HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

⬐ ignoramous

Tech discussion begins at 14:00.

At 21:00 [0] Snowden calls for [developers to build] smartphone tools to let users take control of their devices (wouldn't be for the first time). While a no-root, user-space firewall can only do so much (Daniel Micay will attest to that [1] :), that's what we are building with RethinkDNS (https://github.com/celzero/rethink-app) for Android phones, picking up where WhisperSystems left off [2]. This other complementary Android app (doesn't require root, but does require "developer mode" turned on) I use, gives a lot more control over installed apps and its components (no so much over the device's network itself): https://github.com/MuntashirAkon/AppManager

While Google continues to make significant improvements [3], security-focused Android distributions like CalyxOS and Graphene remain the best avenues to tackle privacy concerns today, but most of the 2B+ Android users don't really want to root devices let alone flash ROMs. Most Chinese OEMs (Vivo, Oppo, OnePlus, Realme, Xiaomi) do bundle in (pretty decent though limited) firewalls but they do not let one visualize or block individual network requests.

It'd be quite sometime before the Android/Fuchsia-iOS duopoly is displaced from its perch, but technology-wise, my longer-term hopes are pinned on Linux-based phones (PINE64, Librem) for now.

Of course, laws and regulations upholding digital privacy are the real end-game, and it remains to be seen how much headway is made on that front in the coming decade.

[0] https://youtu.be/e9yK1QndJSM?t=1261

[1] https://github.com/GrapheneOS/os-issue-tracker/issues/389

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20110506050715/http://www.whispe...

[3] https://security.googleblog.com/search/label/android

Well, he defected. Please understand I'm trying to understand him better myself, because his actions don't match the high-minded platitudes he claims to espouse: he didn't file a lawsuit, write criticism of his bosses, policies, etc, run for congress or started lobbying to improve the system. He bypassed all those mechanisms and dumped programs. We can't have the public oversee every method to gather information, or it wouldn't be very effective.

And judging by the posts/comments I read on here and news sites, I'm not sure people understand the difference between information gathering, criminal investigations, and consumer / medical / etc. privacy. Don't you think it'd be better to agree on a common ground that these are different purposes before engaging in a dialectic on it?

I bring up him having workplace / life stress, because he's human. He fits a model very similar to traitors who worked for their gov that spied for other countries, except he replaced his handler was a journalist. What he says here is spooky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9yK1QndJSM&t=70

Put is this way: Why should I get my safety as a US person put at risk so someone can publicize their story that someone leaked something again? In that video at 1:00. He's trying to make it so classification basically no longer has meaning, if they defect to a journalist.

> Besides the unconstitutionality of inwards-facing spying it is also a red herring.

I'd think a normal person would expect that: if you're a national, your government should be protecting you, not targeting you with those tools. Unless it's your intent to destroy it somehow.

For the sake of encouraging understanding: I think constitution is used as a way to imply subjectivity of what feels right. Unless you have court decisions to mention. The constitution hasn't been updated much and the case law is porous. Example: Unopened email after a certain time is treated as abandoned.

Don't you think the policies around the use of the data gathering tool / method is more important than the tool existing or not? Based on how Snowden evangelization goes: if we took its philosophy to its logical end, people will just leak every source / method, the system will never improve, and it wouldn't be very safe for us!

⬐ jigglesniggle

People stood up to the warrant-less searches but were disposed of one way or another. A good example is the Qwest CEO: he wasn't killed, but he was jailed after acting in his own self interest after his company was ruined.

There are occurrences that are less clear cut but still suspicious and that involve long prison terms or death.

>Put is this way: Why should I get my safety as a US person put at risk so someone can publicize their story that someone leaked something again? In that video at 1:00. He's trying to make it so classification basically no longer has meaning, if they defect to a journalist.

You're wanting to trade freedom for security. I disagree that that is a good idea. You also do not know that he is trying to do that; certainly he has not stated as such.

He exposed high crimes. That is why people think he should not suffer punishment.

>For the sake of encouraging understanding: I think constitution is used as a way to imply subjectivity of what feels right.

That is true in the sense that all laws are only what "feels" right. There is a long history of the US federal government twisting laws to give the federal government more power.

It really feels like you're trolling, the last statement does not seem to follow any way I try to read it.

I can acknowledge that yes, there are people out there who want to kill you and take your stuff. Defunding the defense apparatus of the US is not a valid solution. But neither is the status quo.

⬐ extra88

> Well, he defected.

No he didn’t. He was passing through Russia when the U.S. cancelled his passport and they pressured other countries to deny him asylum.

⬐ no_opinions

That's not what I'm saying, the leaking to a journalist is the defection.

The leaker is on the best behavior to impress their new handler. They're suckers and getting played.

An analogy to what Snowden did: How would you feel if you had a significant other that promised themselves to you, but behind your back, connected with someone else, some jester/stranger/charlatan. Hurtfully, you find they were eager to move mountains for them, and all the while criticizing your mere existence as a person. It'd be safe to say they've broke their vow, even though they haven't officially acknowledged yet.

I highly recommend watching his interview with Brian Williams from 3 days ago[0].

His answers to Williams’ questions are incredibly compelling and very fascinating. He explains in detail why he did exactly what he did, how he evades surveillance in Russia, why he won’t come home, among other issues. His one condition for returning home was a trial by jury, which DOJ wouldn’t give him.

He’s incredibly confident that he would be found innocent in a jury trial, pointing out that DOJ has had six years to dig up and leak anything they could find on him, and yet they haven’t. In addition, the programs he blew the whistle on were shut down after their disclosure, indicating that he was justified in bringing them to the public’s attention.

I can’t recommend actually listening to him enough instead of reading his words. He’s an incredible speaker who makes a very compelling argument around his current situation.

0: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e9yK1QndJSM

⬐ khuey

It's not that he wants a jury trial, which is guaranteed to him by the Bill of Rights, but that he wants to make a "my actions were in the public interest" defense which is not allowed.

⬐ save_ferris

He explicitly states in the interview that he wants a jury trial because his charges under FISA jurisdiction and can only be adjudicated via a judge, no jury.

⬐ duxup

I think he can say that.

But yeah as far as a legal mechanism the jury can't say "well he met the requirements of public interest and the law says that means he's innocent / should go free".

⬐ lurker458

the legal mechanism does exist, it's called Jury Nullification

⬐ whamlastxmas

The jury can. It's called jury nullification. The problem is most juries aren't aware of this and feel compelled to follow the court's instructions on the matter. Which is why Snowden feels disadvantaged