9 ms·

Back in late medieval europa most postal services had a back room, called cabinet noir where letters where carefully opened, read and resealed to check them for

Back in late medieval europa most postal services had a back room, called cabinet noir where letters where carefully opened, read and resealed to check them for signs of treason against the crown or cross. These were often abused for what we today would call economic espionage. For these reasons many rich people employed private couriers who traveled to their business partners in person to hand over messages. Those who could not afford such luxury had to rely on codes. The prevalence of such codes however increased the chance of being misunderstood by those who searched for treason. When the emerging middle class started to demand political power in the renaissance it was answered with violence and repression. Those who wrote the constitutions of all modern western nations understood that democracy can only exist when the state has no business reading the correspondence of its citizens. Today many argue the state has a need to access such correspondence to prevent crime, but such a need is like the need of an addict: nothing good can come from it and the people should not enable these institutions to satisfy an ever growing demand for insight into their private lives. One must remember that democracy is founded on the believe that thoughts and words are not crimes and everyone must be free to express them-self in public, but even more so in private correspondence. A society that mistrusts its own citizens to a point where all those that whisper to each other are called criminals, dealers, traitors or terrorists is rotten at its core. And yet some still say: but if the state can read all private correspondence it would be so much easier to catch criminals. And yes, it is true that these totalitarian methods ar efficient in fighting street level crime. However for society as a whole, such methods enable a terror of the state that is a crime against humanity itself. They say "but the state will never abuse its power" and i say: it did countless times before. Do not stray away from liberty and freedom for promises of safety made by those that profit from oppression.

