HNHacker News
TopNewBestAskShowJobs

xnull6guest

202 karma · joined February 20, 2015

submissionscomments
xnull6guest··on China rates its own citizens – including online behaviour
I want to go further with this idea. What we need to do is understand why both nations are doing this. What reasons do they have? Why does it seem like a good idea? Are they the same reasons? Are they somehow fundamental? How much choice is there in how these behaviors are implemented? Are there alternatives with other tradeoffs that appeal to the underlying reasons and if so why was this solution chosen?

Sometimes this leads us, especially if we feel the urge to repeat standard bylines, to conclude that "The People's Party are just evil, and that's why they do it." But if the reason for doing it were merely evilness, then we might also conclude the US does it for evilness - something that isn't as much of a goto by-line.

I don't really fully understand why all major governments surveil, censor, propagandize and profile their (and other) citizens - but comparing history with 21st century challenges give us pretty good hints. First, it seems fairly natural for countries to exercise some forms of control of their populations, both to provide a common security and stability (something citizens for the most part benefit from) and to preserve its own institutions (something every government is compelled by).

Specifically in the 21st century it is common practice to utilize international propaganda to disrupt and destabilize opponent populations, foment revolutions by exporting dissent, and to misinform foreign citizens during diplomacy and geostrategy efforts. Indeed, both democracies and countries that mimic the machinations of democracies, need to gain of appear to gain public support for initiatives based on complicated, centralized or even secret initiatives do actually benefit countries as a whole. In many ways autocratic institutions need to control their people less than semi-democratic institutions since ultimately some king or body of diplomats make decisions without the input of citizens.

Digressing further it is doing this sort of analysis that can show why a state engages with the practices that it does. If there is a large desire to reform practices it is these end reasons that must be challenged if the behavior is to alter.

xnull6guest··on Inside Popcorn Time, the Piracy Party Hollywood Can't Stop
Right, but if you look at the large torrent sites they make large amounts of money from ads. They are 'free' but they make money (they don't make money from you - they make money by you).

Since popcorn time is effectively the same thing, I would expect the same thing. That's my grounding.

xnull6guest··on Inside Popcorn Time, the Piracy Party Hollywood Can't Stop
All expectations have no proof? Yes it's speculation.

Re: evidence. The evidence we do have is from precedent - former file sharing services that have made money from similar types of technologies (notably bit-torrent). It is an established fact that money can be made via advertizing and given both that CPUs are terrible at mining cryptocurrencies and that it would dramatically degrade performance the bitcoin suggestion is unlikely.

Agreed that it is speculation. But this is what the OP asked for at the top: speculations as to why the developers would invest in the project.

RE: costs being relatively low. Agreed. Revenue from ads are similarly small. The calculus is performed at scale - which is exactly what this technology hopes to be. The relatively low costs are what makes large margins with advertizing possible.

xnull6guest··on Inside Popcorn Time, the Piracy Party Hollywood Can't Stop
I just did this.

It is not that ads are not possible, it is that ads are currently not shown.

So here's a question: do we expect that to continue in perpetuity? My expectation would be that of the root comment: the website will in the future support its traffic and hosting costs with ads and make huge margins. Is there some reason why this expectation is foolish?

xnull6guest··on Inside Popcorn Time, the Piracy Party Hollywood Can't Stop
I did not read the article.

Is there a website to get popcorn time or the 'torrent' files for them?

This would be the place for ads.

Edit: I have now read the article in full. Question about financing below.

xnull6guest··on 'Hush,' anonymous messaging app from developers in Myanmar
The OP probably was replying to the fact that larger nations are able and willing to lean on service providers to extract personal information and deanonymize private conversation. This is a normal mode of analysis for citizens trying to secure their conversations from the US government, for example.

The Burmeses government however is not likely to be able to perform something like this, especially if the authors are not in Myanmar. In fact, there's a reasonable chance that the authors of the software are CSOs sponsored by other governments that would like to see changes in the regime in Myanmar (like the CIA's ZunZuneo app in Cuba) - in this case it is not likely that the government there will be able to play effective whack-a-mole.

The danger here is that the government will ban phones or create some sort of licensing for them if this becomes a large enough civil unrest problem. But it's equally likely that other countries would then raise sanctions and human rights violations against the regime on account of principles of 'freedom'.

xnull6guest··on Inside Popcorn Time, the Piracy Party Hollywood Can't Stop
They get money out of it. The Pirate Bay makes a huge margin from the advertisements on their website.

Edit: apparently they do not currently have ads on the website or in the app, so they do not currently make money.

xnull6guest··on China rates its own citizens – including online behaviour
Thank you. Yes I introduced it as terminology because I felt it was present in content without the terminology before I spoke my piece.

