|
It doesn't sound stupid at all. I'm sure you already know this but the US government already tracks large cash transactions that involve banks, especially withdrawals, and of course there is the issue of civil forfeiture that is already a mess in and of itself. Even cash isnt foolproof. I wonder how long an end to end encrypted peer to peer pay service would fly before the government shut for facilitating terrorism or whatever.
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 10:17 |
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:It doesn't sound stupid at all. I'm sure you already know this but the US government already tracks large cash transactions that involve banks, especially withdrawals, and of course there is the issue of civil forfeiture that is already a mess in and of itself. Even cash isnt foolproof. I wonder how long an end to end encrypted peer to peer pay service would fly before the government shut for facilitating terrorism or whatever. How could you even accomplish P2P payment processing without it being something like Bitcoin?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
Dubstep Jesus posted:How could you even accomplish P2P payment processing without it being something like Bitcoin? Getting funds in and out is really the only hurdle I see, technically. Legally, how long it will fly is a whole other can of worms. Edit: making the base assumption of no international transactions to avoid currency issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Getting funds in and out is really the only hurdle I see, technically. Legally, how long it will fly is a whole other can of worms. You don't see the problem with actually successfully encrypting transactions related to real world goods and services in a way that a state level entity can't monitor?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You don't see the problem with actually successfully encrypting transactions related to real world goods and services in a way that a state level entity can't monitor? Why can't a state entity monitor it? Inter-bank traffic is often encrypted, and regulatory agencies don't rely on breaking that crypto to do their jobs. Not that the contents of a blockchain need be encrypted at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Why can't a state entity monitor it? Inter-bank traffic is often encrypted, and regulatory agencies don't rely on breaking that crypto to do their jobs. Not that the contents of a blockchain need be encrypted at all. Because the thing he's after is the state not being able to monitor your purchases.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Because the thing he's after is the state not being able to monitor your purchases. Oh, indeed. Yeah, no, no bueno. Though prototype have been built, I believe by Chaum and Brands, that approximate this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You don't see the problem with actually successfully encrypting transactions related to real world goods and services in a way that a state level entity can't monitor? Which part are you referring to? I can think of 3 off the top of my head...
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Which part are you referring to? I can think of 3 off the top of my head... Then state them. See the thing is that a state actor can always be assumed to be capable of tracking things that actually move about in public, allowing tracking of purchases and most physical services. No fancy payment system is going to be able to make up for that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Taxation, contraband, and money laundering.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Taxation, contraband, and money laundering. And your system avoids/supports those in ways a powerful state can't defeat how, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
You are reading way too much into what started out as a "what if" statement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:You are reading way too much into what started out as a "what if" statement. Just because you didn't put any thought into it, it's no reason that other people shouldn't as well. The very idea of having any sort of currency system which can be used for day to day living but can't have the transactions monitored by a US level state entity is kind of absurd, without also having things like star trek replicators such that objects don't need to be physically moved to support it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The very idea of having any sort of currency system which can be used for day to day living but can't have the transactions monitored by a US level state entity is kind of absurd Cash?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Cash? Cash transactions can be monitored - whether by the plainest system of simply having a cop or other informer tailing you, or by use of CCTV, banks reporting serials from deposits done by suspects, etc. Some regular guy can't effectively do it, but if a modern large state wants to they totally can.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Cash transactions can be monitored - whether by the plainest system of simply having a cop or other informer tailing you, or by use of CCTV, banks reporting serials from deposits done by suspects, etc. Some regular guy can't effectively do it, but if a modern large state wants to they totally can. This would explain why the government trojan on my computer goes nuts whenever I want to fire up the ol' buttcoin. As does the informant who watches over my shoulder while I  , of course.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Microsoft is suing the U.S. Justice Department, asking a federal judge to declare unconstitutional a provision of U.S. law that lets the government keep Microsoft and other tech companies from informing their customers when investigators seek access to emails and other cloud data. The suit, filed moments ago in U.S. District Court in Seattle, targets Section 2705(b) of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which allows the government to seek and obtain secrecy orders preventing companies from letting their customers know when their data is the target of a federal warrant, subpoena or court order. Brad Smith, Microsoft's president and chief legal officer, recently criticized the 30-year-old Electronic Communications Privacy Act as outdated during his testimony in February before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee -- bringing along IBM's first laptop, released the same year, to help illustrate his point. http://www.geekwire.com/2016/microsoft-sues-u-s-justice-dept-asks-courts-declare-secrecy-orders-unconstitutional/
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
I was just about to come post that. Here's the WSJ take on it, relevant part quoted: http://www.wsj.com/articles/microsoft-sues-justice-department-over-secret-customer-data-searches-1460649720 quote:The outcome of those efforts may hinge on how courts interpret a legal theory, known as the third-party doctrine, in the cloud era, said Neil Richards, a professor of law at Washington University. That theory holds that people who voluntarily give information to third parties, such as banks or phone companies, have no reasonable expectation of privacy. In the Microsoft case, courts must decide whether storing emails, documents and photos in the company’s data centers is tantamount to handing physical copies to a third party, or whether it is more similar to stashing that information in a customer’s own filing cabinet. This will take forever to wind through the courts, but the real goal seems to be (as with the iPhone case) to press Congress to update legislation. I'd bet most legislators are reluctant to do so, however, because while they want to support law enforcement, they don't want to piss off their constituents. I did think this quote was pretty choice, however: quote:“Prior to 2014, a lot of the companies weren’t adversaries. Then it became a business decision to be less friendly to law enforcement,’’ said Terry Cunningham, president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. After the Snowden reveals and the resulting press about not just NSA spying, but the various courts and methods different agencies use to gather information from and about citizens, is it any wonder that corporations are backing away from cooperating with the government? Those reveals pissed off a LOT of people in this country, it's only prudent to listen to your customers before the government - one of them spends money, the other one extracts it from you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Those reveals pissed off a LOT of people in this country Did they though? The overwhelming majority of my friends think I'm just being paranoid when I talk about privacy and have the attitudes of "I'm not a criminal so I don't have anything to hide" and "if you don't want your nude photos hacked don't take nude photos."