souljourner 6y ago
How ironic that you say that in a forum that censors speech it does not want you to hear. Yup … just like this. Yes, you are the badies, mods/admins.
- throwaway212312 6y ago
  This. It's telling that you are also being downvoted. The mods have a habit of censoring things and then uncensoring it when they think of a strawman to respond with, and of course, censoring the response to the strawman. Classic cointelpro.
asah 6y ago
serious q: encryption challenges the authority of government and the power of its leaders. Why would they willingly give up this power, when they can manufacture consent[1] via a perpetual state of war[2] ? [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=manufacturing+consent https://www.google.com/search?q=manufacturing+consent [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=perpetual+war https://www.google.com/search?q=perpetual+war
- kebman 6y ago
  While morally reprehensible, endless "safe" wars are pretty profitable for industry owners if they are run in countries that do not target their valuable industries. Since the tax payer is footing the bill for it all, they're the ones who have to concent to it. Or perhaps not. Using the invasion of Iraq as an example, there has been many years where public opinion was negative, or at least lukewarm, towards the invasion, though not violently so. Casually reviewing the polling history, this can be observed as early as in 2004. [1] But I think one can safely say that the war hasn't been at the forefront of most people's minds during the last few decades, except for the very beginning. But then, there has been very little mention of the financial cost of the war in the media, if any. And why would there be, as the media also earns a lot of money on these "safe" wars. The video “Troops Versus Building --- an Iraq War tale” by soldier grunt Blacktail should give you a pretty hands-on idea of the financial cost of the war, however. [2] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_in_the_United_S... [2]: Troops Versus Building --- an Iraq War tale, 24 Nov 2009, Blacktail, https://youtu.be/2N-1E2F9pmc https://youtu.be/2N-1E2F9pmc
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  This is not how sourcing works.
- nine_k 6y ago
  The ability to manufacture consent is finite, even in North Korea.
dontcarethrow2 6y ago
>A society that mistrusts its own citizens to a point where all those that whisper to each other are called criminals, dealers, traitors or terrorists is rotten at its core. I mean you said it yourself, dealers. This is why I believe EARN IT will even be celebrated. Generations who accept a war on drugs as sane, did we ever think these people will produce offspring who can think for themselves? The ones who somehow did will now be outlawed as gray hat mathematicians in fear of prosecution because they know how to add a few numbers. Let's ramp up those genetic studies and get rid of the undesirables already, ffs what's taking so long? We the public have a short memory.
- xenophonf 6y ago
  > Let's ramp up those genetic studies and get rid of the undesirables already Holy shit, this is straight up racism. How the hell you got from protecting freethinkers to eugenics, I have no idea.
  - freedomben 6y ago
    he/she isn't advocating this, in fact the opposite. They are using reductio ad absurdum to show where the "law and order" approach taken to the extreme can end.
  - stickfigure 6y ago
    Poe's law strikes again.
- kmeisthax 6y ago
  The only people who support this shit are people who haven't thought through all the second-order consequences. They're very few in number - most people generally dislike surveillance, but don't fight against it nearly as hard as they theoretically could. Economic incentives are working their magic here. For example, much of the NSA's spying programs are legal specifically because AT&T made everyone surrender metadata for advertising purposes as a condition of telephone service back in the 50s. AT&T had monopoly power, so the only choices available were to sign over your metadata or live like Richard Stallman. Furthermore, any indication that your phone call records were being bought and sold was hidden in the fine print of long, non-negotiable contractual agreements. The problem isn't "undesirables" (MISS ME with that shit), it's lies by omission and economic power brought to bear against people's rational expectations of privacy.
hyder_m29 6y ago
> Today many argue the state has a need to access such correspondence to prevent crime, but such a need is like the need of an addict: nothing good can come from it and the people should not enable these institutions to satisfy an ever growing demand for insight into their private lives. One must remember that democracy is founded on the believe that thoughts and words are not crimes and everyone must be free to express them-self in public, but even more so in private correspondence. A society that mistrusts its own citizens to a point where all those that whisper to each other are called criminals, dealers, traitors or terrorists is rotten at its core. I feel disregarding the usefulness of surveillance is part of the problem. We should not be arguing that that nothing good comes out of surveillance. It provides your opponent an easy strawman for a hollow victory. Because frankly, surveillance is a useful tool for law enforcement. We need to rather argue that the moral cost and side-effects of public surveillance far outweighs its usefulness.
- badRNG 6y ago
  By the same token, one could say that extra-judicial torture could have "usefulness" as you put it. We could have a similar discussion of how absolutists on the torture question aren't doing a proper cost/benefit analysis and are "providing their opponents an easy strawman for a hollow victory." I know this is Hacker News, but not every argument requires infinite nuance, we don't need to sit down and examine the pros & cons of torture or any other clear and obvious abuse of government power. We don't need to dignify the position of "read all citizens private correspondence" with a cost/benefit analysis. This practice provides legitimacy to clearly unconscionable actions. It is permissible, even strategically valuable, to have certain positions that we are absolutist on, policies that aren't tolerated under any conditions.
  - nine_k 6y ago
    The nuance here is pretty blunt: no matter how useful torture is, it is never enough to legalize it. Same with banning secure private communication.
    - cmiles74 6y ago
crpatino 6y ago
> And yes, it is true that these totalitarian methods ar efficient in fighting street level crime. You give too much credit to police states. What happens in reality is that criminals with connections and a minimum of self restrain are folded into the "dark side" of the State, while their rivals are cracked down hard. In this way, a number of low-impact, high-revenue illegal activities are tolerated (in exchange of bribes), crime syndicates are expected to self police and not break whatever taboos were imposed from above; and then this "dark side" of the government do put a lid on top of the deviant side of society, diverting their energies into activities that do not challenge the status quo. Does it make for a safer place to live for the common citizen? Maybe. While it may be less likely that you will be injured in an armed robbery, you will also be more likely to get your money swindled by this scheme or another... and you will have less chance of redress when this happens.
