5 ms·

>but ultimately this will harden up potential targets I predict that it is going to be used to get rid of privacy and anonymity features of the web and they ar

>but ultimately this will harden up potential targets I predict that it is going to be used to get rid of privacy and anonymity features of the web and they aren't going to harden anything!

xwolfi 5y ago
Well I mean, maybe knowing who people are when they connect to the internet IS the hardening we all need. We dont need the internet to express ourselves freely but it sure sucks ass when you credit card is gone. I d trade your anonymity for my money back.
- plebianRube 5y ago
  Those who desire to trade freedom for security deserve neither.
  - eloff 5y ago
    Yet a world with all freedom and no security would suck. No law, no police, no military. Jungle rules - survival of the strongest. There's a reasonable balance to be struck. That's essentially the tradeoff we make with the state - trade some freedom for some security.
    - throwaway316943 5y ago
      Jungle rules is not pure freedom. You need both freedom to and freedom from. The balance is struck when no ones actions impinge on another’s person or property without consent. The best form of that is an agreement between the involved parties to act respectfully. The worst is abdicating all of your responsibility to big brother.
      - Layke1123 5y ago
        If I see you in a castle and I have nothing, I hope there's only one of me cause we coming for that loot. No where is safe on this planet for those who hoard resources to themselves.
      - eloff 5y ago
        You don't achieve freedom from without security. They're one and the same.
        throwaway316943 5y ago
        There are different ways to provide security when it’s needed but most of what you would consider the benefits of security have more to do with everyone voluntarily obeying a set of written and unwritten rules. That’s easy to see if you ask why crime rates vary by geographic location. The same law should apply everywhere and for any given city you have the same police force so why do some areas have high crime while others have low?
    - oceanplexian 5y ago
      I’m not sure I agree with that. In the 21st century, at least in the US, most adults have access to firearms for self defense. There is no such thing as “survival of the strongest” when everyone is on an equal playing field and has the capability to defend themselves. Personally, I view the opposite as closer to Law of the Jungle, that is our current system of policing that gives a small fraction of society access to self defense but denying it to the rest of the group.
      - pedrosorio 5y ago
        Law of the jungle implies lawlessness. How are you going to “self-defend” with your firearms against the random gangs or warlords in your neighborhood? You will join them or perish.
      - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
        >There is no such thing as “survival of the strongest” when everyone is on an equal playing field and has the capability to defend themselves. well originally of course it was survival of the most fit (assuming we derive our aphorisms from evolution here), that can mean smartest, fastest etc. There is no such thing as a level playing field, Harrison Bergeron has not been implemented.
      - eloff 5y ago
        In a world with firearms it can mean survival of the best shot, the owner of the best weapons, or more likely the wealthy with their own militia. This is all in the absence of a state providing security. This happened many times in history, particularly the feudal era where feudal lords acted like a mini state, and often pledged allegiance to a larger state with a king.
alexanderdmitri 5y ago
I think you're right unfortunately, maybe the Patriot Act will get expanded or maybe there'll be a sibling Good People Have Nothing to Hide Act. Speaking from my vantage in the United States, I can't believe how quickly the population has become knowingly accepting and complicit with a mass surveillance culture. I'm equally concerned with how quickly ownership of purchased goods has been undermined by the server-client model of the internet. These two things are linked and fundamentally disagree with the basic premises the US believes itself to be founded on ... It's hard to draw parallels historically in a way that gives hope. There is quite a lot of middle ground and reasonable solutions that just don't get mentioned in the political theater of today's corpocracy. I know all this has basically become a meme on HN, but every government not following the EU's example and iterating on things like GDPR is implicitly supporting authoritarianism (if not explicitly) and setting up an oppressive future that their children will be trodden down by.
- canjobear 5y ago
  The Patriot Act is no longer in force.
  - alexanderdmitri 5y ago
    They suspended the vote to extend it, so currently expired yes, but I think if/when it goes to vote it will continue to live on. Also, I have not seen evidence that its effects have been nullified with its expiration, but I'm willing to learn.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      They will definitely retro-actively extend it if it is needed. Already has been done for AT&T
- oceanplexian 5y ago
  People haven’t accepted mass surveillance, they just don’t understand what it is and have been mislead by the media, government, and corporations into silently consenting to privacy intrusions. They think it won’t be used against them, until one day it does, and they are horrified when a divorce attorney is talking about the GPS movements from their “connected car” or their bank closes an account and locks out their funds because they attended a political protest. Unfortunately for them the realization comes way too late.
asdff 5y ago
Or maybe beef suppliers would airgap their sensitive systems instead.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Mandatum 5y ago
But really, there's still some pretty reliable ways to carry out these attacks anonymously or with little risk of getting caught. OpSec has come a long way since the early 2000's. Yes, many are still getting caught often.. But many aren't. Yes, this'll be used to undermine anonymity (for example try getting a phone plan in many western countries without an ID - it's hard), however I believe there's still going to be a large push from governments and legislative bodies to push better security processes within private enterprise.