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:Did they though? The overwhelming majority of my friends think I'm just being paranoid when I talk about privacy and have the attitudes of "I'm not a criminal so I don't have anything to hide" and "if you don't want your nude photos hacked don't take nude photos." At the moment, yeah. These days, I think it's mostly forgotten. People have short memories when it comes to that kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:At the moment, yeah. These days, I think it's mostly forgotten. People have short memories when it comes to that kind of thing. Mainly because it's truly irrelevant to their lives. Even people who are interested in this stuff have near-completely forgotten everyone before Snowden, after all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Surveillance is an abstract concept to most people until they find out they are personally involved. It's just really hard to make the case to everyone when their own personal "I'd rather that not be know to a 3rd party" is very different. Theres also a sense of privacy erosion; if FB/Google already know everything and I keep using them, what's the harm if the government also knows?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
As seen in the security fuckup megathread in YOSPOS:Vice News posted:A high-level surveillance probe of Montreal's criminal underworld shows that Canada's federal policing agency has had a global encryption key for BlackBerry devices since 2010. https://news.vice.com/article/exclusive-canada-police-obtained-blackberrys-global-decryption-key-how
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
The warrant that brought down child pornography site Playpen got tossed, apparently. quote:For the first time, a judge has thrown out evidence obtained via a piece of FBI malware. The move comes from a cased affected by the FBI's seizure of a dark web child pornography site in February 2015, and the subsequent deployment of a network investigative technique (NIT)—the agency's term for a hacking tool—in order to identify the site's visitors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
Oh yeah, that was the one where the FBI continued to run a child porn site for a week as a trap. Gross.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Oh yeah, that was the one where the FBI continued to run a child porn site for a week as a trap. Gross. That is standard practice and has been for about as long as the web has existed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:Did they though? The overwhelming majority of my friends think I'm just being paranoid when I talk about privacy and have the attitudes of "I'm not a criminal so I don't have anything to hide" and "if you don't want your nude photos hacked don't take nude photos." Just ask them to give you their computers/email accounts with all the passwords and see how they react. Use the same lines "if you have nothing to hide what are you worried about?" Then ask for all their bank logins, you can see how much money they make, what they are buying, etc. Eventually you'd be able to predict what they are going to do if you find a pattern on their habits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:Did they though? The overwhelming majority of my friends think I'm just being paranoid when I talk about privacy and have the attitudes of "I'm not a criminal so I don't have anything to hide" and "if you don't want your nude photos hacked don't take nude photos." Fried Watermelon posted:Just ask them to give you their computers/email accounts with all the passwords and see how they react. Use the same lines "if you have nothing to hide what are you worried about?" I'd say this comes down to a conflating of The State and The Nation. People think that their elected government protects their interests as a body of people, a nation, when mostly the government protects its own interests as a state (in terms of economic policy and control of foreign/domestic use of force) and furthers the interests of a few key constituents using The Nation as an excuse to exercise authority. GutBomb's friends would object to someone they 'know' looking at their photos and asking for personal data because they identify with the abstract concept of state authority more than they do those flesh/blood people that surround them. Advanced capitalism has led to an overly freakish individualist course of life that disconnects us from our immediate fellows in exchange for protection from the abstract state. That is, they feel like it's safer to be judged by an all powerful invisible force than by their neighbor. So, I guess it's rather dogmatic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
BeanpolePeckerwood posted:
I hear what you are saying. Do people not understand that the government and corporations are made up of people just like anyone else? Depending on your country, corporations are literally the government, and they have all your info. It's very disheartening trying to explain that maybe people don't have your best interests in mind, when all through life we are taught to trust authority and the government. You'd think that the public would get their act together what with all these recent leaks and scandals but meh
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Fried Watermelon posted:I hear what you are saying. They unironically trust Officer Bob or Sergeant Jim or some anonymous spy dude more than some random person they know, like you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
