class plans.
    - vonmoltke 6y ago
      > Anywhere there was cable I could get business class plans. The one time I tried to get a business-class connection from Time Warner they refused to offer any business-class service to a non-commercial address except for their "Home Office" plan, which was basically just their top residential plan with a better SLA.
  - gspr 6y ago
    Huh?
    - mjevans 6y ago
      It's nearly always in the fine print of the contract, but enforcement is on a selective basis.
mulmen 6y ago
And I strongly believe apathy will be the death of freedom. This is a needlessly negative outlook. Click the link, support the EFF. Educate your friends and family. Defeatism is not a compelling philosophy.
- gspr 6y ago
  Exactly. I see this defeatism all the time regarding climate change too. It's OK to feel defeated. But why the hell would you spend energy to spread that defeatism?!
  - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
    To make it less questionable.
  - NateEag 6y ago
    If you have been defeated, acknowledging it is crucial. It's hard to make progress while denying the actual nature of the situation. Not saying that's necessarily true in either of these situations, just that it's not a waste of energy to spread depressing truths.
    - chrisweekly 6y ago
      "it's not a waste of energy to spread depressing truths." It certainly is, if those "truths" are not absolutes. Find a way to redirect your -- and others' -- energies toward something positive and constructive. Spreading doom and gloom, full stop? Always a waste.
      - NateEag 6y ago
        If you never move on to constructive action, that's a problem, for sure. However, telling a sad or difficult truth and stopping there is still a big improvement on pretending there was no issue in the first place.
        deleted 6y ago
raxxorrax 6y ago
That https was established as defacto-standard was a huge success and I don't think it will go away again. Freedom only works with some responsibility, but it seems to me that state level actors just try to keep up with the ad and tech industry in collecting data. The EFF tries to blame it on Barr, but I think the wish for control is bipartisan, especially since a generation is in charge that doesn't really understand the problems of this data collection. Not that their younger compatriots seem more promising in assessing actual problems. There might be a point where using a Asian or African social network would be preferable, but that is something not on the mind of common social media users. Sure, they do it if the product has appeal like TikTok. On bad days I wish users of social media (the self presenting kind) would be banned from all other sites.
idiocrat 6y ago
Yes, we have already a working precedent with the "Ministerium für Staatssicherheit".
throw0101a 6y ago
> Once the net adopted the platform model, we were screwed. So stop being another brick in the wall: stop using the platforms just because it is convenient. For example: * https://old.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/ https://old.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/
- account42 6y ago
  There is some irony in this being a reddit link.
  - fsflover 6y ago
    A better link: https://prism-break.org https://prism-break.org.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    Well, if we're talking e-mail: * https://workaround.org/ispmail https://workaround.org/ispmail * https://mailinabox.email https://mailinabox.email If we're talking photos: * https://www.zenphoto.org https://www.zenphoto.org General storage: * https://owncloud.com https://owncloud.com
Nasrudith 6y ago
That is just plain wrong. Even a distribuited model would have the same problems because they would be "platforms" to regulate. The truth is that they cannot win although they will demonstrate a mierdas touch and turn everything they touch to shit because what they are insane and demand the literally impossible. The "leadership" should probably be put in an insane asylum as a danger to self and others with no understanding of objective reality.
mcv 6y ago
Then we should abandon those big platforms and move to millions of self-hosted personal mini-platforms. That way, you control your data, and you control who you share it with.
- indigochill 6y ago
  > That way, you control your data, and you control who you share it with. Well, you already control who you share it with, as you're the one initiating connections to sites like Facebook. It just happens people give a lot away to browse sites these days (admittedly exactly what they're giving away remains quite opaque). Unfortunately even if we did move to one-platform-one-person, the question of data control remains as murky as ever. Suppose you are hosting a party so you send your street address to your friends so they know where to show up. Then they play a fun quiz game that tells them their Harry Potter patronus based on the street address of their friends (that means you). Suddenly some anonymous quiz maker (let's call them Oxford Synthetica) has access to your street address and at least one of your friends' info through no direct fault of your own.
raspyberr 6y ago
Government and coporations are just systems. If people want a certain thing those systems change. Simple as. However, change takes decades sometimes. Just form good privacy habits so you don't even feel any inconvenience. And most importantly, tell people. Get the idea across that privacy has value. Tell companies you've chosen competitors over them because of their privacy policy. Ask businesses how long they keep your data. Ask people if you can use alternative technology. It really is a case that if you give up then it will be over. Just make it a part of your life. I'm not asking you to rally every week. Just don't forget about it and positive change will come.
nuker 6y ago
> I strongly believe we have lost the war for privacy and security You are mistaken counselor (c) The Descendants. These three easy things improve your privacy by 10x: - Incognito / Private browsing by default. Clears cookies used by trackers and platforms. Staying logged in is bad. Login, do your thing and close the tab. No Chrome, it has its own Id. - VPN. Hides your browsing history from ISP and your IP address from trackers and platforms. Smartphone too, and disable Location and Background app refresh for most apps. - Adblocker (uBlock Origin / AdGuard for Safari, iOS too). Prevents trackers and malware from executing.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  Avoidance of social media should be in this list.
  - nuker 6y ago
    No, it is too harsh. These rules will work for most people. In social media, never share your address book and don't give your phone number, which is very powerful identifier. Unique email is good too.
rsync 6y ago
"Once the net adopted the platform model, we were screwed. Platforms are as easy to regulate, as for example the telephone companies were back in the days." Perhaps - and most fall into this category. However, you do have the ability to form a (simple, cheap) SCorp/LLC in the US jurisdiction of your choice and provision your own mail/dns/vpn/etc. by that corporate entity. So now a corporate entity is the provider, and you are the customer, and notices/subpoenas/takedowns/requests will be seen by you and you will take action on them. At the very least, you can self-provide your own VPN this way if you don't want to run your own mail services.
knobcore 6y ago
Except state actors are currently also using the blanket privacy and security to influence elections. This is a couple of levels above talking crap about your government or buying some drugs. And if that is to the point that it scares you that they'd lock you up for such behavior then you need better government, not better privacy.

