Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.misc > #26457 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Retrograde <fungus@amongus.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-02-16 16:55 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-02-26 21:21 -0300 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 290 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.misc
Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Retrograde <fungus@amongus.com.invalid> - 2025-02-16 16:55 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-16 21:23 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-16 23:55 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-17 11:40 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 09:26 -0800
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-17 22:42 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-17 22:23 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-18 10:20 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-02-19 07:32 +1000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-02-18 23:47 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-19 09:42 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-03-06 07:10 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 20:44 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-08 23:44 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-02-20 08:23 +1000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 22:22 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 15:55 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 17:59 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:01 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 22:51 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 22:01 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:29 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 22:55 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-24 05:19 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 13:28 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 10:55 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 13:34 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:15 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-24 23:06 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:10 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 10:08 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 23:12 +0100
OT: walking and exercising (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:31 -0300
Re: OT: walking and exercising (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 14:52 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-02-27 21:40 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-01 11:48 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-05 06:40 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-05 13:39 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-05 20:00 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-05 22:12 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-24 17:54 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:41 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-24 23:19 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:16 +0100
education Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-03-06 07:55 +0000
Re: education Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 22:00 -0300
Re: education Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-08 03:47 +0000
Re: education Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 18:27 -0300
Re: education Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-03-09 02:08 +0000
Re: education Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 02:58 -0300
Re: education Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-03-10 18:38 +0000
Re: education cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-10 19:13 +0000
Re: education Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-03-11 13:30 +0000
Re: education Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-14 11:17 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-25 19:12 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-26 02:08 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> - 2025-02-26 09:06 -0600
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-02-26 18:09 -0400
the command line is language (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:46 -0300
Re: the command line is language (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-02-27 03:31 -0400
Re: the command line is language Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 08:10 -0300
Re: the command line is language D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:41 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 14:47 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 13:15 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 16:34 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 16:38 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-26 22:34 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 18:50 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-27 03:11 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 08:18 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-27 17:04 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-27 18:53 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-28 21:41 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 22:03 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-27 03:29 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:16 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 12:36 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:55 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 14:43 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-27 17:07 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-27 19:05 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-01 15:06 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-01 11:47 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-01 16:31 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:52 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:15 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-01 16:51 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-03-01 17:15 -0400
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-02 12:34 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-02-26 12:29 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 16:34 -0500
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 22:04 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-05 20:00 +0000
more on broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:38 -0300
Re: more on broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-26 19:47 -0500
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 08:55 -0300
Re: more on broken schools kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-27 19:00 -0500
