6 ms·

Is a datacentre considered an ISP in this respect? Between vpns and just remote desktoping into a VM, it seems trivial to circumvent to real criminals while bei

by cm2187 6y ago

Is a datacentre considered an ISP in this respect? Between vpns and just remote desktoping into a VM, it seems trivial to circumvent to real criminals while being a privacy nightmare to the rest of the population. There is a probability 1.000 that this data will be abused.

ajsnigrutin 6y ago
This is politics, who cares about a few people doing bad stuff... If the shit hits the fan, you want to know the political stance of all the citizens, and who the troublemakers will be, if something large is happening. ...and for that, it's enough to know which political sites they're visiting, even if you don't know the content itself.
- lupire 6y ago
  The fan was hit Jan 6 and no one in power really cared.
  - Rule35 6y ago
    Or, the reason nothing has happened as a result is because nothing serious happened in the "insurrection". I'm suggesting this as a foreigner in a democratic country (a well regarded example country even), a fact I mention to dispel the concept that I'm crypto-republican or even socially (as opposed to fiscally) conservative. I watched 2020 in America through independent videos and through your news, the two of which are very-tenuously connected. Very few of the capitol-riot criminals (because I totally agree that they committed a bunch of crimes, and are absolutely criminals) were armed, even with the makeshift weapons seen in the previous year's street riots. And they weren't going to hurt anyone because the capitol police and the secret service were preparing the evacuation while Trump was still talking blocks away. Not because they legitimately feared a coup, but because it's just general safety protocol to not sit around and wait for a demonstration or a riot to walk up to you. Following that you saw the Democrats care as hard as they could. Some are still caring now. But the message didn't resonate with anyone other than their base - it cost them moderate democrat support and hardened moderate republicans again them. They largely stopped because the voters said "It's a non-issue, we don't believe it as told". (I present this as a self-evident fact, despite having seen poles supporting it, because we all know nobody stops beating on an effective drum.)
novok 6y ago
Anything any large organization does is not about absolutes but about increasing or reducing the probability of something in a population. The small few VPNers can be dealt with later. Also this is done in america for commercial reasons to sell to adtech, like t-mobile recently or comcast for quite a while and probably all the others.
null0pointer 6y ago
1. Trivial to bypass: Check 2. Further degrades the privacy of the general public: Check Just another day in internet legislation.
- brokenmachine 6y ago
  This often makes me think, what would happen if the authorities suddenly instituted something that actually wasn't trivial to bypass? There are smart people working for them, why do they keep bringing in this stuff that doesn't actually have an effect against the baddies? Is it possible that they are self-sabotaging because they actually realize they don't want to live in the world they are rushing headlong towards? Or is that giving them too much credit?
  - 14 6y ago
    I think it is supposed to be a slow erosion of our rights over time so that each generation that follows every thing seems par to the course.
  - alephu5 6y ago
    Those trying to communicate will always have the advantage thanks to cryptography. It gives you many way to secure and obfuscate communications, even in plain view.
    - ben_w 6y ago
      I disagree. Surveillance isn’t limited to breaking encryption — the Stasi would put cameras in water cans to spy on funerals, drill holes in walls while you were out to spy on you in your own apartment, etc. — and the tech for meatspace surveillance has only gotten smaller and cheaper since the fall of the Wall. Laser microphones in particular are something a high school student could reasonably make with a pocket-money budget.
      - sodality2 6y ago
        https://f-droid.org/packages/hans.b.skewy1_0/ https://f-droid.org/packages/hans.b.skewy1_0/ for the eavesdropping microphones :)
dmitryminkovsky 6y ago
What I want to know is: what happened? I always think of this event 70 years ago [0]: > "police obtained the fingerprints of every male aged 16 and over who had been in the vicinity of Blackburn on the night of 14-15 May to compare their fingerprints to those left at the crime scene by the perpetrator. ... a milestone in the history of forensic science; this being the first time a mass fingerprinting exercise had been implemented to solve a murder in the United Kingdom." > Just weeks prior to the execution of Peter Griffiths, all the fingerprint records obtained from individuals who had been in the vicinity of Blackburn between 14 and 15 May were publicly destroyed [emphasis my own] in a mass pulping exercise at a local papermill. Several local journalists were present to record the destruction of the records. Why was society so vigilant about giving data that might be abused to authorities, and now, when the data is so much more vast and powerful, no one seems to care? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_June_Anne_Devaney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_June_Anne_Devaney
- easytiger 6y ago
  It's a good observation. Not unrelated I suspect io why society no longer cares about basic personal freedoms in the wake of covid panic. Basic private peaceful assembly with your family is now or recently has been a civil and in some places criminal offence. Few seem to care
- nkellenicki 6y ago
  Because it's abstract. The people aren't _actively_ having to do anything, such as hand over their records - it's happening away from them. It's hard to connect with abstract. It's easier for people to connect with the reason _for_ doing it. Stop the terrorists, it may happen to you, etc. But the other way round is harder because it's invisible and you can live your life without caring. Even the warnings fall on deaf ears because "come on, you're being irrational" or "meh, doesn't affect me".
  - hanniabu 6y ago
    I think it's also a lot easier to dismiss with the use of media pundits on replay saying "if you have nothing to hide then there's no issue".