Freak_NL 6y ago

> They were easily forced to comply with wiretapping demands of the government. Of some governments. If you are not one of the five (or whatever) eyes, you probably won't get your hand in WhatsApp's panties; much to the annoyance of those governments (e.g., the Dutch government which in its current incarnation seems to have developed a dislike for end-to-end encryption as well). For American citizens to be spied on by their on government is an affront, but at least it's a government you can vote for. China sidesteps this issue completely by using home-grown platforms like WeChat of course.

StavrosK 6y ago
> China sidesteps this issue completely by using home-grown platforms like WeChat of course. How is that different from what the US does? It seems to me an error to think that US companies are somehow the default, and any other country using its own services is sidestepping the issue.
- Freak_NL 6y ago
  It's not that different, only that China was acting in response to the status quo of US companies dominating this global market. For most users outside of the US those companies are the default; China excepted. By 'default' I don't mean to imply that this is desirable or healthy though.
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    I'm not very up to date on the history of WeChat, was it launched as a reaction to US services or did it just grow organically?
    - zepto 6y ago
      It grew ‘organically’ in China where the US services were not allowed to operate.
- jariel 6y ago
  "How is that different from what the US does?" ? They are quite different. Facebook is a social network. On occasion, with a warrant approved by an independent Judiciary, an agency may request on a case by case basis, information relating to a specific concern for which there are specific indications warranting a search - much like the search of your car or home. WeChat is a control, censorship and surveillance network. - WeChat, like >90% of Chinese companies, has CCP party apparatus that work within the company who overview protocol to ensure loyalty to the CCP agenda. The US 'equivalent' would be the CIA having staff at Facebook to intercede in policy decisions and to make sure 'The Man in the White House' has his policy objectives met. - WeChat censors everything. If you, right now, start saying something negative about Xi, it will likely get censored by one of the massive army of censors. The US equivalent would be 100% of Facebook posts going through a 'large office in Virginia' where President's political operatives oversee censorship. - WeChat censors anything they want, for whatever reason. Winnie the Pooh comparisons to Xi? Banned. References to Tiannamen or Hong Kong protest? Banned. The US equivalent would be Facebook banning all memes mocking Trump, and of course, banning any and all activity related to BLM, social justice, protests, any kind of history that contradicts the ruling American party's official view of the world. - WeChat is used used to identify networks of civil antagonists. Have you said something about 'Hong Kong'? Well, you're friends are going to be tagged and more likely monitored. The US equivalent would be government operatives sifting through the Facebook DB all day, using that information to monitor your friends messages, because you said 'Black Lives Matter'. - WeChat is used for a host of other things including payment etc. meaning the breach of privacy is considerably more significant. Everything you buy, everywhere you travel etc. tracked and monitored at all times. [1] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2016/10/which-messaging-apps-best-protect-your-privacy/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2016/10/which-me...
ceilingcorner 6y ago
> China sidesteps this issue completely by using home-grown platforms like WeChat of course. Chinese avoid the problem of being spied on by their government?
- tieze 6y ago
  I read this as 'China took a direct route to spying'.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  China avoids the problem of figuring out how to spy on US-controlled Internet services, by making their citizens use domestic products instead.

