3 ms·

>Moral of the story: selling stuff to criminals might seem like easy money but may not be worth the trouble. Interesting that you think only criminals want pri

>Moral of the story: selling stuff to criminals might seem like easy money but may not be worth the trouble. Interesting that you think only criminals want privacy. I use Signal and TLS too, I must be Pablo Escobar's second coming?

stanmancan 4y ago
If you looked at 'average people' versus 'criminals' you'll find that there's a much higher demand for privacy/anonymous communication among the criminals. That isn't to say that normal folk don't want privacy too. The end result is that if you're one of few company that offer privacy to your customers you'll find your customer base has a higher ratio of criminals as they'll all flock to you.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  Does this apply to vpns? Have we crossed the more normal people are using it threshold than criminals or should that be outlawed? Will we reach a point where self hosting is seen as criminal?
- shrimp_emoji 4y ago
  I think criminalizing useful technologies is an obscenely naive way to operate. You're incurring insane game theoretical cost for the consolation of revenge against the criminals.
throwaway82652 4y ago
Even if you aren't a criminal, the fact is that privacy tools of this nature are explicitly relying on having enough volume of criminals and other illicit users to provide cover for you. This is what they're designed to do, the designers of these systems will openly admit to it. You can make your own judgement on whether you're ok with that, but it doesn't help to deny what's actually happening.
- lil_dispaches 4y ago
  When only criminals care about privacy, privacy becomes criminal?
  - throwaway82652 4y ago
    No? I don't know where you got that from.
- lordofgibbons 4y ago
  >the fact is that privacy tools of this nature are explicitly relying on having enough volume of criminals and other illicit users to provide cover for you No, that's not how this works. You don't need criminal activity to provide you with anonymity. You just need ANY other activity in order to get lost in the crowd[1]. Your flawed view is that nobody should have privacy because some bad guys might use privacy to do bad things. Privacy advocates are the opposite. We say everybody deserves privacy as a human right, even if on occasion some bad guys take advantage of the privacy. [1] https://www.getmonero.org/resources/moneropedia/ringsignatures.html https://www.getmonero.org/resources/moneropedia/ringsignatur...
  - throwaway82652 4y ago
    >You just need ANY other activity in order to get lost in the crowd And that's irrelevant because these tools are explicitly built for criminals to use them. I'm actually quoting what the designers of these systems have said, this isn't my opinion. When you say "ANY other activity" that also means criminal activity gets lumped in there, I don't know why you're denying this. You're probably not a criminal but if you're using this then you're intentionally making criminals your company and you will pay for the effects of that in one way or another. That's the part where I'm speaking to you from experience. You just can't make an anonymized system like this that also isn't a lucrative target for criminals, such a thing doesn't exist. Is it unfortunate for those who aren't criminals and actually need privacy? Absolutely, but this is the reality of the situation. There's no easy solution. If someone is telling you that this isn't an issue then they're just lying to you, get mad at them instead of me. >Your flawed view is that nobody should have privacy because some bad guys might use privacy to do bad things. No, this also isn't even remotely close to what my actual view is. You just blatantly made this up for no reason. Why are you doing this? This is yet another reason that it's so exhausting to talk about this, not only are you spreading misinformation about this project but you're also spreading misinformation about me. Misinformation and disinformation is actually incredibly common in these low-trust environments. If you think it's bad, I agree, it's actually incredibly shameful that some people try to use "privacy" as a cover to spread misinformation, but that's something else that you have to accept and deal with and insulate yourself from if you take this route. Please do a better job in the future and don't bring yourself down to this level of empty rhetoric. You're letting the liars and criminals win. If you're acting this way because you see this route as some kind of moral outlet, I would suggest that you stop and find another one. This one is ethically gray and if you stick with it, you'll be peer pressured into excusing a lot of things that you're probably not comfortable with in the name of "privacy" at the expense of everything else. The moral rationalizations coming from these projects are strong, but are ultimately willful blind spots informed by money-making and capitalism just like everything else. Don't say that nobody warned you.
_wldu 4y ago
If you are interesting enough, Signal doesn't help at all. Some nation state will have NSO infect your mobile device with Pegasus and record everything you type, say and do. People need to understand this. There is no solution for mobile device compromise other than to stop using these devices. And if you cannot stop using them, then you must understand that everything you type, say and do on or around your mobile device is (or will be) public. So treat it like a public device at all times.
- lordofgibbons 4y ago
  Sure, but just because nation states can hack you doesn't mean you should throw your hands up and give up on keeping your data as secure as possible. There are non-state actors who would love to get their hands on your data for profit.