OT: a personal note to Stefan Ram (Was: Re: more on broken schools) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 09:31 -0300
Re: more on broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:03 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 20:30 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-08 23:43 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 21:33 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 13:30 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 03:00 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-10 10:50 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 08:46 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-11 23:05 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-14 11:31 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-14 23:46 +0100
Re: more on broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-16 22:43 -0300
Re: more on broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-17 23:44 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 22:50 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 22:21 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 17:06 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 23:28 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 11:12 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 14:08 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:32 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 22:22 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:34 +0100
fdm, paredit and systemd (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 13:18 -0300
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 13:53 +0100
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 06:23 -0300
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:31 +0100
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 21:10 -0300
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 00:09 +0100
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 21:41 -0300
Re: fdm, paredit and systemd D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 13:32 +0100
UNIX systems (Was: Re: fdm, paredit and systemd) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 03:10 -0300
Re: UNIX systems (Was: Re: fdm, paredit and systemd) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-10 10:54 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 09:08 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-11 23:09 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-13 18:17 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-16 00:03 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-16 22:41 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-18 10:50 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-21 16:26 -0300
Re: UNIX systems Matto Fransen <mattof@sdf.org> - 2025-03-21 19:53 +0000
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-24 00:11 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-21 23:37 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-24 00:34 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-25 21:49 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-26 23:24 -0300
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-29 22:31 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-29 20:40 -0300
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-22 10:11 -0300
Re: UNIX systems kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-03-25 17:40 -0400
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-25 23:04 +0100
Re: UNIX systems Charles Dagny <1800@DEV.NULL> - 2025-03-28 21:41 -0300
Re: UNIX systems onion@anon.invalid (Mr Ön!on) - 2025-03-10 15:06 +0000
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-11 11:58 -0300
Re: UNIX systems yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-03-11 15:49 +0042
Re: UNIX systems cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-11 15:25 +0000
Re: UNIX systems onion@anon.invalid (Mr Ön!on) - 2025-03-11 16:24 +0000
Re: UNIX systems cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-11 17:30 +0000
Re: UNIX systems candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-12 22:30 +0000
Re: UNIX systems yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-03-12 23:23 +0042
Re: UNIX systems candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-13 20:40 +0000
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-13 18:04 -0300
Re: UNIX systems cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-13 21:26 +0000
Re: UNIX systems Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-14 12:23 -0300
Re: UNIX systems cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-13 01:24 +0000
Re: UNIX systems Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2025-03-12 01:38 -0300
Re: UNIX systems snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-03-12 14:03 +0000
Re: UNIX systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-12 22:19 +0100
Re: UNIX systems kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-03-11 19:09 -0400
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2025-03-04 02:44 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2025-03-04 17:50 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-19 09:40 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-02-20 08:29 +1000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 15:56 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:45 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 16:01 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:22 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 23:02 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 22:44 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:43 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 23:04 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 11:01 +0100
broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 13:46 -0300
Re: broken schools (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:18 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 22:34 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:38 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 15:45 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 14:05 +0100
Re: broken schools Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-26 13:15 +0000
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 23:10 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 06:49 -0300
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 07:41 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 19:52 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 21:41 -0300
Re: broken schools yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-03-08 02:59 +0042
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 00:14 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 22:26 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 22:52 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 08:39 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-11 22:59 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-14 12:10 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-15 23:58 +0100
Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-17 00:02 -0300
Re: broken schools Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-18 03:00 +0000
Re: broken schools Eva Lu <evalu@tor.soy> - 2025-03-18 21:20 -0300
Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-18 11:17 +0100
OT: totally off-topic (Was: Re: broken schools) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-19 13:51 -0300
Re: OT: totally off-topic (Was: Re: broken schools) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-19 23:20 +0100
Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-21 11:52 -0300
Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-23 00:31 +0100
Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-29 20:50 -0300
Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-04-01 16:43 +0200
Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-04-04 11:20 -0300
Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-04-06 23:17 +0200
Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-04-10 15:19 -0300
Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-04-12 21:05 +0200
Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-04-13 13:10 -0300
lifestyles Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-03-11 20:20 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:40 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 15:57 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> - 2025-02-17 18:30 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-17 22:44 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> - 2025-02-18 00:08 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-02-18 00:30 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-18 10:23 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:52 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-02-20 01:09 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 22:27 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-20 21:51 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 23:22 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:23 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 16:07 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:35 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 23:31 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 23:06 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 11:01 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> - 2025-02-18 13:48 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:56 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-18 10:22 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> - 2025-02-18 14:05 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 22:03 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 16:14 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:47 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-02-20 22:12 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 23:15 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 11:04 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:21 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 22:46 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 10:43 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2025-02-25 14:20 +0300
small communities, nntp server (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 15:20 -0300
Re: small communities, nntp server (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 13:57 +0100
Re: small communities, nntp server Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:20 -0300
Re: small communities, nntp server D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 14:49 +0100
Re: small communities, nntp server yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-02-26 13:50 +0042
Re: small communities, nntp server D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 23:08 +0100
Re: small communities, nntp server D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 23:08 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:59 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 16:13 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:41 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 23:33 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 23:12 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 11:03 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:51 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-20 21:49 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 23:21 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:22 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-02-22 17:09 +0000
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-23 00:23 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-19 21:49 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 16:05 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 18:24 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-20 23:05 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-20 22:56 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-21 10:51 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-23 23:21 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 11:10 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 14:04 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-24 23:28 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-24 21:58 -0300
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-25 11:26 +0100
OT: personal stories (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 11:58 -0300
Re: OT: personal stories (Was: Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 13:21 +0100
Re: OT: personal stories Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 06:04 -0300
Re: OT: personal stories D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 15:21 +0100
Re: OT: personal stories Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 20:49 -0300
Re: OT: personal stories yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-03-08 00:43 +0042
Re: OT: personal stories D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-08 23:46 +0100
Re: OT: personal stories D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-08 23:45 +0100
Re: OT: personal stories Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 21:37 -0300
Re: OT: personal stories D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 13:30 +0100
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> - 2025-02-25 13:17 -0600
Re: Schneier, Data and Goliath: no hope for privacy Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-26 21:21 -0300
Page 12 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 Next page →
| From | snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-18 00:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1r7xd1r.15ikg3vz0019vN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #26476 |
Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> wrote: > In message <e7169dec-9cdd-624f-f9e7-fd0548c99d5d@example.net>, D > <nospam@example.net> writes > > > > > >On Mon, 17 Feb 2025, Adrian wrote: > > > >> In message <0310a638-3153-f886-5206-9bc8453c1f8e@example.net>, D > >><nospam@example.net> writes > >>> I'm more scared about the government than the industry. With > >>>industry I always have the choice of not using it, and they depend > >>>on customers, so in the end, that protects me. > >>> > >> > >> Depending on what you mean by choosing not to use it. > >> > >> I don't use any of the Meta products, but they still know about me as > >>"friends" have uploaded pictures of me to facebook, or their contacts > >>lists to whatsapp. > >> > >> Adrian > > > >Why would they do that? It does not sound like friends to me, since > >they do not respect your wishes, nor your privacy. > > > > Note my use of "friends" not friends. When I asked why I was told that > what I don't know can't hurt me. > > As for whatsapp, as I understand it, it is all or nothing thing about > what it uploads, and some of them are people that I work with, so we > need each others phone numbers whilst working. They think I'm odd for > not using it. > > Adrian I don't think you're odd at all, Adrian, I have exactly the same concerns as you; I too shun all Meta products. I use Signal (open source, non-proprietary) for stuff that would otherwise be on Whatsapp and I've persuaded people who want to communicate with me in that way to use it. Mostly it's just my family sharing videos, etc. I can imagine that it might be different getting colleagues to do that. -- ^Ï^. Sn!pe, PTB, FIBS My pet rock Gordon just is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-18 10:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4ea58bfe-cd12-1e48-398b-7f2c6e759968@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26478 |
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025, Sn!pe wrote: > Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> wrote: > >> In message <e7169dec-9cdd-624f-f9e7-fd0548c99d5d@example.net>, D >> <nospam@example.net> writes >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025, Adrian wrote: >>> >>>> In message <0310a638-3153-f886-5206-9bc8453c1f8e@example.net>, D >>>> <nospam@example.net> writes >>>>> I'm more scared about the government than the industry. With >>>>> industry I always have the choice of not using it, and they depend >>>>> on customers, so in the end, that protects me. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Depending on what you mean by choosing not to use it. >>>> >>>> I don't use any of the Meta products, but they still know about me as >>>> "friends" have uploaded pictures of me to facebook, or their contacts >>>> lists to whatsapp. >>>> >>>> Adrian >>> >>> Why would they do that? It does not sound like friends to me, since >>> they do not respect your wishes, nor your privacy. >>> >> >> Note my use of "friends" not friends. When I asked why I was told that >> what I don't know can't hurt me. >> >> As for whatsapp, as I understand it, it is all or nothing thing about >> what it uploads, and some of them are people that I work with, so we >> need each others phone numbers whilst working. They think I'm odd for >> not using it. >> >> Adrian > > I don't think you're odd at all, Adrian, I have exactly the same > concerns as you; I too shun all Meta products. I use Signal > (open source, non-proprietary) for stuff that would otherwise be > on Whatsapp and I've persuaded people who want to communicate with > me in that way to use it. Mostly it's just my family sharing videos, > etc. I can imagine that it might be different getting colleagues to > do that. Note that signals backend is not open source. The backend software might be, but we have no direct access to their implementation and running of it. That said however, I trust them way more than FB, and I think they have high ethical standards, so I would not worry about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-19 21:52 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87o6yxl9nf.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26482 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes: [...] > Note that signals backend is not open source. The backend software > might be, but we have no direct access to their implementation and > running of it. > > That said however, I trust them way more than FB, and I think they > have high ethical standards, so I would not worry about it. Can't Signal eventually be bought off?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-20 01:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1r814f0.gys5j8u8fj6hN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #26504 |
Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> wrote: > D <nospam@example.net> writes: > > [...] > > > Note that signals backend is not open source. The backend software > > might be, but we have no direct access to their implementation and > > running of it. > > > > That said however, I trust them way more than FB, and I think they > > have high ethical standards, so I would not worry about it. > > > > Can't Signal eventually be bought off? > They claim that it's end-to-end encrypted but whatever, it has Whatsapp's functionality without being Meta and that's good enough for me. -- ^Ï^. Sn!pe, PTB, FIBS My pet rock Gordon just is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-19 22:27 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87a5ahjthr.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26508 |
snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) writes: > Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> wrote: > >> D <nospam@example.net> writes: >> >> [...] >> >> > Note that signals backend is not open source. The backend software >> > might be, but we have no direct access to their implementation and >> > running of it. >> > >> > That said however, I trust them way more than FB, and I think they >> > have high ethical standards, so I would not worry about it. >> > >> >> Can't Signal eventually be bought off? >> > > They claim that it's end-to-end encrypted but whatever, it has > Whatsapp's functionality without being Meta and that's good > enough for me. That's right. I know a tiny bit about Signal's history. But being centralized, how do we know what happens after the author's death or when he moves on to other things? Even well set up organizations can sometimes be taken over. Steve Jobs was fired from his own company, wasn't him? But, yeah, I'm sure you're better off on Signal right now. Hosting on Github was just fine some years ago. But things change.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-20 21:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vp8857$6v0$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #26508 |
Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com> wrote: >Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> wrote: >> >> Can't Signal eventually be bought off? > >They claim that it's end-to-end encrypted but whatever, it has >Whatsapp's functionality without being Meta and that's good >enough for me. Signal does the encryption within the app, much like PGP. So if Signal were to compromise the app, it could be sniffed. The good news is that sniffing the data between the sender and receiver gives you nothing useful at any point unless the app is compromised. The bad news is that updates are constantly being pushed, and just as it is possible to push a security update, it is possible to push an insecurity update too. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-20 23:22 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <877c5kaveq.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26537 |
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes: > Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com> wrote: >>Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> wrote: >>> >>> Can't Signal eventually be bought off? >> >>They claim that it's end-to-end encrypted but whatever, it has >>Whatsapp's functionality without being Meta and that's good >>enough for me. > > Signal does the encryption within the app, much like PGP. So if Signal were > to compromise the app, it could be sniffed. What about Whatsapp? Isn't it like that too?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-21 10:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8a748b68-fa07-f52c-6722-45cafaf87299@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26537 |
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025, Scott Dorsey wrote: > Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com> wrote: >> Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> wrote: >>> >>> Can't Signal eventually be bought off? >> >> They claim that it's end-to-end encrypted but whatever, it has >> Whatsapp's functionality without being Meta and that's good >> enough for me. > > Signal does the encryption within the app, much like PGP. So if Signal were > to compromise the app, it could be sniffed. > > The good news is that sniffing the data between the sender and receiver gives > you nothing useful at any point unless the app is compromised. > > The bad news is that updates are constantly being pushed, and just as it is > possible to push a security update, it is possible to push an insecurity > update too. > --scott You get metadata such as timing of communication. Also I think a bigger threat to safe signal use is authorities just grabbing your phone or breaking into your unpatched 3 years old android device. In sweden, that is how they crack a lot of private chat services, simply by going in through the phones.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-20 16:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <942c66db-44c9-3aeb-4a07-1110ce545e62@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26504 |
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > D <nospam@example.net> writes: > > [...] > >> Note that signals backend is not open source. The backend software >> might be, but we have no direct access to their implementation and >> running of it. >> >> That said however, I trust them way more than FB, and I think they >> have high ethical standards, so I would not worry about it. > > Can't Signal eventually be bought off? > Interesting question. They are a foundation so that does put some legal limitations on such scenarios. However! So was/is Open AI and look what happened there. So I assume, since it is based in the US that the answer to your question is a "yes". But I am not a lawyer. ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-20 18:35 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87ldu0fges.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26523 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes: > On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > >> D <nospam@example.net> writes: >> >> [...] >> >>> Note that signals backend is not open source. The backend software >>> might be, but we have no direct access to their implementation and >>> running of it. >>> >>> That said however, I trust them way more than FB, and I think they >>> have high ethical standards, so I would not worry about it. >> >> Can't Signal eventually be bought off? >> > > Interesting question. They are a foundation so that does put some > legal limitations on such scenarios. However! So was/is Open AI and > look what happened there. > > So I assume, since it is based in the US that the answer to your > question is a "yes". But I am not a lawyer. ;) Lol. When you want to say you're not a lawyer, you should say IANAL, which is one of these ridiculous USENET acronyms. :) But what I really think is that nobody should say IANAL. Lol. First, who cares? Lol. Second, it's almost never illegal to give your opinion on anything. But, yeah. You gave us a great example. Open AI was a non-profit organization later turned for-profit. So, the same nonsense could happen to Signal unless it has made any sort of unusual special arrangements. Companies and political parties (which are the same thing) should formalize for-life commitments. For example, a Senate candidate, a Republic president and so on should register in writing some principles and promises that they actually must live up to, lest they be impeached. Take a look at YouTube. The world has invested 15 billion videos in it and now it needs to pay for viewing them by lack of privacy and ad viewing. I can't recall when the world actually agreed to this deal. Deals should be clear from the very start. For me to use Signal, say, I'd need a for-life promise that it would never be taken over from me. But, actually, I wouldn't use it either way because I just prefer a decentralized system. Signal should redesign itself in a decentralized manner so that perhaps I could host my own server (for my own communication), say. Just like e-mail and news are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-20 23:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3177e478-e29a-6ebe-28a2-2dfafcd3455d@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26531 |
