3 ms·

How do we know you're aroch?

by panacea 13y ago

XorNot 13y ago
Why do you care unless he's making statements which depend on his authoritative experience, as Snowden is doing? The real question is why Snowden needs a secure internet connection, seeing as how everyone knows (1) who he is (2) where he is and (3) it's a public Q&A so the idea is for everyone to hear what he says. Were he really concerned about tampering, the more important issue would be distributing an authenticated public key to prove his responses weren't being quickly edited in flight. Which popping on and offline...doesn't really assure anyone about.
- panacea 13y ago
  I don't know, maybe because an anonymous user is casting dispersions on the authenticity of someone who has very much put themselves forward as a real identity?
  - aroch 13y ago
    So because we "know" Snowden leaked the documents we should automatically "know" that he's the one responding? There's no web of trust or verification that we know of; we're taking the Guardian at its word. How do we know its not just some intern who has a list of answers given to probable questions?
    - panacea 13y ago
      The Guardian (a newspaper cum hyperblog) is inventing and impersonating a whistleblower for it's nefarious, I mean, link bait purposes now?
      - aroch 13y ago
        Wow, that's not at all what I said. I like how you're deliberately taking things out of context. We, the public, have no way of knowing if indeed its Snowden answering. It could be any number of persons, we just know that The Guardian says it's Snowden (probably). I'm all for calling the USG out on this matter, but I'd like if we could get some public verification of who is answering.
        ealexhudson 13y ago
        Many papers publish reports on things where the sources are not even named; indeed, the protection of anonymous sources is one of the tenets of journalism. Requiring not only a named source, but a way of verifying that statements / correspondence were provably from that source, seems an impossibly high standard to meet (eg., he could sign each comment with a PGP key. But then, "How do we know it's his PGP key?". Etcetera etcetera, ad infinitum)
        aroch 13y ago
        > Many papers publish reports on things where the sources are not even named; indeed, the protection of anonymous sources is one of the tenets of journalism. Except this isn't the WSJ reporting on a new iPhone "rumor", this is a very public release of important information. He's already outed himself, so this isn't about protection of anonymity. It really isn't hard for the Guardian and Snowden to setup a CoT including PGP. They can verify it using a key pair they have ultimate trust in and then include that verification in their posts. It isn't asking a whole lot for them to say why or how they have trust in the responses they're getting. I trust the Guardian, what I don't trust is whether or not we're actually getting answers from Snowden that aren't being manipulated en route or otherwise not "live" and intact.
        michaelt 13y ago
        Most means of verifying his identity are at least somewhat suspect. What sort of verification would satisfy you?
        aroch 13y ago
        Something more than "oh, yeah, that's him". I'm well aware its hard to be 100% certain, but surely they can offer something beyond "because we said it is".
        michaelt 13y ago
        Well, what would you propose? I mean, pretty much every photo and video I've seen of the guy comes from the guardian - they could easily just be of a Guardian intern. So a photo of him holding a sign is out. A GPG key which is reputedly his is of extremely questionable provenance so a signature from that would be meaningless. He could leak some new top secret data to establish that he has access to it - but we know guardian journalists have had access to such data already and surely they have some stuff on file for future reports. I'm curious as to what sort of proof you'd like?
aroch 13y ago
We don't, but we also don't care. I'm not making substantive claims which impact millions if not billions around the world.
- panacea 13y ago
  Substantive claims that haven't been denied by President Obama? ...other than America has nothing to worry about waves hand retreats behind curtain
  - aroch 13y ago
    What are you going on about?
    - panacea 13y ago
      President Obama stated the surveillance was good for America. Just trust him, no? Kinda has 'allies' such as myself in Australia wondering about the extent and the utility of the dragnet.
      - aroch 13y ago
        And this has to do with this comment thread how? When President Obama makes a statement, we know he's the one making it. It's publicly televised, he's the one saying it and we have very little reason to doubt that he is indeed saying the thing. This thread makes no claims about whether the things the person is saying are true, it's about whether we can verify who is making the claims. But, by all means, continue to ignore what I'm talking about and interject your own sputum.

