- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
There’s a great (and short) video about encryption back-doors by CGP Grey: “Should all locks have keys? Phones, Castles, Encryption, and You.” (Piped link).
“No matter how much we might wish it, there’s no way to build a digital lock that only angels can open and demons cannot. Anyone saying otherwise is either ignorant of the mathematics or less of an angel than they appear.”
EDIT: I still hate you Piped bot.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
“Should all locks have keys? Phones, Castles, Encryption, and You.”
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
It’s ok PipedBot, I will always love you.
Even more generally than that, remember that daemons are fallen angels and that same thing happens outside the metaphorical world.
So even if the mathematics allowed it, once something is out and being use with backdoored encryption sooner or later the “bad guys” will have the means to use it if only because of human nature.
This article touches on three distinct issues. The first one is the misguided legislators who hope to get more accountability from tech companies (or to punish them) by creating encryption back-doors and restrictions. That part is worth reading and spreading, regardless of whether Signal is your tool of choice.
I certainly agree with a lot of that analysis. I also worry how signal continue to fund their app sustainably without compromising their users.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/824506840
Not a huge issue right now, but it will probably an issue in the future
I donate monthly, and hope other privacy minded users consider doing it too
Same here. I do $5 a month. Seems very doable for a lot of people.
deleted by creator
Cute that you think they don’t. This is what it looks like
deleted by creator
She got a great hair
And leggings
Nice socks lol
so hawt
How about we cut back on the misogyny.
Technically not misogyny—just good ol’ fashioned objectification.
IDK, I wouldn’t say calling someone hot is even objectification. You can respect someone who you consider smart and there dimensional and also think they’re hot.
I’d say it’s just inappropriate.
I agree he said it in the wrong way, but is now misogyny to acknoledge that in addition to being really smart she is also a nice looking woman ?
It is wrong, because it’s makes it uncomfortable for women to be in power, or in the public eye.
Every time we allow it, it normalizes the problem, and perpetuates it.She’s out there trying to make it harder for governments and corporations to abuse our personal data. We want to uplift THAT message, not reduce it to a discussion about her appearance.
It is wrong, because it’s makes it uncomfortable for women to be in power, or in the public eye. Every time we allow it, it normalizes the problem, and perpetuates it.
I don’t really think that woman in power positions or in the public eye are that easily offended by a compliment (or an insult).
She’s out there trying to make it harder for governments and corporations to abuse our personal data. We want to uplift THAT message, not reduce it to a discussion about her appearance.
I get that. I only said that maybe to call misogyny a compliment on the look of a woman on top of all her other qualities maybe it too much. “she is really smart” and “she is nice looking” are not mutually exclusive in a discussion.
1 - It’s not just about HER. It’s all the other women who see her and see what’s actually being discussed in public about her.
2 - It’s NOT A COMPLIMENT. She’s not looking at this thread and saying “wow, I’m glad that dude thinks I’m kind of hot.” it’s a whole group of people having a discussion about a very important product on the market, and someone trying to start a side conversation about appearance. It has no business being in this thread, and it makes half the population less welcoming to the discussion.