fsflover 6y ago

> I strongly believe we have lost the war for privacy and security (against state level actors) already. Once the net adopted the platform model, we were screwed. This is very pessimistic. People still can understand the dangers (and are understanding) and switch to decentralized platforms, which by the way are actively being developed: https://joinmastodon.org https://joinmastodon.org.

tokamak-teapot 6y ago
And will just be banned and blocked
- HappyDreamer 6y ago
  And (more pessimistic future) you'll go to prison if you install such an app, or visit a website that tells you those apps exist. Already happened in some countries. B.t.w. someone wrote long ago here at HN that the 2nd amendment about weapons, nowadays should be about cryptography instead. Maybe: > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to [use end-to-end encryption], shall not be infringed.
- zaarn 6y ago
  Well, if a mastodon instance admin decides to ban you, that's their personal decision. You can go to another instance. If another user blocks you, that's on them but you have no right to push your messages into another user's home system. If all else fails, you can host your own. It's ultimate free speech as intended and as someone who hosts a mastodon instance, it's a system that works pretty good, there is no noticeable hatespeech in my federated timeline. edit: I might have misunderstood the GP, but I'll let the comment exist. Banning mastodon in the US is a non-concern since it's a french open source development.
  - scrollaway 6y ago
    I think that same logic applies to companies though so it's just shifting the problem over. But I think GP might have meant banned at a government level?

Quarrelsome 6y ago

these are all just battles though and all that losing these battles does is pass more and more power to the technical class. I know where I'm watched and how not to be watched, I know how to very easily hide the odd activity. The average citizen no longer gets that for free and it really sucks for them but remember that's what this has always been about, trying to improve the lot of the average, not us. We're fine because we know and can do. So its elliptic curve time for messengers but everyone that "knows" will get some European or underground US piece of software on their phone via an unofficial app store.

zoobab 6y ago

2020, still a nightmare to make 2 computers both connected to the internet talk to each other. One day IPv6 will get rid of the platforms.

mjevans 6y ago
Actual competition for ISPs / access provision is required for this. All consumer ISPs still ban "servers" on their pipes; this is a clear sign of insufficient competition.
- mulmen 6y ago
  My consumer ISP allows me to host servers. I can add on a static IP for a few bucks a month and as long as I don’t break any laws they’re cool with it. Previously I had “business class” internet but that is just the name of the plan. Anywhere there was cable I could get business class plans.
  - vonmoltke 6y ago
    > Anywhere there was cable I could get business class plans. The one time I tried to get a business-class connection from Time Warner they refused to offer any business-class service to a non-commercial address except for their "Home Office" plan, which was basically just their top residential plan with a better SLA.
- gspr 6y ago
  Huh?
  - mjevans 6y ago
    It's nearly always in the fine print of the contract, but enforcement is on a selective basis.

mulmen 6y ago

And I strongly believe apathy will be the death of freedom. This is a needlessly negative outlook. Click the link, support the EFF. Educate your friends and family. Defeatism is not a compelling philosophy.

gspr 6y ago
Exactly. I see this defeatism all the time regarding climate change too. It's OK to feel defeated. But why the hell would you spend energy to spread that defeatism?!
- GoblinSlayer 6y ago
  To make it less questionable.
- NateEag 6y ago
  If you have been defeated, acknowledging it is crucial. It's hard to make progress while denying the actual nature of the situation. Not saying that's necessarily true in either of these situations, just that it's not a waste of energy to spread depressing truths.
  - chrisweekly 6y ago
    "it's not a waste of energy to spread depressing truths." It certainly is, if those "truths" are not absolutes. Find a way to redirect your -- and others' -- energies toward something positive and constructive. Spreading doom and gloom, full stop? Always a waste.
    - NateEag 6y ago
      If you never move on to constructive action, that's a problem, for sure. However, telling a sad or difficult truth and stopping there is still a big improvement on pretending there was no issue in the first place.
      - deleted 6y ago

raxxorrax 6y ago

That https was established as defacto-standard was a huge success and I don't think it will go away again. Freedom only works with some responsibility, but it seems to me that state level actors just try to keep up with the ad and tech industry in collecting data. The EFF tries to blame it on Barr, but I think the wish for control is bipartisan, especially since a generation is in charge that doesn't really understand the problems of this data collection. Not that their younger compatriots seem more promising in assessing actual problems. There might be a point where using a Asian or African social network would be preferable, but that is something not on the mind of common social media users. Sure, they do it if the product has appeal like TikTok. On bad days I wish users of social media (the self presenting kind) would be banned from all other sites.

