Hacker News Reader

Comment by pfisherman | Hacker News Reader

> If you're sitting in front of a computer that you're using for something the U.S. government has significant interest in prosecuting, that device should be considered compromised and adversarial - you should act accordingly.

I would say that if you are doing something the US government has a significant interest in prosecuting, you might want to reevaluate your life choices and think about whether it is something you ought to be doing in the first place.

I know this is not going to be a hugely popular sentiment on here; but if you are doing something such that the US is going to burn a zero day to get you, the appropriate prior is that you are doing something supremely heinous and evil. You may in fact be on right the side of justice, but you do not get the benefit of the doubt by default.

View on HN

The good, old “If you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide” argument.

Just drop “US” in that statement and then reevaluate it. Then ask yourself why the US should be special in regard to (not) protecting people’s privacy.

Oh, I am well aware that governments have all kinds of unjust laws. I know some ex-Panthers who were on the business end of COINTELPRO. But they were open about what they were doing, and publicly articulated a compelling case for their cause - which was censored. Not to mention they weren’t actually breaking any laws.

Similarly, the public performance of civil disobedience was an integral part what MLK was doing with his civil disobedience.

Again I am not saying that the US government is always right. Just the person who is using Tor to hide illegal activity should not receive the benefit of the doubt.

And the “US” part of my comment is key here. There is a big qualitative difference between the US government and the N Korea government.

> I would say that if you are doing something the US government has a significant interest in prosecuting, you might want to reevaluate your life choices and think about whether it is something you ought to be doing in the first place.

Sounds like the people who ran the Underground Railroad would have had significant thinking to do, by your logic. They probably should have gone home and abided by the law of the land, like the fugitive slave acts and Dred Scott v. Sandford.

To say nothing people living in Iran and China today.

I am pretty sure the people who ran the Underground Railroad thought very long and hard about what they were doing.

I think a much stronger / more contemporary argument for you would be something like facilitating access to abortion for people residing in states where it is now illegal.

But a few questions here. Is something like this an exception rather than the rule? Do you think the FBI would burn a zero day to prosecute someone for this?

doubt it because I suspect the FBI is mostly run by science believing democrats rather than cave dwelling science denying republicans

> the appropriate prior is that you are doing something supremely heinous and evil

Generally speaking I can agree but more specifically cases like Julian Assange come to mind. Certainly there are at least some people who are at risk of this kind of persecution and otherwise not doing something that would so immediately be considered in such a negative light.

Reality Winner is probably a better example since she is a US citizen.

How about ransomware gangs bricking hospital IT infrastructure? Seems like that is a much more common occurrence than the types of examples you are referring to. Hence the appropriate prior - absent evidence to the contrary - is that someone is doing heinous shit.

Fair points. I appreciate the nuance you bring up.

> but if you are doing something such that the US is going to burn a zero day to get you, the appropriate prior is that you are doing something supremely heinous and evil.

Or, you are someone like Edward Snowden, or some activist who is directly working against the US government's interests overseas. The US has a history of even assassinating activists that get too powerful (usually indirectly, by hiring some local goons), so using a zero-day to compromise them is table stakes.

https://247wallst.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Martin-Luth...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com