I may be an Apple user who is interested in such movies as the goonies at the matrix but I’m not going to open an Italian restaurant called iBuca. I just don’t feel the article has enough intellectual relevance to be on the front page of happiness
This reminds me of the time that a couple on vacation saw me and made a hand motion and muttered what sounded like nonsense. I saw it out of the corner of my eye and didn’t fully process the visual motion initially (being peripheral) but heard the audio.
At that moment, my hand stumbled and I dropped my brand new phone with case (except screen) onto the pavement, which happened to impact the screen with a rock and cracked it.
While the obvious explanation is that it was due to my own clumsiness along with bad luck, I had the distinct sense that they were experimenting with (what they likely thought of as) voodoo or magic, mind control or influence, etc. It was surreal and all happened in slow motion.
In another incident I was with classmates at a school basketball game on the sidelines. I’m a terrible shot with no shooting ability at all. My classmate quiets everyone down and says “watch this” and throws me the ball. A big group of people in the stands are now focused on me and I chuck the ball at the rim line drive style and sunk it. Everyone erupted.
To this day I’m convinced they said some prayer or otherwise did magic. Group positive energy. Who knows.
Fascinating subject and highly relevant in today’s interconnected world.
Excuse me for being short, but common sense analysis by a technically inclined person results in the nearly undeniable conclusion that fb exceeded reasonable monopolistic boundaries long ago, and presumed itself to be, under Zuck’s leadership, to be so important as to be responsible, e.g. for “maintaining integrity of elections”. It’s no exaggeration that he fancies himself the leader of a sovereign nation, backed by an army of lawyers and special interest connections private and government.
In public testimony, imo Zuck came across as a smug mob boss intent on accumulating power without bound. The recent pivoting, conspiracy theory rumors that shall remain nameless accusing Zuck of rogue cia cooperation, news releases about criminal shenanigans surrounding data sharing coinciding with the excessive global downtime yesterday, and now his consligere departing, all look suspicious.
At the least, it’s an obvious monopoly controlling a significant cultural aspect of a global social graph. Now they are moving to undo the messaging unification. Last week they wanted gossipers to have more privacy so they can gossip and get away with it better.
I admit to being biased, but given my direct research on how data moves around the Facebook world whether a member or not, whether you have blacklisted any fb domains using little snitch etc, disable all remote js, doesn’t matter, they keep tabs on you somehow. they are essentially their own intelligence community with unchecked power and reach
The accusation from Voldemort is they had or have secret deals with telcom etc which if true is beyond insidious. Ianal but common sense wise if that’s true, they should be broken up and not simply by undoing messaging unification.
Doesn’t their world class team make such a long outage to be quite unlikely? How hard would it be to devote ample resources to a cover story for the “incident report”? Is the timing relative to the plethora of indictments relevant at all? Reasonable that this may be related to shredding of data and/or code, or even a cooperation to turn over data to government in secret deal?
Considering they are accused of broad criminal activity, your statement should be considered a valid expression of public opinion on the matter, and should not be downvoted.
My response was in consideration of the points here.
Snowden, one of his goals, besides defecting to Russia, was to “start the conversation”. The rumor is that have been involved with shadow brokers btw
If your boss came to you and said, by law, we need to build crypto with an evolved key escrow system that overcomes the security problems noted by IEEE and others, could you do it? Would you do it? Easy to say “no way, it can’t be done” with or without some type of bias towards a desire for perfectly strong encryption, but again I suspect that it is possible to build such a thing, if it doesn’t exist already.
This comment now has a reply button. Another comment about “good old fashioned troll” was made close by, but there isn’t a reply button:
No, you’re right. I’m not an expert and maybe I’m wrong. Just seems possible to build a better mouse trap here. I couldn’t build it, you’re right. Wish I had such skills. But I’ve looked into the topic and bit and noodled with crypto as a user and in principle it should be possible to build a skeleton key crypto system that isn’t much less secure. Just seems that way to me. Non expert guess.
I’m sure such tech could be evolved to solve the spof key issue (wouldn’t want your skeleton key leaking) for instance
Replying to onlydeadhorses post with overtones of ad hominem:
Stop assuming what I do or don’t know or can do, have done etc. Have you identified me?
The issue of making crypto “less secure” isn’t anywhere near the deal that some academics are making it out to be.
I’m just a user, not going to implement crypto. Someone else can solve such problems. Make crypto that has a secure skeleton key system that respects privacy without reducing security. “Make up for it” by making it twice as slow maybe, just an idea
You’re plainly biased against my position and ventured towards an attack. Let’s not, please.
The stuff I was reading made it clear that current skeleton key systems don’t suffer from greatly reduced security by any stretch. but still have a chain of custody system / spof issues. I’m sure something much more clever that respects privacy and solves those issues is possible
Since I’m the one out of your league, can you and your colleagues work on it
I didn’t make that claim. Obviously there’s a small trade off that is practically irrelevant, you can optimize so that the trade off doesn’t make it practically much less secure, make up for it elsewhere
It’s conceivable to make a skeleton key system that doesn’t change the surface area of attack that much. Such a system can respect the right to privacy, while allowing for a way to police child predators.
Too bad you met some snooty NSA employees. You could report them if you think they aren’t trustworthy to do sigint.
Intelligence officers not aristocrats although I do believe the current reality does reflect the characterization you have presented . There’s definitely a complex system of people with money power intelligence at war
The math problem is why it’s imperative to indoctrinate our best and brightest to fight for the greater good, and in regard to the power vacuum surrounding that unavoidable math reality
I also support our government going after people making secure communication devices intended to circumvent government controls, too much at stake
Sure you cannot stop evil person with textbook and initiative but you can do the best you can
related: Lack of Forfeiture mechanism is one instance of a deficiency with mainstream cryptocurrencies
Going forward, cops breaking the law will be an anachronism. Record keeping of human society will only perpetuate and render privacy obsolete.
You could grow the notion of comparmentalized information in such a society to create a kind of decentralized system of checks and balances. Eg you see footage with faces hidden and review the morals, vote etc
Could even crowd source such a thing. Surely, related AI efforts are in progress, for better or worse, e.g. FBIC (Facebook intelligence community) info gathering mechanisms
The law itself could eventually evolve to be more dynamic, decentralized
Money talks, if they paid him enough they could buy his loyalty
Similar parallels exist in many walks of life. Those guarding assets need incentives to be loyal
In a case of a potentially bad actor/blackest hat, you make them an offer they can’t refuse. Take lots of money and stay quiet, or we will unleash our government pit bulls.
I freely admitted that breaking the law is an appropriate means to an end in some cases. Again imo. Unchecked civil forfeiture was not part of my argument.
I disagree that common people should have perfectly secure comm technology.
Putting away meth dealers supercedes strict adherence to the constitution, by far, IMO, even if the police have to break the law to put the bad guys away. (Parallel reconstruction etc)
The founding fathers didn’t have any conception for our information society. Extra judicial activity, With the corresponding regulatory body, is necessary to maintain parity with a morphing technological society