You misunderstand me. I am neither justifying nor trying to justify torture. I am trying to show why nations convince themselves that torture is justifiable. The calculus of nations - their realpolitik - exists in a world where an analysis of torture makes it seem sensible (entirely tangential to its being reprehensible).

To add more here: what I'm saying is that if every modern nation actively participates in these behaviors we must go beyond good and evil to understand the behavior - there only appears to be relative good rather than an exaggerated excluded middle. A realist, realpolitik analysis affords us a way of understanding the points of contention and the contradictions that incentivize those nations and their representatives to participate in reprehensible activity.

Wherein comes 'constructive realism': if it is incentives and power conflict that incentivize reprehensible acts then we can fix the acts not by voting for new representatives but by changing the conditions that lead to contentions. The realpolitik analysis is not a cynical analysis or one that is doomed to justify behavior: it is instead one that places the responsibility on conditions and context as much as specific actors.

xnull6guest··on China rates its own citizens – including online behaviour
There are a number of reasons that I can tell - but no one 'killer' reason. The first is that sequestration has been cutting the defense budget so that the normal methods of technology development and acquisition are more limited in what they can fund. The second is that the pace of investment in the public sector, while very good, isn't always able to complete with the private sector - especially when the size of the private sector is so much larger than public innovation. There's also that the direction of technological change right now in SV is toward personal consumer products. Another reason is that more broadly the internet and cybersecurity has been a much larger problem for the US than it had anticipated. While the US has state of the art surveillance capabilities, built with its Five Eyes allies, it does not have the best cyberattack and defense teams (Russia is a notable leader). Obama characterized cyberwarfare as being more like basketball - everyone is scoring all the time and the one who scores the most wins. This is exacerbated by asymmetries. The US has the most to lose from cyberwarfare in terms of IP, wealth, and political secrets.

There is a new term being traded for what warfare is like today. Modern warfare exists simultaneously on multiple fronts, including the cyber domain and propaganda and information warfare. This term is hybrid warfare.

Finally, DARPA has new programming models it would like the private industry to adopt but no way to compel them to do so (Probabalistic Programming). This is a nice way for them to encourage the private industry to adopt and play with some of these new publicly developed technologies.

The last link I posted elsewhere in this conversation tree is the overview for the 2015 DoD cyberdefense planning. They are making investments on ALL fronts. Cybermilitary training, international partnerships, technology acquisition and investment, cyberwarfare simulation and modeling, diplomatic approaches, information sharing, etc. In other words, this is just one way that the DoD is 'getting serious' about cyberwarfare.

xnull6guest··on China rates its own citizens – including online behaviour
The sum total of the following links: DoD will be investing, through parterships with executives of companies that acquire technology from startups, like Facebook, and with partnerships with Silicon Valley Venture Capital Firms to invest in companies that increase the national cybersecurity posture of the US (attack and defense) and to limit funding to technology that it thought to harm the national security of the US (E2E encryption solutions are specifically mentioned). The past few months have seen many defense officials making their way through silicon valley to meet with executives and VC firms, including the Admirial and soon-to-be-representative of the State Department.

http://www.engadget.com/2015/04/24/department-of-defense-cre...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/us/white-house-takes-cyber...

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27974832/defense-secr...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/science/pentagon-looking-f...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/technology/the-pentagon-as...

http://www.hngn.com/articles/87223/20150424/secretary-defens...

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/23/defense-department-sili...

http://cryptome.org/2015/04/dod-cyber-strategy-2015.pdf

xnull6guest··on China rates its own citizens – including online behaviour
It is interesting you think the China boogieman is disappearing. Luckily for us the relatively near future will inform us who is right so we don't need to hash out the principles.

It's also interesting to see that what I'm doing in the prior comment is laying out the case made by Washington and the defense contractors and of global strategy reports of allies - i.e. I'm merely mirroring official standings and policies in my comment. Washington is wrong often, let's see if they are wrong again.

xnull6guest··on China rates its own citizens – including online behaviour
Our public servants are not good or evil. They are merely people responding to the incentives that they are faced with.

This means that they are incentivised to behave by fear of losing their jobs, by financial contributions and kickbacks, by legacy, by moral sentiment, by haste and convenience, by duty. There are very few to no public servants who feel that what they are doing is wrong - and you might agree with some of their actions even when it blurs lines (assassinating Osama Bin Laden without due process of law).

