4 ms·

However the censorship laws in China only apply to messages that try to gather people for public group actions. Messages critical of the government and vocal of

However the censorship laws in China only apply to messages that try to gather people for public group actions. Messages critical of the government and vocal of discontent are entirely allowed and not subject to censorship. Even group forming messages that support the government are censored. See this study done at Harvard for details: http://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/censored.pdf http://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/censored.pdf With regards to the freedom to protest, the US government has its own mechanisms to unfurl public group action. Apple still cooperates with law enforcement and can give access to almost all data which you might 'infer' from reports are protected. Please find details from Apple's report here: https://ssl.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide_Oct_2014.pdf https://ssl.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide_Oct_2... Also remember the removal of Apple's Warranty Canary. It's also interesting to note that were Secure Enclave manufacturers compromised or to collaborate with law enforcement (giving access to UUIDs mapped to each device) the whole scheme is caput. I am wondering if you can provide a quick primer on who you've not voted for and will not be voting for that supports surveillance.

blisterpeanuts 12y ago
Thanks for an interesting post. Ted Cruz of Texas is one of the few prominent Republicans who opposes NSA surveillance; Marco Rubio of Florida supports it. The Democrats of the Senate recently voted for Obama's reforms of the NSA surveillance, and the Republicans mostly opposed it and blocked passage. I believe, however, that some of the more libertarian minded Republicans like Rand Paul voted against the bill not because they support the NSA, but because they felt the bill didn't go far enough to rein it in and would have created a false calm. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/18/key-gop-senators-oppose-nsa-phone-records-measure/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/18/key-gop-senators-... It's perplexing and frustrating to me, as a fiscal conservative who normally prefers the Republicans (albeit opposed to many of their social policies). I stopped subscribing to the conservative publications Commentary and WSJ because of their pro-NSA stance.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  Thank you for replying with your list. I lean away from Cruz myself (not offering a strong enough dissent, a la Rand) but I did find it pleasant to see his SD-226 questioning of the Review Panel. I would note that I also am frustrated in my attempts to find a party and candidates I feel represent me. I wanted to reply to > I suspect that in the near future, the major email providers will offer end-to-end encryption for all their users with no possibility of back doors. The NSA technicians will lose the ability to casually type in a name like "Bill Clinton" and read his email at their leisure (as happened with that analyst who got fired). First I was wondering if you had a reference for the analyst that got fired. I hadn't heard that particular instance of (attempted?) abuse. Second I wanted to update the document regarding Apple. Here is their Legal Process Guidelines: http://images.apple.com/privacy/docs/legal-process-guidelines-us.pdf http://images.apple.com/privacy/docs/legal-process-guideline... Third I wanted to share that encrypted communications will not prevent disclosure of customer records pursuant of 18 U.S.C. § 2703(f) (A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication) and a constellation of other laws that require providers of communication, even when encryption is provided by them, to disclose those communications upon request: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703 You will see a strong history of this with encryption laws with telecommunications providers and the Clinton Administration first attempt at using key escrow rather than regulatory measures (and in fact we have seen that telephony data is easy for the government to request).
happyscrappy 12y ago
>However the censorship laws in China only apply to messages that try to gather people for public group actions This level of bullshit is so egregious that you cannot even claim ignorance. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/04/tiananmen-square-online-search-censored http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/04/tiananmen-squar...
- xnull1guest 12y ago
  I'm aware of the Citizen Labs experiments and consider them interesting preliminary results. Given the implications made by more in depth study that supports my assertions, could you reply to the contents of the study I posted specifically or provide one that studies the issue and comes to a different evidence backed conclusion? As far as I can tell the Citizen lab's analysis is much less complete methodologically than Roberts, King, and Pan, importantly is trying to answer a much simpler and narrower question, and furthermore that between the two studies - their findings do not contradict. As far as I can reason the King study puts the Citizen Labs study within the scope of the claims I posted, but perhaps you could enlighten as to why that isn't so? It might also be useful to interject here that the Chinese government does not perform application level censorship itself but uses regulatory agency (vis a vis the Google scenario) to have corporations, with freedom of implementation, censor in the manner the Harvard Study has established.

blisterpeanuts 12y ago

Thanks for an interesting post. Ted Cruz of Texas is one of the few prominent Republicans who opposes NSA surveillance; Marco Rubio of Florida supports it. The Democrats of the Senate recently voted for Obama's reforms of the NSA surveillance, and the Republicans mostly opposed it and blocked passage. I believe, however, that some of the more libertarian minded Republicans like Rand Paul voted against the bill not because they support the NSA, but because they felt the bill didn't go far enough to rein it in and would have created a false calm. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/18/key-gop-senators-oppose-nsa-phone-records-measure/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/18/key-gop-senators-... It's perplexing and frustrating to me, as a fiscal conservative who normally prefers the Republicans (albeit opposed to many of their social policies). I stopped subscribing to the conservative publications Commentary and WSJ because of their pro-NSA stance.

xnull2guest 12y ago
Thank you for replying with your list. I lean away from Cruz myself (not offering a strong enough dissent, a la Rand) but I did find it pleasant to see his SD-226 questioning of the Review Panel. I would note that I also am frustrated in my attempts to find a party and candidates I feel represent me. I wanted to reply to > I suspect that in the near future, the major email providers will offer end-to-end encryption for all their users with no possibility of back doors. The NSA technicians will lose the ability to casually type in a name like "Bill Clinton" and read his email at their leisure (as happened with that analyst who got fired). First I was wondering if you had a reference for the analyst that got fired. I hadn't heard that particular instance of (attempted?) abuse. Second I wanted to update the document regarding Apple. Here is their Legal Process Guidelines: http://images.apple.com/privacy/docs/legal-process-guidelines-us.pdf http://images.apple.com/privacy/docs/legal-process-guideline... Third I wanted to share that encrypted communications will not prevent disclosure of customer records pursuant of 18 U.S.C. § 2703(f) (A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication) and a constellation of other laws that require providers of communication, even when encryption is provided by them, to disclose those communications upon request: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703 You will see a strong history of this with encryption laws with telecommunications providers and the Clinton Administration first attempt at using key escrow rather than regulatory measures (and in fact we have seen that telephony data is easy for the government to request).

happyscrappy 12y ago

>However the censorship laws in China only apply to messages that try to gather people for public group actions This level of bullshit is so egregious that you cannot even claim ignorance. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/04/tiananmen-square-online-search-censored http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/04/tiananmen-squar...

xnull1guest 12y ago
I'm aware of the Citizen Labs experiments and consider them interesting preliminary results. Given the implications made by more in depth study that supports my assertions, could you reply to the contents of the study I posted specifically or provide one that studies the issue and comes to a different evidence backed conclusion? As far as I can tell the Citizen lab's analysis is much less complete methodologically than Roberts, King, and Pan, importantly is trying to answer a much simpler and narrower question, and furthermore that between the two studies - their findings do not contradict. As far as I can reason the King study puts the Citizen Labs study within the scope of the claims I posted, but perhaps you could enlighten as to why that isn't so? It might also be useful to interject here that the Chinese government does not perform application level censorship itself but uses regulatory agency (vis a vis the Google scenario) to have corporations, with freedom of implementation, censor in the manner the Harvard Study has established.