DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
25% Positive
Analyzed from 1856 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#groups#antifa#leader#capitalism#tools#system#doesn#hosting#government#problem
Discussion (69 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
ignoring the political leanings, this type of rhetoric will certainly be used to further the campaign against encryption, bolster the case for id verification requirements, etc. it paints the use of everyday normal tools: email, web hosting, etc. as inherently bad if they are private.
the announcement specifically calls out "encrypted chats and email" and implies that it's a bad thing because it is private
"We're murdering people and they have the audacity to organise against us"!
That's what DHS does. They dish it out but can't handle it when it's done to them. Cowards.
Still, it seems like this would likely to be protected under the US first amendment, and it would probably be reasonable to bring legal action in the US to avoid silly stuff happening in Europe, when this in inevitably used to send goons and annoying infiltrators across the sea to Italy and Europe.
I've written up a little toy in Erlang where you have lots of connections to peers and send dummy messages, all of the same size, to all your peers continuously and then, because of this, you can obviously send a message to whoever you like without anyone being able to know to whom you sent it. With a bit of extra delay you can add retransmission, and then you can have huge networks. Complete resistance to traffic analysis.
The only thing you need to accept to have this kind of security is to accept that message timing might be 1/s, or 0.1/s, but for things like e-mail that isn't a problem at all.
My system is not done. I had intended to finish it if ChatControl 2.0 passed, but since it didn't, and there's upon that a war on I didn't put it out, and I thought it was a bad idea to popularize this kind of thing since there was a war on, but it's quite straightforward. Many here could probably write something like it.
(This is also why law enforcement concerns about encryption are overblown.)
Imo people often make the wrong tradeoff here. If the government really wants something jurisdictional questions will not stop them. You're actually inviting them to just steal it at that point.
Better to keep things in the US where there will at least be a clear paper trail. And instead of wasting money on non-aligned infra budget for a half decent lawyer. American companies and citizens will have an easier time holding the American government accountable than "non-aligned" hosts. The current administration in particular is routinely embarrassed in the courts.
Sometimes I read about left wing civic groups and their privacy efforts and it feels delusional. You would think many of them would relish a paper trail of persecution and the publicity of a victorious court battle. The US government will not be deterred because you are hosting something in Europe or your homegrown service. It's really a bit of a joke to think so.
Plus what do you think is going to happen in two years? It feels like now is the time to lean into being on the shit list (if you can manage it - most of them are so ineffective they barely even register) so you can benefit when the tables turn in two years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberterrorism
Nor are a bunch of small groups a single "organization" if they don't have some kind of ongoing, systemematic structure for coordinating their actions.
I'm an atheist. That doesn't make atheism an organization.
Maybe an ideology doesn't need headquarters or a leader.
"Nazi" does not have a leader, but the Nazi party had a leader. Atomwaffen had a leader. Various III% groups have leaders. Strangely, these groups are not being linked to foreign right-wing groups in an attempt to make them illegal.
The lack of designated leader doesn't mean that they get a pass and can continue to commit homicide attempts against their designated ennemies, or journalists they don't like.
It's part of their strategy, just like they manage to have 10 persons to light up and throw a molotov cocktail during protests to avoid personal responsibility.
"Antifa" is not being presented as an ideology, it is being portrayed as a global terror cell. The specific purpose for this is to be able criminalize leftist politics, since the state has many more tools to prevent association with foreign groups.
"Nazi" does not have a leader, but the Nazi party had a leader. Atomwaffen had a leader. Various III% groups have leaders. Strangely, these groups are not being linked to foreign right-wing groups in an attempt to make them illegal.
US sanctions Italian hosting provider for encrypted email to Antifa and PKK
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49451343
The state needs to get involved to protect the unworkable system.
Even the communist regime persecuted anarchism. (though they supported it when it was not at home, as a destabilizing tool)
(though unconstrained capitalism is not ideal)
> unworkable system
? unconstrained pure capitalism has bad effects, but it is not unworkable unlike say pure communism applied at scale larger than a family
No, it demonstrably doesn’t. The countries that have the least problems with the issues I mentioned are ones that combine market economics with socialist approaches.
In many ways, those countries are closer to market socialism than they are to pure capitalism.
Also, the US’s historical use of socialism and communism as a bogeyman is starting to look less defensible as China succeeds while the US is failing, and actually doing all the immoral things it used to accuse its opponents of.
Anyway, wouldn't be a day ending in -y if this presidency wasn't yelling about "far-left terrorists".