5 ms·

Honestly at this stage I just have to assume that the three letter orgs have access to all my online data. All my important data is being captured and stored fo

by 6nf 5y ago

Honestly at this stage I just have to assume that the three letter orgs have access to all my online data. All my important data is being captured and stored forever. Even if I'm using encrypted communications channels, and even if I know that I'm doing it correctly, the other endpoint likely leaks like a sieve.

refurb 5y ago
Agreed. I’m starting to wonder if adding garbage to your online identity is the best path forward. If they try and use what you say online against you, well, make half of the content contradictory and easily falsifiable. When they come for you with a claim of “posted messages indicating involvement in a conspiracy” I wonder how good of a defense it would be to clearly show half of what you post are outright falsehoods and lies. Can they claim you were conspiring against X when half of your online presence is defending X?
- newbamboo 5y ago
  They can do whatever they want. If the president isn’t safe from the fbi, then nobody is. The other agencies I think get a lot of unfair press. The fbi are pure shit, if for no other reason than it’s just way too large an organization to police itself. How many fbi employees even are there at this point? I’m sure a few of them (including those reading this post) are good, but the others are pure shit.
- isoskeles 5y ago
  I don't know, it seems that usually the alphabet people are the ones conspiring with you. But yeah, I think adding garbage is a good strategy. I tell myself this whenever I watch Netflix or a football game online. They'll think I'm just some Regular Joe, but actually, deep down, I'm a rebel...
  - blitzar 5y ago
    https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/hiding-the-signal-in-the-noise/522564/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/hidin... Hide in a mass of noise. *Protip: get your small startup on the list to juice your numbers.
    - amelius 5y ago
      This uses phantom js and unfortunately it won't work in principle, because Google has a "I'm not a robot" button that can tell you're a robot from mouse movements only, so they can do the same with every search result link.
- amelius 5y ago
  > Can they claim you were conspiring against X when half of your online presence is defending X? Of course they will use only the data that supports their case, and pretend they didn't see the other half of the data.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Of course, but when they quote statements like “Biden is a criminal” your defense lawyer can pull quotes like “Biden is the savior of our Republic” to basically cast doubt on anything you’ve actually said online.
    - amelius 5y ago
      Saying incriminating things and denying them later is generally not a good way to stay out of trouble. And I don't think incoherency and contradictory statements generally work well in court. A Chewbacca defense only works in cartoons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense
      - refurb 5y ago
        It’s not denying anything. It’s clearly showing that what you say on the internet isn’t based on your true beliefs. It happens all the time in actual court cases. Someone say “i hated John” and that’s used to show motive so the defense beings a witness who said the defendant drove John to church every Sunday.
        q1w2 5y ago
        It's just that it's a weak defense because the prosecution will make the argument that you committed your crime in one of those periods where you held malicious beliefs, in an emotional state. They only need to demonstrate that you had motive sometimes, not all the time.

by 6nf 5y ago

refurb 5y ago

Agreed. I’m starting to wonder if adding garbage to your online identity is the best path forward. If they try and use what you say online against you, well, make half of the content contradictory and easily falsifiable. When they come for you with a claim of “posted messages indicating involvement in a conspiracy” I wonder how good of a defense it would be to clearly show half of what you post are outright falsehoods and lies. Can they claim you were conspiring against X when half of your online presence is defending X?

newbamboo 5y ago
They can do whatever they want. If the president isn’t safe from the fbi, then nobody is. The other agencies I think get a lot of unfair press. The fbi are pure shit, if for no other reason than it’s just way too large an organization to police itself. How many fbi employees even are there at this point? I’m sure a few of them (including those reading this post) are good, but the others are pure shit.
isoskeles 5y ago
I don't know, it seems that usually the alphabet people are the ones conspiring with you. But yeah, I think adding garbage is a good strategy. I tell myself this whenever I watch Netflix or a football game online. They'll think I'm just some Regular Joe, but actually, deep down, I'm a rebel...
- blitzar 5y ago
  https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/hiding-the-signal-in-the-noise/522564/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/hidin... Hide in a mass of noise. *Protip: get your small startup on the list to juice your numbers.
  - amelius 5y ago
    This uses phantom js and unfortunately it won't work in principle, because Google has a "I'm not a robot" button that can tell you're a robot from mouse movements only, so they can do the same with every search result link.
amelius 5y ago
> Can they claim you were conspiring against X when half of your online presence is defending X? Of course they will use only the data that supports their case, and pretend they didn't see the other half of the data.
- refurb 5y ago
  Of course, but when they quote statements like “Biden is a criminal” your defense lawyer can pull quotes like “Biden is the savior of our Republic” to basically cast doubt on anything you’ve actually said online.
  - amelius 5y ago
    Saying incriminating things and denying them later is generally not a good way to stay out of trouble. And I don't think incoherency and contradictory statements generally work well in court. A Chewbacca defense only works in cartoons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense
    - refurb 5y ago
      It’s not denying anything. It’s clearly showing that what you say on the internet isn’t based on your true beliefs. It happens all the time in actual court cases. Someone say “i hated John” and that’s used to show motive so the defense beings a witness who said the defendant drove John to church every Sunday.
      - q1w2 5y ago
        It's just that it's a weak defense because the prosecution will make the argument that you committed your crime in one of those periods where you held malicious beliefs, in an emotional state. They only need to demonstrate that you had motive sometimes, not all the time.