ziddoap

I guess you could slow down the firing process for a bit? That would be a minor obstruction for a short period of time. Then what?

Anyways, "how-to" guides on malicious compliance probably don't tackle situations where an external team, acting on behalf of the president, come into your workplace with unparalleled authority to do whatever they please.

That's helpful for the conversation!

Should I just keep clicking through this entire site until an answer related to my question appears?

(It's a neat site, but... I'm not going to sit here playing go fish until an applicable one-liner appears)

Can you give me some examples of how you would fight?

Boss comes in (or whoever more powerful than me, e.g. someone acting on the president's orders), says something with the gist of "Do this, or get fired". What are the next steps that I can take that won't get me fired, but also count as fighting back?

>Try to apply your experience here and calm down a bit.

Had to get one more little jab in there, didn't you? Can't have just one comment without one.

We're not going to convince each other. Hope that in the future, for other people's sake, that you can tone down your condescension and insults. It's a really unpleasant experience trying to discuss important things with someone who can't make a point without belittling the person they are talking to.

Rich, coming from the person who left the sentence about logs out of their comment and then said "No where in the complaint does it allege anyone asked for an audit-less account".

>Go ahead, read it again please. You have the experience to understand what this means.

Do you get some sort of weird satisfaction out of being ridiculously condescending? Do you think it makes your argument stronger? Are you just an angry person?

>This very clearly means we aren't using the normal account-creation process which itself creates logs of account creation.

You think they requested no logs about account creation, but are cool with the logging after? What on earth would the purpose of that request be?

The request was not stated in a way that implies a point-in-time request to turn off logs solely for account creation. (And, again, that would be a completely nonsense request that accomplishes literally nothing).

Anyways, I have no interest in getting into it with someone that has to throw in little personal jabs in every comment. You can believe that the DOGE team only wanted the account creation to be exempt from logs but wanted the logs turned on immediately afterwards for god knows what reason.

"He specifically was told that there were to be no logs or records made of the accounts created for DOGE employees"

That sure sounds like no logs.

If you don't believe the whistleblower, just say that, and skip the insulting me part (and I'll know to skip the replying to you part).

Admin accounts without logs is extremely radical. I have literally never seen it, or had anyone request it, in my decade+ of consulting in security.

Unless you think the whistleblower, Krebs, and everyone else reporting are lying. Which, in that case, nothing anyone says is going to change your opinion (and you should just say that, if it's what you think, to save us all time).

This is exactly what I thought. I downvoted (now removed) thinking that it was a random passerby being dismissive.

No, it doesn't.

I was hoping to read something that addressed this specific paper. All of those links are papers published before Lior Shamir's paper was published.

The comment I originally replied to said "people pointed out he cherry-picked results". I thought "people" might be "scientists" and they might have pointed it out in a subsequent paper or something.

Thanks though.

Is there a "right to knowledge"?

I'm aware of rights to speech, thought, movement, conscious, religion, expression, assembly, association, etc. But I've never heard anyone claim, or read any charter/constitution/etc. that has a "right to knowledge" clause.

Is there a country which has enshrined a "right to knowledge"? Does it have any limits (alluding to what you mentioned, how does the right to knowledge interact with other rights)?

I was hoping for something a bit more authoritative than a reddit comment being copy/pasted to HN (e.g. an actual retraction, or a paper directly disputing the findings), but I'm guessing most of the community just ignored the paper due to the history of the author.

(I was/am skeptical just because it's a single-author study with pretty spectacular results, and have been keeping an eye out for any followups, but must have missed them)

There is a distinct difference between a person having emotions while arguing, and using an appeal to emotion as a rhetorical tactic. I do not agree that "pretty much all arguments" contain an appeal to emotion (again, as a purposeful fallacious rhetorical tactic), even though all arguments obviously will have people feeling some sort of emotion.

Even looking through this entire thread, most of the disagreements here do not contain appeals to emotions.

I'm sure that any book on logic and rhetoric from the last few centuries would explain it better than I can. The wiki page has some good explanations and examples as well.

I'm dismissing arguments that are designed to appeal to (and manipulate) the emotions of the person listening. Such as the three examples I gave, which are, in almost every case, used to win an argument without having to consider any possible nuance of the situation.

Often, it's a completely thought-stopping appeal, because everything is simply countered with "so you don't care about children". Or, in your case, subtlety alluding to me being tolerant of CSAM (which was wildly inappropriate, albeit a great example of why I generally just don't talk to people who use those types of arguments).

Apparently that makes me galaxy-brained or whatever, though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

For those not in-the-know, this is "Ruhr University Bochum".

https://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/en

They have quite a good reputation in the security research space.

I just think arguments based on appeals to emotion are very often fallacious. But sure, I guess that means I'm a... whatever you just said.

>Whistleblowers can still encrypt documents on a flash drive, and drop it into a mailbox. There is nothing stopping them from doing so.

The only thing I want to highlight for your consideration is that the USA is not the entire world. The USPS, even if it were perfect, does not exist in the overwhelming majority of the world. People talk to people across borders.

(Also, with some of the proposed laws, encrypting the USB would be illegal)

For the social harm to children that they cause? I thought it was to break out WhatsApp & Instagram into their own entities from like a monopoly perspective, but I admit I am not keeping up on the current trial at all, so I could be wrong.

>about how bad they are almost daily on this site.

This site is hardly representative of the average citizen. In my daily life, local news, etc., most people I encounter will talk about how bad TikTok is for children but barely (if ever) mention harms of other social media.

How many whistleblowers would have been killed without a secure way to blow the whistle? How many journalists and journalist sources would have been killed? Etc. These people aren't using the USPS for good reason.

Point being, you are only doing one side of your calculation and presenting it as a full argument. But it's just a bad argument unless you calculate both sides.

Can you do the same thing, but in the other direction? How many people would have been harmed if weaker/no encryption was the standard?

Sorry, but which part of my comment implied that I think they are?

(In all seriousness, I do agree that TikTok is awful, but I find the fascination with TikTok while ignoring all other social media and their dangers to be interesting)

How is "game the system" not the same as "undermining election security"?

That (somewhat, barely) addresses one of ~dozen issues with the proposal.

>Again, I see us falling back into an "all or nothing" view of privacy

Not to be too pedantic, but I think the distinction between privacy and encryption is incredibly important: almost everyone agrees that privacy is a gradient. The disagreement is whether or not encryption can be a gradient. Most people do not think it can reasonably be without undermining ~everything relying on it.

This is not analogous to a single government having non-transparent, non-auditable access to decrypt communications of its own citizens.

The arguments are "Protect the children.", "Catch terrorists.", "Catch criminals.".

Those arguments have been engaged with for decades. They are purely emotional arguments. Anyone who still pushes those arguments forth is most likely doing so with ulterior motives and cannot be reasonably "engaged" with.

How can you possibly know this? They made the career decision while knowing what the law was. They may not have made that decision if the law was different.

If it is against the wishes of the people in the video, yes, yes it is.

E: Never thought I'd see the day I'm downvoted for saying un-blurring porn of people who made porn under the assumption that it would be blurred (and may not have made that same decision without that context) is unethical, on HN of all places, but times are strange I guess.

Have you ever tried hákarl (fermented shark)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A1karl

I think if you tried enough things, you'd come across some edible food that doesn't suit your taste.