snakeanus

> it's just deliberately not easy

And thus crippled and useless against state attackers.

I fail to see the reason why my browser refuses to let me "pin" a CA only for certain sites for example.

I would assume that more than 0.001% of the people use the Tor browser.

It would be nice if they would drop the account system and just let the users post their comments signed by their private key if they want to associate a comment with themselves or their persona. It would also be nice if they supported NNTP for commenting and reading comments.

Moreover I think that it would be great if it worked without any js (or if at least worked with addons like librejs) - knowing mozilla however they will probably not care about these.

He also played a big part in ITS, the lisp machines and published multiple papers on Lisp, AI, and CS. Unlike Jobs and Gates he made actual contributions to the whole field.

> RMS? really?

Yes, Jobs and Gates can't even compare to him.

> Code style

How is that an issue in this day and age? Just run astyle or indent.

The characters are supposed to grow along with the audience in the Harry Potter to my knowledge.

> But a backdoor is not necessary

> the company gets an all-access pass to every corner of a user’s computer network, including all applications, files and emails.

Isn't that a possible definition of a backdoor?

> is waging a cyberwar

Cyberwar is a codeword for "I have no idea what I am talking about".

> I hope to amend it to ban Kaspersky software from all of the federal government.

They should ban all proprietary software instead, that way they will avoid the NSA backdoors as well.

Nobody sane would ever trust a non-FOSS security software and expect it not to have backdoors.

If they did that because they lost trust in the reddit administration then I think that a distributed approach would be much more fitting instead of making yet another reddit clone. In fact, NNTP would be probably exactly what they want.

This is why we need microkernels.

Try using umatrix.

DDoSing is not hacking by any definition.

You were harmed in the real world by being robbed at gunpoint. This is nothing like what I am arguing.

> that the distribution of those images in itself causes harm.

How do they know that the distribution of these images took place? How did that even affect them in their life?

I honestly doubt that this is the case - and even then it would be only an argument against distributing it, not watching it.

> I can drain your bank accounts by hacking you, how is that not actual harm?

One would need to be extremely irresponsible in order to let themselves be hacked. I would consider it as a punishment and a lesson more than anything.

In any case, this does not directly cause harm in the real world - you would not be able to make money disappear out of your home for example.

> If you leave your door unlocked, that doesn't mean it's OK for me to come in and steal your TV.

It's only the combination of the two (virtual world + can be trivially be avoided) that makes it OK.

> So DDoSing a hospital is OK because the computers don't have feelings?

No, we were talking about hacking, not things like DDoSing.

I would support the stance that DDoSing should be illegal because it only causes harm and can't be defended against easily.

Countries like the UK and Canada already consider drawn pornography of characters that look underage illegal. Most Japanese anime and manga pornography (even extremely unrealistic hand-drawn instances of it) is already illegal in these countries, see http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/anime-fan-co... for example.

> I'm able to hack you, therefore there's nothing wrong with doing so?

Yes

> What about in the physical world?

Actions in the physical world actually harm people, something which is not true for the virtual world and can be trivially be avoided.

> I overwhelming majority of child porn sites either require payment

I honestly doubt that but even then the money would go to the site owners, not to child rapists directly. Anyhow, as I said in another post we could simply also hold accountable these who pay for it - after all the act of paying for it would cause the harm, not the data by itself.

> one to provide some child porn of their own as a barrier to entry

Create their own or just post some of what they have collected? Only the first one causes harm.

> the knowledge that their abuse is being watched by people for sexual pleasure all around the world years after it happened is a profound source of psychological trauma

I fail to see how they would know that they are being watched or how watching it being illegal eases their thoughts.

> It harms them.

No, only physical actions like rape could harm them, distributing data on the dark web does not.

> break into systems they don't own

What is wrong with that? The owners of these systems should have made sure that they don't run shitty and (vulnerable/old versions of their) programs.

> On the dark web, you've got DDoS as a service and botnet as a service sites.

These things exist on the normal web as well.

> Consuming a product whose manufacture involved coercion of participants is not a neutral moral choice.

I would claim that it is as long as it harms nobody and as long as it does not benefit the creator.

> There are people who, knowing you are like them and enjoy that sort of thing, will make it for you. To make you happy.

I doubt that anyone would make child pornography in order to satisfy someone else. I would be pretty sure that one would do it either for a huge financial gain, personal satisfaction, or both. The people who upload it for free would still rape children even if they were not able to upload it anywhere. Considering that I would say that this argument is even worse than saying that the media should stop reporting terrorist attacks to disencourage the terrorists from performing terrorist acts (assuming that they do it for personal fame or to scare people).

The first could be solved by catching people who are buying and selling. However none of these can be solved by catching people who simply watch or distribute but do not create nor buy child pornography - catching them would be arresting them for a thoughtcrime.

How so?

There are a few GNU social instances which provide tor access. There are also a few legal imageboards and forums that one could use. As for email, is it possible to even send an email via tor? If so that would be really cool.

The act of creating them is bad, the porn itself is not. It's just data that harms nobody.

Only if you use the same keys.

> Investigators said content stored on the encrypted hard drive matched file hashes for known child pornography content

How on earth is this supposed to work? Unless they can decrypt the hard drives I am pretty sure that this is impossible to deduce.

Maybe he used freenet or something in his unencrypted hard drive?

What is wrong with UB? Just take it to mean "not allowed".

Yes, they do https://libreboot.org/faq.html#amd. They even said recently that they are not planing to letting you disable it/remove it/share the source of it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14803373.

Ironically enough, using an Intel processor with ME cleaner is more free than using an AMD processor.