What's happening now is that America's post WWII order is fracturing and weakening. There are new players on the stage. The theater of global politics and finance is shifting from Europe to the Asian Pacific. The borders fixed to prevent another great European war had also been fixed to provide energy security from the Middle East - but this freezing has prevented those people living there from having a great or fully modern society of their own. The technology backing nuclear weapons has exceeded the defense capabilities of all nations at a time non-proliferation treaties expired (the Bush administration did not renew them). Russia and China are rushing to create a Eurasia that can compete with Europe and Europe is trying to create a United States of Europe to ween away from NATO and to achieve a regional hegemony that provides it security and an opportunity to be a global player. Frought with both politicization, financial warfare, general gamifiedness, and brittleness global finance has brought financial redistribution, bubbles and busts to both hemispheres.

In response the US is building oil pipelines across the Americas, coup'ing Venezuela to open up its oil to US investment, settling new bases and rigs into the now contested (for geostrategic military reasons) the artic north.

The internet through all of this was supposed to allow a marketplace of ideas to exist across the world - but instead has been used by nations to propagandize, spy and sabotage one another.

In this turbulant time of America losing its grips, huge changes and bets will be made and American leadership will kill, torture, surveil and censor to ensure its own survival. That is to say we can't think of this as good versus evil but dog eat dog. The world has never been about good and evil, though men are compelled by it before they stand in trenches and need to survive.

The sad part is that during a time on Earth where there is more of everything for more of everyone that changes and fluxuations and opportunity mean the prospect of violence.

xnull6guest··on China rates its own citizens – including online behaviour
Have you been following the news with regard to the Defense Department and Silicon Valley?

There is a concerted effort now, through government compulsion and money, to funnel venture capitol towards start-ups with cyber security (offensive and defensive) and away from those offering encryption and privacy services and communications solutions.

xnull6guest··on China rates its own citizens – including online behaviour
The social criteria is questionable. If the Federal Government cares, do you not think they can dredge your social media interactions? Do you not think that they do this for presidential candidates and those applying for top brass positions? Do you think they don't have numerical indicators to prioritize and sort the hundreds of millions of profiles they have on American citizens? They very near most certainly do.
xnull6guest··on China rates its own citizens – including online behaviour
It's funny that when very analogous things happen in America I am accosted by people defending the principle that the West is still a stalwart of 'freedom' because we can still choose and have the freedom to take actions that would hurt us (lower our scores).

If one were to apply the same sort of simplistic argument in the China case, they have as much freedom as anyone else has.

IMO we would also be fools if we don't think there is a scoring system to help sort the millions of Americans with profiles in the American intelligence apparatus.

This is our brave new world.

xnull6guest··on China rates its own citizens – including online behaviour
Probably not.

The US superpower status has been hollowing out and China has begun to be able to project power in very impressive ways. The US sees China as its major threat right now. What the US government would like to do is 'contain' China by keeping it a regional force - so that it can't complete as a global power.

In anticipation of future conflict there has already been a large amount of anti-China sentiment creeping in America - suddenly all of the news about China has a negative spin. If they land on the moon its portrayed as scary rather than impressive. If they build islands in the middle of the Ocean (legally) it's a 'great mound of sand' rather than an incredibly impressive engineering feat. China's selling of air defense systems that thwart the US and the collisions of and mutual reconnaissance of our naval vessels aren't covered much - basically few real facts but lots of spin.

The US doesn't know whether it will be able to beat back China without having to resort to violence. If you watch the presidential speeches between candidates and Washington thinktanks they all have a stance on how they will deal with 'the China problem' (China is ambitious and there ain't room enough for the both of us). Jeb Bush basically said military might - Clinton wants to follow in line with (her) TPP.

There will be more anti-China slant. The interests of China and the US are at odds and becoming ever more so.

This poster is either part of a spin machine or has fallen for the naive and simplistic narrative of good-versus-evil.

All in all though, by all accounts, China and the US are set to butt heads and already have been.

xnull6guest··on Ukraine opens its KGB archives
Looks right. There isn't much of a trail here (the wiki page is relatively new and mostly created by one individual), but I'd buy the general story. They do sound partisan, if not for their history and conflict with the Kremlin. I don't know that this is the case, but given the prevalence of Civil Society Organizations and NGOs in the form of news media fronts created inside Russia and the Baltics by the allies and the recent cleanup of these installations by the Kremlin - properly or no the Meduza team was likely seen as proxy political voices.