danielvf 6y ago
Rather than calling for backdoors, or secret rooms, this law explicitly prevents civil lawsuits or criminal prosecution for companies that refuse to install backdoors or use end to end encryption that they cannot crack. I'm not really sure what the EFF is unhappy with about this act, since their complaints don't seem to be reflected in the text. From the act: CYBERSECURITY PROTECTIONS DO NOT GIVE RISE TO LIABILITY.—Notwithstanding paragraph (6), a provider of an interactive computer service shall not be deemed to be in violation of section 2252 or 2252A of title 18, United States Code, for the purposes of subparagraph (A) of such paragraph (6), and shall not otherwise be subject to any charge in a criminal prosecution under State law under subparagraph (B) of such paragraph (6), or any claim in a civil action under State law under subparagraph (C) of such paragraph (6), because the provider— “(A) utilizes full end-to-end encrypted messaging services, device encryption, or other encryption services; “(B) does not possess the information necessary to decrypt a communication; or “(C) fails to take an action that would otherwise undermine the ability of the provider to offer full end-to-end encrypted messaging services, device encryption, or other encryption services.”.
- Mathnerd314 6y ago
  https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/new-earn-it-bill-still-threatens-encryption-and-free-speech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/new-earn-it-bill-still... > Sen. Leahy’s amendment prohibits holding companies liable because they use “end-to-end encryption, device encryption, or other encryption services.” But the bill still encourages state lawmakers to look for loopholes to undermine end-to-end encryption, such as demanding that messages be scanned on a local device, before they get encrypted and sent along to their recipient.
  - danielvf 6y ago
    How does the bill encourage that? Unless I'm really missing something, the language in the new child pornography section is the same as the current language in section 230e covering sex trafficking. That existing sex trafficking clause hasn't done any of the things that the EFF says this new one will do. The original Earn It Act was bad. But that bad stuff has been massively ripped out. Plus real protections for privacy added in. It's not the same as it was - look up the text and compare what's been struck through with what is left. I think in the current form it's a definite win for privacy and common sense.
silexia 6y ago
I agree. If we allow the state to start reading all of our correspondence, we are going to start losing our freedoms at a far faster rate than we already have.
- scotuswroteus 6y ago
  "start"
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  Reflecting on this I think we're watching the wrong people. Politicians in general have shown they don't have the moral probity to be trusted to direct a democracy. We need a sort of reverse-Stasi. Everything a senior politician does should be reviewed and only closed if it is provably personal and without public interest. Maybe our politicians need to wear bodycams.
bserge 6y ago
To paraphrase someone I know, "once they run out of criminals, they'll just start catching people they don't like". Once they have this ability, it will be much harder to make them give it up.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  > "once they run out of criminals, they'll just start catching people they don't like". Or, just as likely, "once they can catch the people they don't like, they won't need to bother catching the people that you think are criminals".
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >To paraphrase someone I know, "once they run out of criminals, they'll just start catching people they don't like". >Once they have this ability, it will be much harder to make them give it up. There's an argument to be made that this is already happening and, in fact, has been happening for decades. I'm of course referring to the "War on Drugs." There's quite a bit of analysis in the literature to show that restrictions on mind-altering substances was explicitly introduced to disadvantage particular populations. What's more, despite popular perception[0], the "crime" rate is at its lowest levels in more than 50 years[1], yet we continue to fund[2] law "enforcement" at levels even higher than when we were at the peak of the "crime" rate during that time. So. Since crime rates have plummeted, yet we're spending more than ever, it's likely your paraphrase is already the case right now. More's the pity. [0] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/americas-faulty-perception-crime-rates https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/amer... [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/17/facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/17/facts-about... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-04/america-s-policing-budget-has-nearly-tripled-to-115-billion https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-04/america-s...
  - dvtrn 6y ago
    >Once they have this ability, it will be much harder to make them give it up. There's an argument to be made that this is already happening and, in fact, has been happening for decades. Notable examples are RICO Laws, FISA courts and the PATRIOT act. So. Yes.
cyberpunk 6y ago
Someone’s been reading their Neal Stephenson.. :))
- ChrisGammell 6y ago
  heck yeah! Baroque cycle!
intricatedetail 6y ago
Everyone should be able to read private politician's correspondence and what they are up to. We should also know their bank accounts and their location at all times. Why should government know those things about us but we can't know that about them? That's a modern slavery.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  Everybody should be able to read the private correspondence of politicians? That's absurd. Politicians are (believe it or not) people too, and have families, and relationships, and private lives. We should absolutely be able to read all their work related material, but private things should stay private.
  - georgebarnett 6y ago
    Why should private things stay private, only for politicians?
pembrook 6y ago
Spot on. And further more, any appeals to safety from politicians should be shouted down as the misdirection that they are. The root of 99% of crime in the US is poverty. Not private communication. Trying to solve poverty by spying on everyone’s data is like trying to cure cancer with Tylenol. Even if you temporarily prevent a symptom from occurring, you're still dying of cancer. So much of political thought in the US is focused on the futile efforts of treating symptoms, and not curing underlying causes. And the worst part is, if you look at statistics in the rest of the developed world, poverty in fact has a cure! Like in most things, the US is the head-in-the-sand stubborn outlier here.
itstrue 6y ago
Society cannot function without privacy [1]. [1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1203230 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1203230
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

