4 ms·

> No, not really _hacked_. I see a number of comments similar to yours on HN, and I am legitimately curious and do not mean to offend: Why did you think Belar

> No, not really _hacked_. I see a number of comments similar to yours on HN, and I am legitimately curious and do not mean to offend: Why did you think Belarusian police do not hack phones? Was your comment based on any source or personal experience, or did it feel right? I ask because I have observed a number of times where HN comments are wrong on things (on have personal or professional experience in) but get upvoted because the comments look reasonable, but the correct comment gets downvoted. It's an interesting failure mode of HN discussions. I thought I'd ask you because the topic is not contentious, and hopefully this comment does not cone across as underhanded.

proxysna 4y ago
Because to beat up someone and order them to unlock their phone is faster, does not require trained staff, can be done anywhere and is fun for the cops. In some cases they use israeli hardware (forgot the name of the company), if you are fooled into giving your phone away for some period of time, like entering a police building, where they have a "no-phone zone" for visitors.
- anonym29 4y ago
  Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/ Cellebrite and GrayKey are prominent providers of cellular DFIR hardware used by government agencies.
- sangnoir 4y ago
  > Because to beat up someone and order them to unlock their phone is faster, does not require trained staff, can be done anywhere and is fun for the cops. The implicit assumption is that the states always go for the faster solution. I'd argue that intercepting an SMS/call is easier/faster for nation-states, than arrest and torture; most carriers worldwide have interception capabilities mandated by law: using the secret police to subvert those capabilities is not rocket science - especially when coordinating with hacking-as-a-service companies like "Team Jorge". What really grinds my gears, when someone confidently state their thought experiment/"derivation from (idealized) first principles" as a rebuttal to empirical evidence. Incidentally, the wording is sometimes absolute, which cloaks the speculative (and wrong) nature of such comments ("No, not really hacked." Implying hacking doesn't happen, and yet it does). I've seen such 'truthy' but wrong comments voted to the top on HN, because the up-voters share the same blindspot and think "Yeah, that sounds right"
  - proxysna 4y ago
    > The implicit assumption is that the states always go for the faster solution. That’s what cops in Belarus did to me twice since 2020 when I declined to unlock my phone. That’s what they did to many of my friends and colleagues. Hacking happens but it is a more of an exception as it requires planning and effort, which is hard. Blackmail and threats are much easier.
    - sangnoir 4y ago
      Just because B happened to you personally doesn't mean A never happens to anyone. When a person says "A happens", and another responds by saying "A doesn't really happen - rather B happens", their assertion is insufficient to refute the existence of A, whether based on a cost analysis thought experiment or personal experience with B. It is far more accurate for the second person to make an addition rather than a refutation by saying "B also happens more frequently than A"
      - proxysna 4y ago
        Really cool

proxysna 4y ago

Because to beat up someone and order them to unlock their phone is faster, does not require trained staff, can be done anywhere and is fun for the cops. In some cases they use israeli hardware (forgot the name of the company), if you are fooled into giving your phone away for some period of time, like entering a police building, where they have a "no-phone zone" for visitors.

anonym29 4y ago
Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/ Cellebrite and GrayKey are prominent providers of cellular DFIR hardware used by government agencies.
sangnoir 4y ago
> Because to beat up someone and order them to unlock their phone is faster, does not require trained staff, can be done anywhere and is fun for the cops. The implicit assumption is that the states always go for the faster solution. I'd argue that intercepting an SMS/call is easier/faster for nation-states, than arrest and torture; most carriers worldwide have interception capabilities mandated by law: using the secret police to subvert those capabilities is not rocket science - especially when coordinating with hacking-as-a-service companies like "Team Jorge". What really grinds my gears, when someone confidently state their thought experiment/"derivation from (idealized) first principles" as a rebuttal to empirical evidence. Incidentally, the wording is sometimes absolute, which cloaks the speculative (and wrong) nature of such comments ("No, not really hacked." Implying hacking doesn't happen, and yet it does). I've seen such 'truthy' but wrong comments voted to the top on HN, because the up-voters share the same blindspot and think "Yeah, that sounds right"
- proxysna 4y ago
  > The implicit assumption is that the states always go for the faster solution. That’s what cops in Belarus did to me twice since 2020 when I declined to unlock my phone. That’s what they did to many of my friends and colleagues. Hacking happens but it is a more of an exception as it requires planning and effort, which is hard. Blackmail and threats are much easier.
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    Just because B happened to you personally doesn't mean A never happens to anyone. When a person says "A happens", and another responds by saying "A doesn't really happen - rather B happens", their assertion is insufficient to refute the existence of A, whether based on a cost analysis thought experiment or personal experience with B. It is far more accurate for the second person to make an addition rather than a refutation by saying "B also happens more frequently than A"
    - proxysna 4y ago
      Really cool