stanmancan 4y ago

If you looked at 'average people' versus 'criminals' you'll find that there's a much higher demand for privacy/anonymous communication among the criminals. That isn't to say that normal folk don't want privacy too. The end result is that if you're one of few company that offer privacy to your customers you'll find your customer base has a higher ratio of criminals as they'll all flock to you.

ipaddr 4y ago
Does this apply to vpns? Have we crossed the more normal people are using it threshold than criminals or should that be outlawed? Will we reach a point where self hosting is seen as criminal?
shrimp_emoji 4y ago
I think criminalizing useful technologies is an obscenely naive way to operate. You're incurring insane game theoretical cost for the consolation of revenge against the criminals.

throwaway82652 4y ago

Even if you aren't a criminal, the fact is that privacy tools of this nature are explicitly relying on having enough volume of criminals and other illicit users to provide cover for you. This is what they're designed to do, the designers of these systems will openly admit to it. You can make your own judgement on whether you're ok with that, but it doesn't help to deny what's actually happening.

lil_dispaches 4y ago
When only criminals care about privacy, privacy becomes criminal?
- throwaway82652 4y ago
  No? I don't know where you got that from.
lordofgibbons 4y ago
>the fact is that privacy tools of this nature are explicitly relying on having enough volume of criminals and other illicit users to provide cover for you No, that's not how this works. You don't need criminal activity to provide you with anonymity. You just need ANY other activity in order to get lost in the crowd[1]. Your flawed view is that nobody should have privacy because some bad guys might use privacy to do bad things. Privacy advocates are the opposite. We say everybody deserves privacy as a human right, even if on occasion some bad guys take advantage of the privacy. [1] https://www.getmonero.org/resources/moneropedia/ringsignatures.html https://www.getmonero.org/resources/moneropedia/ringsignatur...
- throwaway82652 4y ago
  >You just need ANY other activity in order to get lost in the crowd And that's irrelevant because these tools are explicitly built for criminals to use them. I'm actually quoting what the designers of these systems have said, this isn't my opinion. When you say "ANY other activity" that also means criminal activity gets lumped in there, I don't know why you're denying this. You're probably not a criminal but if you're using this then you're intentionally making criminals your company and you will pay for the effects of that in one way or another. That's the part where I'm speaking to you from experience. You just can't make an anonymized system like this that also isn't a lucrative target for criminals, such a thing doesn't exist. Is it unfortunate for those who aren't criminals and actually need privacy? Absolutely, but this is the reality of the situation. There's no easy solution. If someone is telling you that this isn't an issue then they're just lying to you, get mad at them instead of me. >Your flawed view is that nobody should have privacy because some bad guys might use privacy to do bad things. No, this also isn't even remotely close to what my actual view is. You just blatantly made this up for no reason. Why are you doing this? This is yet another reason that it's so exhausting to talk about this, not only are you spreading misinformation about this project but you're also spreading misinformation about me. Misinformation and disinformation is actually incredibly common in these low-trust environments. If you think it's bad, I agree, it's actually incredibly shameful that some people try to use "privacy" as a cover to spread misinformation, but that's something else that you have to accept and deal with and insulate yourself from if you take this route. Please do a better job in the future and don't bring yourself down to this level of empty rhetoric. You're letting the liars and criminals win. If you're acting this way because you see this route as some kind of moral outlet, I would suggest that you stop and find another one. This one is ethically gray and if you stick with it, you'll be peer pressured into excusing a lot of things that you're probably not comfortable with in the name of "privacy" at the expense of everything else. The moral rationalizations coming from these projects are strong, but are ultimately willful blind spots informed by money-making and capitalism just like everything else. Don't say that nobody warned you.

_wldu 4y ago

If you are interesting enough, Signal doesn't help at all. Some nation state will have NSO infect your mobile device with Pegasus and record everything you type, say and do. People need to understand this. There is no solution for mobile device compromise other than to stop using these devices. And if you cannot stop using them, then you must understand that everything you type, say and do on or around your mobile device is (or will be) public. So treat it like a public device at all times.

lordofgibbons 4y ago
Sure, but just because nation states can hack you doesn't mean you should throw your hands up and give up on keeping your data as secure as possible. There are non-state actors who would love to get their hands on your data for profit.