by cm2187 6y ago

ajsnigrutin 6y ago

This is politics, who cares about a few people doing bad stuff... If the shit hits the fan, you want to know the political stance of all the citizens, and who the troublemakers will be, if something large is happening. ...and for that, it's enough to know which political sites they're visiting, even if you don't know the content itself.

lupire 6y ago
The fan was hit Jan 6 and no one in power really cared.
- Rule35 6y ago
  Or, the reason nothing has happened as a result is because nothing serious happened in the "insurrection". I'm suggesting this as a foreigner in a democratic country (a well regarded example country even), a fact I mention to dispel the concept that I'm crypto-republican or even socially (as opposed to fiscally) conservative. I watched 2020 in America through independent videos and through your news, the two of which are very-tenuously connected. Very few of the capitol-riot criminals (because I totally agree that they committed a bunch of crimes, and are absolutely criminals) were armed, even with the makeshift weapons seen in the previous year's street riots. And they weren't going to hurt anyone because the capitol police and the secret service were preparing the evacuation while Trump was still talking blocks away. Not because they legitimately feared a coup, but because it's just general safety protocol to not sit around and wait for a demonstration or a riot to walk up to you. Following that you saw the Democrats care as hard as they could. Some are still caring now. But the message didn't resonate with anyone other than their base - it cost them moderate democrat support and hardened moderate republicans again them. They largely stopped because the voters said "It's a non-issue, we don't believe it as told". (I present this as a self-evident fact, despite having seen poles supporting it, because we all know nobody stops beating on an effective drum.)

novok 6y ago

Anything any large organization does is not about absolutes but about increasing or reducing the probability of something in a population. The small few VPNers can be dealt with later. Also this is done in america for commercial reasons to sell to adtech, like t-mobile recently or comcast for quite a while and probably all the others.

null0pointer 6y ago

1. Trivial to bypass: Check 2. Further degrades the privacy of the general public: Check Just another day in internet legislation.

brokenmachine 6y ago
This often makes me think, what would happen if the authorities suddenly instituted something that actually wasn't trivial to bypass? There are smart people working for them, why do they keep bringing in this stuff that doesn't actually have an effect against the baddies? Is it possible that they are self-sabotaging because they actually realize they don't want to live in the world they are rushing headlong towards? Or is that giving them too much credit?
- 14 6y ago
  I think it is supposed to be a slow erosion of our rights over time so that each generation that follows every thing seems par to the course.
- alephu5 6y ago
  Those trying to communicate will always have the advantage thanks to cryptography. It gives you many way to secure and obfuscate communications, even in plain view.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    I disagree. Surveillance isn’t limited to breaking encryption — the Stasi would put cameras in water cans to spy on funerals, drill holes in walls while you were out to spy on you in your own apartment, etc. — and the tech for meatspace surveillance has only gotten smaller and cheaper since the fall of the Wall. Laser microphones in particular are something a high school student could reasonably make with a pocket-money budget.
    - sodality2 6y ago
      https://f-droid.org/packages/hans.b.skewy1_0/ https://f-droid.org/packages/hans.b.skewy1_0/ for the eavesdropping microphones :)

dmitryminkovsky 6y ago

What I want to know is: what happened? I always think of this event 70 years ago [0]: > "police obtained the fingerprints of every male aged 16 and over who had been in the vicinity of Blackburn on the night of 14-15 May to compare their fingerprints to those left at the crime scene by the perpetrator. ... a milestone in the history of forensic science; this being the first time a mass fingerprinting exercise had been implemented to solve a murder in the United Kingdom." > Just weeks prior to the execution of Peter Griffiths, all the fingerprint records obtained from individuals who had been in the vicinity of Blackburn between 14 and 15 May were publicly destroyed [emphasis my own] in a mass pulping exercise at a local papermill. Several local journalists were present to record the destruction of the records. Why was society so vigilant about giving data that might be abused to authorities, and now, when the data is so much more vast and powerful, no one seems to care? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_June_Anne_Devaney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_June_Anne_Devaney

easytiger 6y ago
It's a good observation. Not unrelated I suspect io why society no longer cares about basic personal freedoms in the wake of covid panic. Basic private peaceful assembly with your family is now or recently has been a civil and in some places criminal offence. Few seem to care
nkellenicki 6y ago
Because it's abstract. The people aren't _actively_ having to do anything, such as hand over their records - it's happening away from them. It's hard to connect with abstract. It's easier for people to connect with the reason _for_ doing it. Stop the terrorists, it may happen to you, etc. But the other way round is harder because it's invisible and you can live your life without caring. Even the warnings fall on deaf ears because "come on, you're being irrational" or "meh, doesn't affect me".
- hanniabu 6y ago
  I think it's also a lot easier to dismiss with the use of media pundits on replay saying "if you have nothing to hide then there's no issue".