First the FBI, now the DOJ has also dropped its attempt to force Apple to unlock an iPhone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Supreme Court issues ruling that allows judges to issue warrants outside their jurisdiction.quote:Under Rule 41’s current incarnation, federal magistrate judges can typically only authorize searches and seizures within their own jurisdiction. Only in a handful of circumstances can judges approve a warrant that reaches beyond their territory—if, for example, they allow federal agents to use a tracking device that could move through multiple judicial districts. I'm just getting up to speed on this one, but my biggest concern is about how transparent (or not) the warrant process will be - will it be via FISC or other secret court? Will it be discoverable if a warrant is used to find a suspect, and can that evidence be brought to light? I haven't thought through the broader implications (for instance, if the FBI tracks a suspect to a foreign country, who is responsible for surveillance and apprehension?) but the point is, in completely unsurprising news, the FBI continues to seek additional authority in any way it can get it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
The Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Court rejected, in whole or in part, not a single one of the U.S. government's 1,457 requests in 2015 for electronic surveillance orders granted for foreign intelligence purposes. (And modified 80.) Exactly what this means is unclear, but hey, it's the latest DOJ report where they tell you lots of numbers about how much they issue NSLs and whatnot, panic to the degree you desire or not at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
This article is long, but worth reading. Snowden wasn't the first whistleblower punished - but the system designed to protect whistleblowers seems to be fundamentally broken. It does get a little histrionic at times, and like anything else this will get dragged out until nobody remembers what it was even about to begin with, but it's pretty damning if true.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
The UK's Investigatory Powers Bill has passed the House of Commons, 444-69.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
Not sure if entirely the proper thread for it but- Jacob Appelbaum, high-profile actor/figurehead in Snowden leaks, journalism and speaking at security conferences etc. is being made to actually be 'queer-anarchist bill cosby' and is being exhumed from multiple communities as of the last few days after wide and deep allegations against him that frankly seem more substantive than what we even know against Assange just without the criminal investigation/extradition stuff. Multiple people over years claiming alleged sex abuse as well as flatly sociopathic behaviour- he has been booted out of TOR Project, taken off advisory boards, Laura Poitras is officially distancing him from their recent film which he starred in. This was the guy who was Wikileaks first public American connection/assistant, has spoken many key conference talks and stuff that are some of the most widely shared/viewed in terms of this whole issue. inb4 this is a NSA op etc., but honestly as someone very passionate about the TOR projects ideals/ who used to really look up to this guy it is a bit flattening. He is a grose entitled jerk but also again highlights problems with wanting 'heroes' / 'celebrity' / 'figureheads' etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
From what I've heard from other people involved in Tor and similar projects, Jacob has a bad habit of grossly overexaggerating what he actually does. Like even before getting kicked out of many of the projects, he would go years between actually committing useful code, etc. Internal to the various projects, people have been sick of him for a while.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
fishmech posted:From what I've heard from other people involved in Tor and similar projects, Jacob has a bad habit of grossly overexaggerating what he actually does. Like even before getting kicked out of many of the projects, he would go years between actually committing useful code, etc. Internal to the various projects, people have been sick of him for a while. This is entirely believable but still as a reasonably critical (I try at least...) observer over the internet he was regularly on keynote talks, popular panel discussions, used as a technical adviser. I have watched 3-4 different talks where he was a main speaker pretty much set up to give the "big picture" on global surveillance and the NSA with a charismatic presentation (now- its clear- lots of stuff is coming out about his terrible alleged behavior at these conferences). It was clear he had a more 'evangelist' 'talking person' 'communicator' stuff role for a few years but the positions he was given still gave a reasonable inference he was an accepted, respected, contributing member of the community. He has been published in more likely to be read by a wider audience book formats. This makes it all the worse he turns out to be an abusive creep. I mean gently caress I bought Laura Poitras's book with his chapter in it and now I feel jipped. To rephrase: More regular people couldn't give much crap about whether someone 'hasn't pushed a commit in years' or 'had a patch accepted'. Who is the face of an issue? Who is advocating it? This matters just as much if its a political issue and a technical one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
Jacobin posted:now I feel jipped. I don't know that word, what does it mean?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 10:17 |
|
|
The Real Foogla posted:I don't know that word, what does it mean? its actually spelled "gypped" and its a racist term that means "defrauded" or "swindled"
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 06:45
|
|