Thank you for the research.

xnull6guest··on American and Italian hostages killed in cia drone strike in january
This is one of the upsetting things about the transparency of the accident. It's unique given the long held opacity of the civilian casualties racked up by the program, including innocent people making their ways to weddings and funerals. The apologies here are welcomed, but it makes the humanitarian miss them in the silence blanketing the deaths of non-Western civilians.
xnull6guest··on American and Italian hostages killed in cia drone strike in january
Yes. It is my understanding that the nephew of al-Awlaki, also a US citizen, was engaged with the resistance on the ground. Not that that's necessarily okay then to kill without a trial but the argument for assassinating him is perhaps slightly easier for the administration to make.
xnull6guest··on American and Italian hostages killed in cia drone strike in january
There have been an unusually large number of civilian casualties from the drone program. If memory serves its currently over 20 incidental deaths per high value target. Leaked documents from the CIA (by Der Speigel) even enumerate administrative policy on the number of acceptable innocent deaths per target - in some cases 70 or more civilian deaths were calculated to be acceptable.

The United States also hunted and assassinated US citizen and former Ambassador al-Awlaki with drones after censoring his political speech from Youtube and other online forums when the former Ambassador, through his official duties, became convinced that the US's policies in the Middle East were harmful to the region and became supportive of resistance groups. A scandal ensued when the US claimed to have the right to execute American citizens without trial in circumstances of extreme immediacy but would not release their policy (this is under the now former Justice Department head Holder) and could not defend the claim that there was a critical immediate need (al-Awlaki did not participate in any violent activity and former strikes that missed him were not followed by any activity that could be reasonably called an extreme immediate need).

These scandals aside, imagine what it is like to live underneath the constant threat of instantaneous incineration - the buzzing of drones in the sky and sporatic strikes. This Orwellian world will continue to see its day as the world powers and military suppliers have all been building drone programs, the US has plans to deploy drones to patrol its own skies, and the Obama administration has clearance to sell its drones to other nations.

xnull6guest··on Ukraine opens its KGB archives
Who is Meduza?

(It's unfortunate but) we need to be careful what information we consume - and from where - during these times of propaganda warfare.

xnull6guest··on EFF to Congress: Stop the Cybersurveillance Bills
Kind of like that, yes - though it is not so much a right as it is a practical consideration. The difficulty is that companies aren't going to willingly share information that might then be turned around to indict them. So to quell those fears the messaging is very clear: "we will not use this information to regulate or indict you".
xnull6guest··on EFF to Congress: Stop the Cybersurveillance Bills
Like Fusion Centers of the Department of Homeland Defense, the United States has centers called ISACs (Information Sharing and Analysis Centers) which collate data from American industries, look for threats, patterns and anomalies, and will link this data to the intelligence community and classified information. A Google search for "ISAC information sharing" will get you information on these.

ISACs are public-private enterprises. Onboarding to information sharing programs are not required by law, but some of them are required if the corporation is going to handle government business. Due to its public-private nature, it is bound in some cases by private restrictions and in others by public restrictions - but in general enjoys the freedom of being able to work without the full limitations of others.

There's a great talk (there is also a video somewhere...) of information sharing initiatives, policy, investments and brainstorming of solutions to problems ranging from the technical to the regulatory.

At approximately 1:14:00 (though you may want to start a couple minutes earlier) you can hear the ISAC director discuss how important it is for corporations to understand that the US government will not use any information used by these programs for legal purposes.

http://946d02147e6ceea118d6-b8988e53f7150d03e35b68af2656c7ba...

xnull6guest··on EFF to Congress: Stop the Cybersurveillance Bills
I hear a great number of predictions regarding China - especially on discussion forums. It's also interesting to hear your analysis of debt accumulation. When the US did much the same what I kept hearing from finance folks was that foreign capital works quite differently than personal savings and that the US debt burden was (and is) not really so big a deal. I have heard variations of your argument for some years and so far none of them have been right - I am struggling to figure out how your argument now differs from their arguments then.

Consistently, on the other hand, what I hear from Washington strategists is that they can not make policy decisions based on the hope that China's economy with deflate or implode (not to mention that this would offer its own kind of disaster to the West - look at what Thailand unpegging the dollar did in '97). Their assessment is quite divergent from yours. Although it shares so many features with the many before you who have wrongly predicted an implosion it would be interesting if you were right. To reiterate my earlier point Washington behaves off its beliefs and it believes that growth in that hemisphere, plus growth in China, will make the Asian theater the dominant one for the next half century.

Luckily for the world all predictions made in this thread are falsifiable - we need only watch to see what happens over the next couple of decades to find out. :)

xnull6guest··on New Chinese Cyberattacks: What’s to Be Done?
Right. At the top of my post I correct the title to say everyone hacks everyone.

This is a tragedy of the commons type situation. Nobody wants to disarm. However there is historical precedent for cooperation and disarmament under these conditions - even with nuclear arms races.