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: >>> Can't Signal eventually be bought off? >>> >> >> Interesting question. They are a foundation so that does put some >> legal limitations on such scenarios. However! So was/is Open AI and >> look what happened there. >> >> So I assume, since it is based in the US that the answer to your >> question is a "yes". But I am not a lawyer. ;) > > Lol. When you want to say you're not a lawyer, you should say IANAL, > which is one of these ridiculous USENET acronyms. :) But what I really > think is that nobody should say IANAL. Lol. First, who cares? Lol. > Second, it's almost never illegal to give your opinion on anything. I was thinking about it, but in the end, didn't go all "acronym". ;) > But, yeah. You gave us a great example. Open AI was a non-profit > organization later turned for-profit. So, the same nonsense could > happen to Signal unless it has made any sort of unusual special > arrangements. > > Companies and political parties (which are the same thing) should > formalize for-life commitments. For example, a Senate candidate, a > Republic president and so on should register in writing some principles > and promises that they actually must live up to, lest they be impeached. I don't see how that could ever be done? I mean there are trusts and foundations, but I assume they can be broken or dismantled. On the other hand... there are active companies who are several 100s of years old, and the catholic church has been going strong for what... 1980 years or so? So clearly it is possible to build organizations centred around an ideology, business plan or other concept, that has been working for 100s if not 1000s of years. > Take a look at YouTube. The world has invested 15 billion videos in it > and now it needs to pay for viewing them by lack of privacy and ad > viewing. I can't recall when the world actually agreed to this deal. > Deals should be clear from the very start. I find it very fascinating that you can find all kinds of copyrighted material on youtube, and that is fine, and no one cares. But when the piratebay guys built a web site that links to movies (not hosting it themselves) it was prison + fines for them. Different rules for google and private persons. This is very sad. > For me to use Signal, say, I'd need a for-life promise that it would > never be taken over from me. But, actually, I wouldn't use it either > way because I just prefer a decentralized system. Signal should > redesign itself in a decentralized manner so that perhaps I could host > my own server (for my own communication), say. Just like e-mail and > news are. I don't use anything to chat with family since they would not be interested, but one project I do like, and which would probably be my choice if I tried to get my family to use it is delta chat. I like the concept behind it. I also think, but don't remember at the moment, that it is possible to use it on iphones, android and for me, on regular computers and they all work together. For audio/video I use jitsi. I don't host it myself, but my companys cloud provider sells their own version of hosted jitsi. It works really well!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-20 23:06 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <877c5kcaq1.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26542 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes: > On Thu, 20 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > >>>> Can't Signal eventually be bought off? >>>> >>> >>> Interesting question. They are a foundation so that does put some >>> legal limitations on such scenarios. However! So was/is Open AI and >>> look what happened there. >>> >>> So I assume, since it is based in the US that the answer to your >>> question is a "yes". But I am not a lawyer. ;) >> >> Lol. When you want to say you're not a lawyer, you should say IANAL, >> which is one of these ridiculous USENET acronyms. :) But what I really >> think is that nobody should say IANAL. Lol. First, who cares? Lol. >> Second, it's almost never illegal to give your opinion on anything. > > I was thinking about it, but in the end, didn't go all "acronym". ;) > >> But, yeah. You gave us a great example. Open AI was a non-profit >> organization later turned for-profit. So, the same nonsense could >> happen to Signal unless it has made any sort of unusual special >> arrangements. >> >> Companies and political parties (which are the same thing) should >> formalize for-life commitments. For example, a Senate candidate, a >> Republic president and so on should register in writing some principles >> and promises that they actually must live up to, lest they be impeached. > > I don't see how that could ever be done? I mean there are trusts and > foundations, but I assume they can be broken or dismantled. > > On the other hand... there are active companies who are several 100s > of years old, and the catholic church has been going strong for > what... 1980 years or so? So clearly it is possible to build > organizations centred around an ideology, business plan or other > concept, that has been working for 100s if not 1000s of years. I got carried away with the wording. A Senate candidate should keep his promises when in office. Let's erase the ``for-life''. When you vote for someone, you should vote because that person will do something that they promised. The system would not let them promise soemthing they can do; for example, a president cannot promise something that Congress must approve, say. When someone is running for office, they make a bunch of promises. They should be obliged to do what they said they would. So there should be a formal process of writing it down and then hold them accountable later. In some cases, they'll be excused; in other cases, they'll just be removed from office. Campaigns should be held more accountable. >> Take a look at YouTube. The world has invested 15 billion videos in it >> and now it needs to pay for viewing them by lack of privacy and ad >> viewing. I can't recall when the world actually agreed to this deal. >> Deals should be clear from the very start. > > I find it very fascinating that you can find all kinds of copyrighted material > on youtube, and that is fine, and no one cares. But when the piratebay guys > built a web site that links to movies (not hosting it themselves) it was prison > + fines for them. Different rules for google and private persons. This is very > sad. ``This is the truth.'' :) >> For me to use Signal, say, I'd need a for-life promise that it would >> never be taken over from me. But, actually, I wouldn't use it either >> way because I just prefer a decentralized system. Signal should >> redesign itself in a decentralized manner so that perhaps I could host >> my own server (for my own communication), say. Just like e-mail and >> news are. > > I don't use anything to chat with family since they would not be interested, but > one project I do like, and which would probably be my choice if I tried to get > my family to use it is delta chat. I like the concept behind it. I also think, > but don't remember at the moment, that it is possible to use it on iphones, > android and for me, on regular computers and they all work together. Wow---I had not heard of delta chat. I really liked the idea! Can someone use delta chat and another just plain e-mail? That would likely be neat. I, for one, don't like chat interfaces and prefer e-mail. I wouldn't mind replying chat messages by e-mail, for example. > For audio/video I use jitsi. I don't host it myself, but my companys cloud > provider sells their own version of hosted jitsi. It works really well! Cool. I've been using Jitsi on meet.jit.si. I've used it while on Windows. Now I've been running OpenBSD and I've noticed that Jitsi spins up my CPU a bit more than I was expecting. I then tried Google Meet using Chrome and it didn't spin that much. I'm gonna try Jitsi on Chrome and see what happens (next).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-21 11:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <58097d10-1512-fcad-1a15-ca07f530f0f8@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26555 |
