Apparently challenging the uncritical liberal hive mind doesn't indulge your intellectual curiosity. It's better to just shout down views that make you uncomfortable. Didn't realize HN was intended to be a safe space.
And no substantive response to the clear evidence of media collusion has been given. Instead I've been attacked personally, flagged, and voted down so as to disappear.
Edit:
Try getting not your high horse.
The OP of this thread is dead, and what exactly did that comment do to generate so much hate besides suggest this move of including more media wasn't the end of world?
Because the traditional media has been completely unbias and fair in their coverage so far?
Edit:
There are numerous examples of media bias and actual evidence of media collusion with Clinton and the DMC against Trump. What sort of bizarro world do we live in that people would rather make the truth disappear than acknowledge it?
1, your willingness to whitewash the calculated murder of a civilian journalist is chilling, it's hard to believe you argue in good faith.
2. Clapper lying under oath to Congress, numberous illegal programs under the NSA.
3. Just another isolated example right? Honest mistake, just like the weddings and the explicit double tap strategy that explicitly targets emergency medical responders.
4. Forget about abu ghraib? Just another isolated example... Seeing a pattern here of your refusal to look past the numerous examples, as if you have your head in the sand.
6. Gitmo is the result of our Governments decision to violate the Geneva convention on the handling prisoners of war, the Taliban certainly qualified, but our military industrial complex did the legal contortions of enemy combatants instead. Gitmo existence is a clear war crime.
7. I'd pursue by continuing to respect the rule of law, international law, and our Constitution, apparently trifling concerns to you.
5. Look it up, Obama violated his oath by refusing to execute the law of land against one of the most henious crimes possible.
After some quick reading, [1] a "kill box" is still subject to the standard rules of engagement."
If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. The US military does not in any meaningful sense follow its own rules of engagement, the rule of law, international law, common moral decency. The examples are legion and extremely well documented.
If you still believe the US military obeys the rule of law, international law, common decency, and their own rules of engagement then you have not been paying attention to 1, the Manning leaks, 2 Snowden leaks, 3 recent war crimes involving the bombing of hospitals operated by doctors without boarders, Senate report on torture, Obama refusal to exercise the laws against torture, Gitmo, the 'disposition matrix' aka kill lists without oversight, 'double-taps'. The list so long, extensive, and well documented that I can only question your sincerity.
People should realize that political solutions have failed spectacularly.
Technical solutions are the only possible answer, that and cultural responses.
Vast state surveillance is made possible by technical expertise. We shouldnt laud those who assist the government in this task nor in any tasks. We should shun colleagues who choose to assist the enemies of humanity, those in positions to hire should not hire those with backgrounds in government and make it known through back channels that such people are not desirable, that you will be black balled if choose to assist these heinous entities in their oppression.
Finally those able and willing should consider other methods of raising the cost of state surveillance, but openly recommending such things is potentially a crime in the eyes of the state.
Because once you defunct the bad argument, and concisely prove that arguments from authorizity are illegitimate the next step is to silence the person with force. His comments are dead and they are entirely reasonable.
Look up the history of the argument from authority, it is explicitly used by those in power to reject those not in power. It has nothing to do with whoever claims whether an expertise is legitimate or not.
Edit:
You're right, only one dead comment, the substantive one is just whited out to illegitibility because he dare has the teremity to challenge the crypto experts.
Look, the people who signed the statement make up like 30% of this thread, it's completely rediculous, they are here to control dissent and flag and down vote those who challenge their authority.HN certainly isn't a place to have an open and free discussion when there's such an obvious gap in power and equality between users.
Interesting how the goal posts keep moving, meanwhile I get down votes and my comments are being removed.
Look you're wrong, you're wrong for multiple reasons and this happens all the time, especially in politics, where the so called experts reject the common sense of hobbyists, amateurs, and mere working stiffs like me who is merely a lowly sys admin.
Open source software allows anyone at anytime to conduct a security audit without advanced warning, open source allows you to access server and client side code equally, open source software doesn't require the additional work of de obsuficanting binaries, open source code can be forked and modified and tested easily, there are no additional barriers and anyone can pick it up and do it at any time, that makes open source software inheritly easier to test and verify.
Also large open source projects are more difficult to inflitrate with a back door, all a closed source project needs to do is modify some server side behavior that no one gets to see. Most closed source software lives on closed servers.
Sure closed source programs can be secure, can be trusted, and can be verified, but to pretend it isn't harder, sometimes impossible, and trivial to backdoor is to ignore history and common sense. You're wrong, it's okay to be wrong and if you need to take out your anger by flagging my remarks so they aren't seen then so be it.
Which is exactly the issue? At any time the server can request a key reset and have messages resent. I don't see how it is at all irrelevant since it is exactly what the cause is here.
Apparently some members are more equal than others since if I tried to post a dozen times in this thread I'd be banned. In fact posting this will likely result in flags and a banning.
Keep this in mind, how open and trustworthy can a discussion be when speech is so very privileged between members.
Ah but technology, specifically the technological process may make tools of us yet.
Heidegger's question concerning technology is essential reading, but his basic argument is the technological process subordinates all others to be ends to itself. Notice how people don't so much adapt technology to their needs as adjust their needs to the available technology.