3 ms·
This is a rather interesting interview style, it seems as if the interviewer is presenting the viewpoints of the national security state complex ("we need total
by photochemsyn 4y ago
This is a rather interesting interview style, it seems as if the interviewer is presenting the viewpoints of the national security state complex ("we need total access to all data to prevent terrorism and child abuse") and of the major tech conglomerates ("competition reduces privacy"), aka Big MAMAA (FAANG is obsolete), but it does provide the interviewee with opportunity to counter those points, so I guess it's a decent interview approach.
I'd add that the solution to child abuse and terrorism is the same it has ever been, i.e. targeted investigations relying on tactics like infiltration of criminal rings with undercover officers. There's no justification for Gestapo/NKVD authoritarianism and mass surveillance tactics.
However, there doesn't seem to be any plausible way to communicate with others using any infrastructure-type system (from postal mail to fiber optic cable) that doesn't reveal the network of communication (i.e. metadata), and Tor is hardly an exception. Tor seems to have been designed to allow remote government agents (aka spies) operating in hostile environments a means to communicate with a known base of operations without revealing their actual remote locations or identity. Similarly it could be used by individuals to communicate with journalists (as Edward Snowden did) without revealing their identity or location, but only if they take a lot of precautions (i.e. not using their device for any other online activity that could be traced to them). I imagine NSA has backdoors into almost all Tor nodes anyway. The content can be securely encrypted, but location/identity? Probably not.
- uoaei 4y agoWhat was that in the news a year or so back about the FBI having a significant number of Tor endpoints, making the routing effectively transparent? I would imagine if the FBI pulled that off, so did many other state actors.
- unboxingelf 4y agoBig MAMAA Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta, Apple, ?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- shemtay 4y ago...Amazon?
- unboxingelf 4y agoLol, oh, right…
- daemon_of_chaos 4y agoAmazon?
- photochemsyn 4y agoAWS, or Amazon. According to The Economist, those are now the big five tech players.
- airstrike 4y agoMAGMA is still a better acronym
- lvass 4y agoUsing Google and Meta in the acronym sounds wrong. I'd rather MAAMA or MAGFA.
- almet 4y agoIn french we say GAFAM, I naively though it was the same in the US. Gasp, I'm still too focused on my culture =D
- airstrike 4y agoWhy? Everyone calls Google Google. Alphabet is like a holding company. I'd wager if you scraped most news publications you'd see Meta used across the board, Google used in most cases and a few cases where the writer uses "Alphabet, Google's parent company..." (https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3503534-activists-workers-press-google-founders-former-ceo-to-support-racial-equity-audit/ https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3503534-activists-work...) which IMHO just proves the point I'm trying to make For the perfect exhibit, look no further than this Tech Crunch article with the headline "Meta and Google's Gradient..." https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/26/meta-and-google-gradient-invest-latam-startup-olaclick/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/26/meta-and-google-gradient-i...
- photochemsyn 4y agoBut now we can talk about "the outsized influence of Big MAMAA on the tech industry", which has a nice ring to it. MAGMA has a decent ring as well, though.
- bayindirh 4y ago> There's no justification for Gestapo/NKVD authoritarianism and mass surveillance tactics. I think many people are missing the point and see the issue as "Governments trying to get capabilities". No, they always had the capability because of lower population, slower communication, more effective mass media and information bubbles. Now, they're losing this capability, and want to keep their abilities while making them automated & cheaper. Also, there's CryptoAG stuff, which is the same thing, but international.