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: >> I don't see how that could ever be done? I mean there are trusts and >> foundations, but I assume they can be broken or dismantled. >> >> On the other hand... there are active companies who are several 100s >> of years old, and the catholic church has been going strong for >> what... 1980 years or so? So clearly it is possible to build >> organizations centred around an ideology, business plan or other >> concept, that has been working for 100s if not 1000s of years. > > I got carried away with the wording. A Senate candidate should keep his > promises when in office. Let's erase the ``for-life''. When you vote > for someone, you should vote because that person will do something that > they promised. The system would not let them promise soemthing they can > do; for example, a president cannot promise something that Congress must > approve, say. The idea is good in theory, but in practice, I don't see it working since politics is based so much on values, and reality is "plastic". You can do a lot of things, the question is just how much are you going to sacrifice in order to get it done. But yes, in general, accountability is a good thing. I also like to see basic requirements for politicians such as: 1. Knowledge of english if you are supposed to represent your country in international situations. 2. An academic degree if you are in a country with free higher education. It would give me comfort that you have enough intelligence to make it through a university program. 3. Limiting terms to one term, and after that, being banned from any political jobs. This is to limit political clans from forming, were politicial offices are inherited across generations. 4. Limiting of salary and benefits. Your salary as a politician should be the average of the country. If the country prospers, your salary increases, if the country does not prosper, your salary goes down. By limiting the salary you also filter out people who are looking for a cozy position, with a ridiculously high salary for life. Instead you get people who are more interested in the job, than in the salary. 5. Abolishing full-time politicians. In switzerland in olden days, politics was a part time job. Every politician had a "day job" and they got leave from their job one or two days per week to go to the parliament and do politics. The great thing about this is that they were exposed to their colleagues every week, so if they did a bad job in the parliament, they surely got told about it, when going back to work. It was also good for their humility to go back to having a boss, after 1-2 days in parliament. This should be re-instated to force politicians to live among the people, as one of the people. Todays politicians isolate themselves from the people and live like billionaires zipping around the planet in private jets. > When someone is running for office, they make a bunch of promises. They > should be obliged to do what they said they would. So there should be a > formal process of writing it down and then hold them accountable later. > In some cases, they'll be excused; in other cases, they'll just be > removed from office. > > Campaigns should be held more accountable. > >>> Take a look at YouTube. The world has invested 15 billion videos in it >>> and now it needs to pay for viewing them by lack of privacy and ad >>> viewing. I can't recall when the world actually agreed to this deal. >>> Deals should be clear from the very start. >> >> I find it very fascinating that you can find all kinds of copyrighted material >> on youtube, and that is fine, and no one cares. But when the piratebay guys >> built a web site that links to movies (not hosting it themselves) it was prison >> + fines for them. Different rules for google and private persons. This is very >> sad. > > ``This is the truth.'' :) Amen! >>> For me to use Signal, say, I'd need a for-life promise that it would >>> never be taken over from me. But, actually, I wouldn't use it either >>> way because I just prefer a decentralized system. Signal should >>> redesign itself in a decentralized manner so that perhaps I could host >>> my own server (for my own communication), say. Just like e-mail and >>> news are. >> >> I don't use anything to chat with family since they would not be interested, but >> one project I do like, and which would probably be my choice if I tried to get >> my family to use it is delta chat. I like the concept behind it. I also think, >> but don't remember at the moment, that it is possible to use it on iphones, >> android and for me, on regular computers and they all work together. > > Wow---I had not heard of delta chat. I really liked the idea! Can > someone use delta chat and another just plain e-mail? That would likely > be neat. I, for one, don't like chat interfaces and prefer e-mail. I > wouldn't mind replying chat messages by e-mail, for example. Good question! I actually don't know, but since it is based on email as the foundation, I would think it kind of natural that you would also be able to use it for regular email. It would actually be quite neat to have delta chat as a background service on my computer, so that I could have one account/folder in my email client for "chats" and the rest, like usual, for regular email. So when I need to chat, I just switch over th my delta chat mail folder and type away, with all the benefits of encryption. >> For audio/video I use jitsi. I don't host it myself, but my companys cloud >> provider sells their own version of hosted jitsi. It works really well! > > Cool. I've been using Jitsi on meet.jit.si. I've used it while on > Windows. Now I've been running OpenBSD and I've noticed that Jitsi > spins up my CPU a bit more than I was expecting. I then tried Google > Meet using Chrome and it didn't spin that much. I'm gonna try Jitsi on > Chrome and see what happens (next). I think a lot of that might have something to do with openbsd graphic capabilities. The file system is also not the most efficient one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-18 13:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Q1hhbAEy+ItnFwOI@ku.gro.lloiff> |
| In reply to | #26478 |