This is what I'm suggesting - what things do we need to do to deescalate an international cyber arms race.

xnull6guest··on New Chinese Cyberattacks: What’s to Be Done?
Well, we're talking here about very concrete things: days where cyber activity is stopped as a show of good faith, or nations trading their compromised networks like they do today with spies.

This won't in and of itself stop the activity - and it's not intended to. This is intended to foster cooperation and trust. Cooperation and trust are required for international norms development and cooperation on standards, and in addition lessen the incentive for nations to hack one another out of suspicion or hedging bets.

xnull6guest··on New Chinese Cyberattacks: What’s to Be Done?
Meh - that's not why there are cyber attacks. I mean - if you take the attacks on greatfire and SONY they are retaliations for propaganda operations. 'Information' available around the globe and 'narrative' around the globe are not easily disentangled. The US also faces these challenges, and uses a series of tactics (mostly Sunstein style shilling) of dealing with these issues (but also limited forms of censorship partnerships). Namely these cyber activities are not censorship in the most obvious and indisputable form, as you suggest.

My argument above can be thought of a way to deal with the international problem of cybermilitary attacks. Diplomacy products are another, separate, issue.

xnull6guest··on New Chinese Cyberattacks: What’s to Be Done?
New Everyone Cyberattacks: What's to Be Done?

Four things, each with their own time horizon and in parallel.

1. Norms for cyber warfare and international cyber activity to be developed. (The US may not be able to lead this post-Snowden, but they should try and should be involved.)

2. Cooperation on international standards, development and funding in cyberspace to improve and prove the security of networks, protocols, hardware and software.

3. Deescalation of cyber capabilities and activities. These exercises can be expressed in many ways such as 'cyber-free days' where nations show their good intentions by withholding operations in good faith.

4. International investment, development, data sharing and standardization of forensics capabilities to squeeze the attribution problem. This may be done in lockstep with protocol development.

But at its root there are three reasons nations hack one another: intelligence, intellectual property, sabotage.

Whatever deterrents and legal frameworks are in place will need to be as or more compelling than the motivations for cyberactivity. Whatever can be done to limit what can be gained by intelligence, sabotage and IP theft will in turn limit cyber activity. So a fifth item would be to reexamine and double down on the international peace keeping frameworks that discourage the listed above.

xnull6guest··on United States then, Europe now (2012) [pdf]
Yes, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine shares a border with Russia, NATO exercises had been going on in Crimea under the purview of a Western CSO propelled Kiev, Ukraine and under it the republic of Crimea was slotted for entry into the EU (and eventually NATO, like other former Warsaw states) at a time international financial-political sabotage was being orchestrated in the EU to thwart attempt to have Russia's pipelines through Crimea and the Baltics to the Balkins, and because the "Independent" Republic of Crimea serves as a critical water base and military nexus for Russia and because historically, politically and by nationality Russia and Crimea are much closer to one another than even Russia and Kiev; because the EU's energy trade legislation would make Kiev and Crimea distributers of Russian oil like Poland/Czech; because NATO actions in Serbia/Kosovo broke Cold War treaties when Russia could not defend itself; because missile batteries and THAAD systems in the Baltics deployed by the US and EU ruin Russia's deterents and intercept capabilities and similarly break longstanding nuclear treaties; because the treaties being negotiated in Keiv (the non-violent option was not working) and because the West-backed coup was working according to orchestration despite disruption; because the Bush administration refused to extend age old nuclear disarmament treaties; because the EU is building up to a United States of Europe on Russia's border; and because prior actions taken by NATO in the support on non-NATO allied countries in the past decade have shown that the EU intends a regional hegemony.

Russia had many incentives to want Crimea. Certainly the West is making Russia pay for Crimea. But the Putin administrations actions radically stunned the NATO allied powers. Cat in a Tiger game.

I don't think it will continue this way, as contigency and response planning is by now surely narrowed down - maybe we'll get to see it if Mariupol is captured. In the long term under the faltering of the Eurasian Union Russia risks becoming a satellite state to China - so it will be interesting to see how the dynamics play out (for the sake of EU/US, we might hope that the 'balance of powers' is a century dead.)

xnull6guest··on Vitalik Buterin, Creator of Ethereum, Talks Bitcoin’s Most Ambitious Successor
Yeah... we need decentralization, but I can't tell Ethereum apart from any of the other many proponents who have claimed to have invented that system and technology. If we were to apply a tech adaptation of Aaronson's red flags for outrageous math claims to Ethereum (http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=458) I'm convinced we'd walk away immediately.
← PreviousPage 2 of 4Next →