souljourner 6y ago

How ironic that you say that in a forum that censors speech it does not want you to hear. Yup … just like this. Yes, you are the badies, mods/admins.

throwaway212312 6y ago
This. It's telling that you are also being downvoted. The mods have a habit of censoring things and then uncensoring it when they think of a strawman to respond with, and of course, censoring the response to the strawman. Classic cointelpro.

asah 6y ago

serious q: encryption challenges the authority of government and the power of its leaders. Why would they willingly give up this power, when they can manufacture consent[1] via a perpetual state of war[2] ? [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=manufacturing+consent https://www.google.com/search?q=manufacturing+consent [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=perpetual+war https://www.google.com/search?q=perpetual+war

kebman 6y ago
While morally reprehensible, endless "safe" wars are pretty profitable for industry owners if they are run in countries that do not target their valuable industries. Since the tax payer is footing the bill for it all, they're the ones who have to concent to it. Or perhaps not. Using the invasion of Iraq as an example, there has been many years where public opinion was negative, or at least lukewarm, towards the invasion, though not violently so. Casually reviewing the polling history, this can be observed as early as in 2004. [1] But I think one can safely say that the war hasn't been at the forefront of most people's minds during the last few decades, except for the very beginning. But then, there has been very little mention of the financial cost of the war in the media, if any. And why would there be, as the media also earns a lot of money on these "safe" wars. The video “Troops Versus Building --- an Iraq War tale” by soldier grunt Blacktail should give you a pretty hands-on idea of the financial cost of the war, however. [2] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_in_the_United_S... [2]: Troops Versus Building --- an Iraq War tale, 24 Nov 2009, Blacktail, https://youtu.be/2N-1E2F9pmc https://youtu.be/2N-1E2F9pmc
whimsicalism 6y ago
This is not how sourcing works.
nine_k 6y ago
The ability to manufacture consent is finite, even in North Korea.

dontcarethrow2 6y ago

>A society that mistrusts its own citizens to a point where all those that whisper to each other are called criminals, dealers, traitors or terrorists is rotten at its core. I mean you said it yourself, dealers. This is why I believe EARN IT will even be celebrated. Generations who accept a war on drugs as sane, did we ever think these people will produce offspring who can think for themselves? The ones who somehow did will now be outlawed as gray hat mathematicians in fear of prosecution because they know how to add a few numbers. Let's ramp up those genetic studies and get rid of the undesirables already, ffs what's taking so long? We the public have a short memory.

xenophonf 6y ago
> Let's ramp up those genetic studies and get rid of the undesirables already Holy shit, this is straight up racism. How the hell you got from protecting freethinkers to eugenics, I have no idea.
- freedomben 6y ago
  he/she isn't advocating this, in fact the opposite. They are using reductio ad absurdum to show where the "law and order" approach taken to the extreme can end.
- stickfigure 6y ago
  Poe's law strikes again.
kmeisthax 6y ago
The only people who support this shit are people who haven't thought through all the second-order consequences. They're very few in number - most people generally dislike surveillance, but don't fight against it nearly as hard as they theoretically could. Economic incentives are working their magic here. For example, much of the NSA's spying programs are legal specifically because AT&T made everyone surrender metadata for advertising purposes as a condition of telephone service back in the 50s. AT&T had monopoly power, so the only choices available were to sign over your metadata or live like Richard Stallman. Furthermore, any indication that your phone call records were being bought and sold was hidden in the fine print of long, non-negotiable contractual agreements. The problem isn't "undesirables" (MISS ME with that shit), it's lies by omission and economic power brought to bear against people's rational expectations of privacy.