>but ultimately this will harden up potential targets I predict that it is going to be used to get rid of privacy and anonymity features of the web and they aren't going to harden anything!

xwolfi 5y ago

Well I mean, maybe knowing who people are when they connect to the internet IS the hardening we all need. We dont need the internet to express ourselves freely but it sure sucks ass when you credit card is gone. I d trade your anonymity for my money back.

plebianRube 5y ago
Those who desire to trade freedom for security deserve neither.
- eloff 5y ago
  Yet a world with all freedom and no security would suck. No law, no police, no military. Jungle rules - survival of the strongest. There's a reasonable balance to be struck. That's essentially the tradeoff we make with the state - trade some freedom for some security.
  - throwaway316943 5y ago
    Jungle rules is not pure freedom. You need both freedom to and freedom from. The balance is struck when no ones actions impinge on another’s person or property without consent. The best form of that is an agreement between the involved parties to act respectfully. The worst is abdicating all of your responsibility to big brother.
    - Layke1123 5y ago
      If I see you in a castle and I have nothing, I hope there's only one of me cause we coming for that loot. No where is safe on this planet for those who hoard resources to themselves.
    - eloff 5y ago
      You don't achieve freedom from without security. They're one and the same.
      - throwaway316943 5y ago
        There are different ways to provide security when it’s needed but most of what you would consider the benefits of security have more to do with everyone voluntarily obeying a set of written and unwritten rules. That’s easy to see if you ask why crime rates vary by geographic location. The same law should apply everywhere and for any given city you have the same police force so why do some areas have high crime while others have low?
  - oceanplexian 5y ago
    I’m not sure I agree with that. In the 21st century, at least in the US, most adults have access to firearms for self defense. There is no such thing as “survival of the strongest” when everyone is on an equal playing field and has the capability to defend themselves. Personally, I view the opposite as closer to Law of the Jungle, that is our current system of policing that gives a small fraction of society access to self defense but denying it to the rest of the group.
    - pedrosorio 5y ago
      Law of the jungle implies lawlessness. How are you going to “self-defend” with your firearms against the random gangs or warlords in your neighborhood? You will join them or perish.
    - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
      >There is no such thing as “survival of the strongest” when everyone is on an equal playing field and has the capability to defend themselves. well originally of course it was survival of the most fit (assuming we derive our aphorisms from evolution here), that can mean smartest, fastest etc. There is no such thing as a level playing field, Harrison Bergeron has not been implemented.
    - eloff 5y ago
      In a world with firearms it can mean survival of the best shot, the owner of the best weapons, or more likely the wealthy with their own militia. This is all in the absence of a state providing security. This happened many times in history, particularly the feudal era where feudal lords acted like a mini state, and often pledged allegiance to a larger state with a king.

alexanderdmitri 5y ago

I think you're right unfortunately, maybe the Patriot Act will get expanded or maybe there'll be a sibling Good People Have Nothing to Hide Act. Speaking from my vantage in the United States, I can't believe how quickly the population has become knowingly accepting and complicit with a mass surveillance culture. I'm equally concerned with how quickly ownership of purchased goods has been undermined by the server-client model of the internet. These two things are linked and fundamentally disagree with the basic premises the US believes itself to be founded on ... It's hard to draw parallels historically in a way that gives hope. There is quite a lot of middle ground and reasonable solutions that just don't get mentioned in the political theater of today's corpocracy. I know all this has basically become a meme on HN, but every government not following the EU's example and iterating on things like GDPR is implicitly supporting authoritarianism (if not explicitly) and setting up an oppressive future that their children will be trodden down by.

canjobear 5y ago
The Patriot Act is no longer in force.
- alexanderdmitri 5y ago
  They suspended the vote to extend it, so currently expired yes, but I think if/when it goes to vote it will continue to live on. Also, I have not seen evidence that its effects have been nullified with its expiration, but I'm willing to learn.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    They will definitely retro-actively extend it if it is needed. Already has been done for AT&T
oceanplexian 5y ago
People haven’t accepted mass surveillance, they just don’t understand what it is and have been mislead by the media, government, and corporations into silently consenting to privacy intrusions. They think it won’t be used against them, until one day it does, and they are horrified when a divorce attorney is talking about the GPS movements from their “connected car” or their bank closes an account and locks out their funds because they attended a political protest. Unfortunately for them the realization comes way too late.

asdff 5y ago

Or maybe beef suppliers would airgap their sensitive systems instead.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Mandatum 5y ago

But really, there's still some pretty reliable ways to carry out these attacks anonymously or with little risk of getting caught. OpSec has come a long way since the early 2000's. Yes, many are still getting caught often.. But many aren't. Yes, this'll be used to undermine anonymity (for example try getting a phone plan in many western countries without an ID - it's hard), however I believe there's still going to be a large push from governments and legislative bodies to push better security processes within private enterprise.