How do we know you're aroch?

by panacea 13y ago

How do we know you're aroch?

Why do you care unless he's making statements which depend on his authoritative experience, as Snowden is doing? The real question is why Snowden needs a secure internet connection, seeing as how everyone knows (1) who he is (2) where he is and (3) it's a public Q&A so the idea is for everyone to hear what he says. Were he really concerned about tampering, the more important issue would be distributing an authenticated public key to prove his responses weren't being quickly edited in flight. Which popping on and offline...doesn't really assure anyone about.

panacea 13y ago
I don't know, maybe because an anonymous user is casting dispersions on the authenticity of someone who has very much put themselves forward as a real identity?
- aroch 13y ago
  So because we "know" Snowden leaked the documents we should automatically "know" that he's the one responding? There's no web of trust or verification that we know of; we're taking the Guardian at its word. How do we know its not just some intern who has a list of answers given to probable questions?
  - panacea 13y ago
    The Guardian (a newspaper cum hyperblog) is inventing and impersonating a whistleblower for it's nefarious, I mean, link bait purposes now?
    - aroch 13y ago
      Wow, that's not at all what I said. I like how you're deliberately taking things out of context. We, the public, have no way of knowing if indeed its Snowden answering. It could be any number of persons, we just know that The Guardian says it's Snowden (probably). I'm all for calling the USG out on this matter, but I'd like if we could get some public verification of who is answering.
      - ealexhudson 13y ago
        Many papers publish reports on things where the sources are not even named; indeed, the protection of anonymous sources is one of the tenets of journalism. Requiring not only a named source, but a way of verifying that statements / correspondence were provably from that source, seems an impossibly high standard to meet (eg., he could sign each comment with a PGP key. But then, "How do we know it's his PGP key?". Etcetera etcetera, ad infinitum)
        aroch 13y ago
        > Many papers publish reports on things where the sources are not even named; indeed, the protection of anonymous sources is one of the tenets of journalism. Except this isn't the WSJ reporting on a new iPhone "rumor", this is a very public release of important information. He's already outed himself, so this isn't about protection of anonymity. It really isn't hard for the Guardian and Snowden to setup a CoT including PGP. They can verify it using a key pair they have ultimate trust in and then include that verification in their posts. It isn't asking a whole lot for them to say why or how they have trust in the responses they're getting. I trust the Guardian, what I don't trust is whether or not we're actually getting answers from Snowden that aren't being manipulated en route or otherwise not "live" and intact.
        michaelt 13y ago
        Most means of verifying his identity are at least somewhat suspect. What sort of verification would satisfy you?
        aroch 13y ago
        Something more than "oh, yeah, that's him". I'm well aware its hard to be 100% certain, but surely they can offer something beyond "because we said it is".
        michaelt 13y ago
        Well, what would you propose? I mean, pretty much every photo and video I've seen of the guy comes from the guardian - they could easily just be of a Guardian intern. So a photo of him holding a sign is out. A GPG key which is reputedly his is of extremely questionable provenance so a signature from that would be meaningless. He could leak some new top secret data to establish that he has access to it - but we know guardian journalists have had access to such data already and surely they have some stuff on file for future reports. I'm curious as to what sort of proof you'd like?

aroch 13y ago

We don't, but we also don't care. I'm not making substantive claims which impact millions if not billions around the world.

panacea 13y ago
Substantive claims that haven't been denied by President Obama? ...other than America has nothing to worry about waves hand retreats behind curtain
- aroch 13y ago
  What are you going on about?
  - panacea 13y ago
    President Obama stated the surveillance was good for America. Just trust him, no? Kinda has 'allies' such as myself in Australia wondering about the extent and the utility of the dragnet.
    - aroch 13y ago
      And this has to do with this comment thread how? When President Obama makes a statement, we know he's the one making it. It's publicly televised, he's the one saying it and we have very little reason to doubt that he is indeed saying the thing. This thread makes no claims about whether the things the person is saying are true, it's about whether we can verify who is making the claims. But, by all means, continue to ignore what I'm talking about and interject your own sputum.