hyder_m29 6y ago

> Today many argue the state has a need to access such correspondence to prevent crime, but such a need is like the need of an addict: nothing good can come from it and the people should not enable these institutions to satisfy an ever growing demand for insight into their private lives. One must remember that democracy is founded on the believe that thoughts and words are not crimes and everyone must be free to express them-self in public, but even more so in private correspondence. A society that mistrusts its own citizens to a point where all those that whisper to each other are called criminals, dealers, traitors or terrorists is rotten at its core. I feel disregarding the usefulness of surveillance is part of the problem. We should not be arguing that that nothing good comes out of surveillance. It provides your opponent an easy strawman for a hollow victory. Because frankly, surveillance is a useful tool for law enforcement. We need to rather argue that the moral cost and side-effects of public surveillance far outweighs its usefulness.

badRNG 6y ago
By the same token, one could say that extra-judicial torture could have "usefulness" as you put it. We could have a similar discussion of how absolutists on the torture question aren't doing a proper cost/benefit analysis and are "providing their opponents an easy strawman for a hollow victory." I know this is Hacker News, but not every argument requires infinite nuance, we don't need to sit down and examine the pros & cons of torture or any other clear and obvious abuse of government power. We don't need to dignify the position of "read all citizens private correspondence" with a cost/benefit analysis. This practice provides legitimacy to clearly unconscionable actions. It is permissible, even strategically valuable, to have certain positions that we are absolutist on, policies that aren't tolerated under any conditions.
- nine_k 6y ago
  The nuance here is pretty blunt: no matter how useful torture is, it is never enough to legalize it. Same with banning secure private communication.
  - cmiles74 6y ago

crpatino 6y ago

> And yes, it is true that these totalitarian methods ar efficient in fighting street level crime. You give too much credit to police states. What happens in reality is that criminals with connections and a minimum of self restrain are folded into the "dark side" of the State, while their rivals are cracked down hard. In this way, a number of low-impact, high-revenue illegal activities are tolerated (in exchange of bribes), crime syndicates are expected to self police and not break whatever taboos were imposed from above; and then this "dark side" of the government do put a lid on top of the deviant side of society, diverting their energies into activities that do not challenge the status quo. Does it make for a safer place to live for the common citizen? Maybe. While it may be less likely that you will be injured in an armed robbery, you will also be more likely to get your money swindled by this scheme or another... and you will have less chance of redress when this happens.

danielvf 6y ago

Rather than calling for backdoors, or secret rooms, this law explicitly prevents civil lawsuits or criminal prosecution for companies that refuse to install backdoors or use end to end encryption that they cannot crack. I'm not really sure what the EFF is unhappy with about this act, since their complaints don't seem to be reflected in the text. From the act: CYBERSECURITY PROTECTIONS DO NOT GIVE RISE TO LIABILITY.—Notwithstanding paragraph (6), a provider of an interactive computer service shall not be deemed to be in violation of section 2252 or 2252A of title 18, United States Code, for the purposes of subparagraph (A) of such paragraph (6), and shall not otherwise be subject to any charge in a criminal prosecution under State law under subparagraph (B) of such paragraph (6), or any claim in a civil action under State law under subparagraph (C) of such paragraph (6), because the provider— “(A) utilizes full end-to-end encrypted messaging services, device encryption, or other encryption services; “(B) does not possess the information necessary to decrypt a communication; or “(C) fails to take an action that would otherwise undermine the ability of the provider to offer full end-to-end encrypted messaging services, device encryption, or other encryption services.”.