idiocrat 6y ago

Yes, we have already a working precedent with the "Ministerium für Staatssicherheit".

throw0101a 6y ago

> Once the net adopted the platform model, we were screwed. So stop being another brick in the wall: stop using the platforms just because it is convenient. For example: * https://old.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/ https://old.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/

account42 6y ago
There is some irony in this being a reddit link.
- fsflover 6y ago
  A better link: https://prism-break.org https://prism-break.org.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  Well, if we're talking e-mail: * https://workaround.org/ispmail https://workaround.org/ispmail * https://mailinabox.email https://mailinabox.email If we're talking photos: * https://www.zenphoto.org https://www.zenphoto.org General storage: * https://owncloud.com https://owncloud.com

Nasrudith 6y ago

That is just plain wrong. Even a distribuited model would have the same problems because they would be "platforms" to regulate. The truth is that they cannot win although they will demonstrate a mierdas touch and turn everything they touch to shit because what they are insane and demand the literally impossible. The "leadership" should probably be put in an insane asylum as a danger to self and others with no understanding of objective reality.

mcv 6y ago

Then we should abandon those big platforms and move to millions of self-hosted personal mini-platforms. That way, you control your data, and you control who you share it with.

indigochill 6y ago
> That way, you control your data, and you control who you share it with. Well, you already control who you share it with, as you're the one initiating connections to sites like Facebook. It just happens people give a lot away to browse sites these days (admittedly exactly what they're giving away remains quite opaque). Unfortunately even if we did move to one-platform-one-person, the question of data control remains as murky as ever. Suppose you are hosting a party so you send your street address to your friends so they know where to show up. Then they play a fun quiz game that tells them their Harry Potter patronus based on the street address of their friends (that means you). Suddenly some anonymous quiz maker (let's call them Oxford Synthetica) has access to your street address and at least one of your friends' info through no direct fault of your own.

raspyberr 6y ago

Government and coporations are just systems. If people want a certain thing those systems change. Simple as. However, change takes decades sometimes. Just form good privacy habits so you don't even feel any inconvenience. And most importantly, tell people. Get the idea across that privacy has value. Tell companies you've chosen competitors over them because of their privacy policy. Ask businesses how long they keep your data. Ask people if you can use alternative technology. It really is a case that if you give up then it will be over. Just make it a part of your life. I'm not asking you to rally every week. Just don't forget about it and positive change will come.

nuker 6y ago

> I strongly believe we have lost the war for privacy and security You are mistaken counselor (c) The Descendants. These three easy things improve your privacy by 10x: - Incognito / Private browsing by default. Clears cookies used by trackers and platforms. Staying logged in is bad. Login, do your thing and close the tab. No Chrome, it has its own Id. - VPN. Hides your browsing history from ISP and your IP address from trackers and platforms. Smartphone too, and disable Location and Background app refresh for most apps. - Adblocker (uBlock Origin / AdGuard for Safari, iOS too). Prevents trackers and malware from executing.

koheripbal 6y ago
Avoidance of social media should be in this list.
- nuker 6y ago
  No, it is too harsh. These rules will work for most people. In social media, never share your address book and don't give your phone number, which is very powerful identifier. Unique email is good too.

rsync 6y ago

"Once the net adopted the platform model, we were screwed. Platforms are as easy to regulate, as for example the telephone companies were back in the days." Perhaps - and most fall into this category. However, you do have the ability to form a (simple, cheap) SCorp/LLC in the US jurisdiction of your choice and provision your own mail/dns/vpn/etc. by that corporate entity. So now a corporate entity is the provider, and you are the customer, and notices/subpoenas/takedowns/requests will be seen by you and you will take action on them. At the very least, you can self-provide your own VPN this way if you don't want to run your own mail services.

knobcore 6y ago

Except state actors are currently also using the blanket privacy and security to influence elections. This is a couple of levels above talking crap about your government or buying some drugs. And if that is to the point that it scares you that they'd lock you up for such behavior then you need better government, not better privacy.