Mathnerd314 6y ago
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/new-earn-it-bill-still-threatens-encryption-and-free-speech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/new-earn-it-bill-still... > Sen. Leahy’s amendment prohibits holding companies liable because they use “end-to-end encryption, device encryption, or other encryption services.” But the bill still encourages state lawmakers to look for loopholes to undermine end-to-end encryption, such as demanding that messages be scanned on a local device, before they get encrypted and sent along to their recipient.
- danielvf 6y ago
  How does the bill encourage that? Unless I'm really missing something, the language in the new child pornography section is the same as the current language in section 230e covering sex trafficking. That existing sex trafficking clause hasn't done any of the things that the EFF says this new one will do. The original Earn It Act was bad. But that bad stuff has been massively ripped out. Plus real protections for privacy added in. It's not the same as it was - look up the text and compare what's been struck through with what is left. I think in the current form it's a definite win for privacy and common sense.

silexia 6y ago

I agree. If we allow the state to start reading all of our correspondence, we are going to start losing our freedoms at a far faster rate than we already have.

scotuswroteus 6y ago
"start"
pbhjpbhj 6y ago
Reflecting on this I think we're watching the wrong people. Politicians in general have shown they don't have the moral probity to be trusted to direct a democracy. We need a sort of reverse-Stasi. Everything a senior politician does should be reviewed and only closed if it is provably personal and without public interest. Maybe our politicians need to wear bodycams.

bserge 6y ago

To paraphrase someone I know, "once they run out of criminals, they'll just start catching people they don't like". Once they have this ability, it will be much harder to make them give it up.

dane-pgp 6y ago
> "once they run out of criminals, they'll just start catching people they don't like". Or, just as likely, "once they can catch the people they don't like, they won't need to bother catching the people that you think are criminals".
nobody9999 6y ago
>To paraphrase someone I know, "once they run out of criminals, they'll just start catching people they don't like". >Once they have this ability, it will be much harder to make them give it up. There's an argument to be made that this is already happening and, in fact, has been happening for decades. I'm of course referring to the "War on Drugs." There's quite a bit of analysis in the literature to show that restrictions on mind-altering substances was explicitly introduced to disadvantage particular populations. What's more, despite popular perception[0], the "crime" rate is at its lowest levels in more than 50 years[1], yet we continue to fund[2] law "enforcement" at levels even higher than when we were at the peak of the "crime" rate during that time. So. Since crime rates have plummeted, yet we're spending more than ever, it's likely your paraphrase is already the case right now. More's the pity. [0] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/americas-faulty-perception-crime-rates https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/amer... [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/17/facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/17/facts-about... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-04/america-s-policing-budget-has-nearly-tripled-to-115-billion https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-04/america-s...
- dvtrn 6y ago
  >Once they have this ability, it will be much harder to make them give it up. There's an argument to be made that this is already happening and, in fact, has been happening for decades. Notable examples are RICO Laws, FISA courts and the PATRIOT act. So. Yes.

cyberpunk 6y ago

Someone’s been reading their Neal Stephenson.. :))

ChrisGammell 6y ago
heck yeah! Baroque cycle!

intricatedetail 6y ago

Everyone should be able to read private politician's correspondence and what they are up to. We should also know their bank accounts and their location at all times. Why should government know those things about us but we can't know that about them? That's a modern slavery.

Thorentis 6y ago
Everybody should be able to read the private correspondence of politicians? That's absurd. Politicians are (believe it or not) people too, and have families, and relationships, and private lives. We should absolutely be able to read all their work related material, but private things should stay private.
- georgebarnett 6y ago
  Why should private things stay private, only for politicians?

pembrook 6y ago

Spot on. And further more, any appeals to safety from politicians should be shouted down as the misdirection that they are. The root of 99% of crime in the US is poverty. Not private communication. Trying to solve poverty by spying on everyone’s data is like trying to cure cancer with Tylenol. Even if you temporarily prevent a symptom from occurring, you're still dying of cancer. So much of political thought in the US is focused on the futile efforts of treating symptoms, and not curing underlying causes. And the worst part is, if you look at statistics in the rest of the developed world, poverty in fact has a cure! Like in most things, the US is the head-in-the-sand stubborn outlier here.

itstrue 6y ago

Society cannot function without privacy [1]. [1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1203230 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1203230

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]