In message <1r7xd1r.15ikg3vz0019vN%snipeco.2@gmail.com>, Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> writes >I don't think you're odd at all, Adrian, I have exactly the same >concerns as you; I too shun all Meta products. I use Signal >(open source, non-proprietary) for stuff that would otherwise be >on Whatsapp and I've persuaded people who want to communicate with >me in that way to use it. Mostly it's just my family sharing videos, >etc. I can imagine that it might be different getting colleagues to >do that. > Where whatsapp etc. is concerned, I've taken to asking two simple questions, with the caveat that you can't answer "yes" to both. Q1: Do you respect other peoples privacy ? Q2: Do you use "social media" tools such as whatsapp and facebook ? This usually results in "Yes" to Q1, and an awkward pause at Q2. Adrian -- To Reply : replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-19 21:56 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87h64pl9i2.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26483 |
Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> writes: > In message <1r7xd1r.15ikg3vz0019vN%snipeco.2@gmail.com>, Sn!pe > <snipeco.2@gmail.com> writes >>I don't think you're odd at all, Adrian, I have exactly the same >>concerns as you; I too shun all Meta products. I use Signal >>(open source, non-proprietary) for stuff that would otherwise be >>on Whatsapp and I've persuaded people who want to communicate with >>me in that way to use it. Mostly it's just my family sharing videos, >>etc. I can imagine that it might be different getting colleagues to >>do that. >> > > Where whatsapp etc. is concerned, I've taken to asking two simple > questions, with the caveat that you can't answer "yes" to both. > > Q1: Do you respect other peoples privacy ? > > Q2: Do you use "social media" tools such as whatsapp and facebook ? > > This usually results in "Yes" to Q1, and an awkward pause at Q2. Lol.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-18 10:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <37f3e3f6-6cf9-fab4-76f4-dbc1a07fd369@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26476 |
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025, Adrian wrote: > In message <e7169dec-9cdd-624f-f9e7-fd0548c99d5d@example.net>, D > <nospam@example.net> writes >> >> >> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025, Adrian wrote: >> >>> In message <0310a638-3153-f886-5206-9bc8453c1f8e@example.net>, D >>> <nospam@example.net> writes >>>> I'm more scared about the government than the industry. With industry I >>>> always have the choice of not using it, and they depend on customers, so >>>> in the end, that protects me. >>>> >>> >>> Depending on what you mean by choosing not to use it. >>> >>> I don't use any of the Meta products, but they still know about me as >>> "friends" have uploaded pictures of me to facebook, or their contacts >>> lists to whatsapp. >>> >>> Adrian >> >> Why would they do that? It does not sound like friends to me, since they do >> not respect your wishes, nor your privacy. >> > > Note my use of "friends" not friends. When I asked why I was told that what > I don't know can't hurt me. This is the truth! > As for whatsapp, as I understand it, it is all or nothing thing about what it > uploads, and some of them are people that I work with, so we need each others > phone numbers whilst working. They think I'm odd for not using it. Are you based in the US? Uploading your information, that enables someone to identify you, without your consent, is illegal in the EU and punishable by up to 4% of the global revenues of the company. Another option is to have 2 phone numbers. One for work, and one for friends (without quotationmarks). I use the same technique with email. I have a spam-email that currently has around 20k spam messages in it, and this is the one most companies get. > Adrian >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-18 14:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tU4+D2EUOJtnFwb+@ku.gro.lloiff> |
| In reply to | #26481 |
In message <37f3e3f6-6cf9-fab4-76f4-dbc1a07fd369@example.net>, D <nospam@example.net> writes >Are you based in the US? Uploading your information, that enables >someone to identify you, without your consent, is illegal in the EU and >punishable by up to 4% of the global revenues of the company. > I'm in dear old Blighty (UK). Question is, who is the company in this case ? I assume Meta as the upload was done by an individual for reasons not explained. >Another option is to have 2 phone numbers. One for work, and one for >friends (without quotationmarks). > I thought about that. The thing is that 3 years ago we seemed to manage happily without it, but one person changing job meant that it now seems to be essential. I've asked higher ups why we now seem to have a defacto requirement to use WA, but no one seems to know. And I don't see why I should buy a second phone (and ongoing costs with running it) for what this year is likely to be 10 days use. >I use the same technique with email. I have a spam-email that currently >has around 20k spam messages in it, and this is the one most companies >get. > I have my own domain. Companies usually get a unique email address. Those that abuse it, or leak it, are soon found out, and may lose business as a result. Adrian -- To Reply : replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-19 22:03 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <871pvtl95y.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26484 |
Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> writes: > I thought about that. The thing is that 3 years ago we seemed to > manage happily without it, but one person changing job meant that it > now seems to be essential. I've asked higher ups why we now seem to > have a defacto requirement to use WA, but no one seems to know. And I > don't see why I should buy a second phone (and ongoing costs with > running it) for what this year is likely to be 10 days use. I totally agree that it's absurd. But it's essentially a war and a second phone is a weapon. >> I use the same technique with email. I have a spam-email that >> currently has around 20k spam messages in it, and this is the one >> most companies get. > > I have my own domain. Companies usually get a unique email > address. Those that abuse it, or leak it, are soon found out, and may > lose business as a result. And I think we have to take back this spirit of running the Internet ourselves. Remember---we are the ones that really know how to run it, not Whatsapp, Facebook users. So I think we all should host our own mail again, host our own code, our own NNTP servers, our own mailing lists... I also feel that things are changing. To what I don't know, but essentially when the changes become more clear, we'd be ourselves ready with solutions and also not worried that we're helping the movement that's hurting us. It feels great to realize that we don't put in even a cent towards this movement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-20 16:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <cdb24f22-11b2-8048-5cc4-69d61bc7cc45@example.net> |
| In reply to | #26507 |
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote: > Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> writes: > >> I thought about that. The thing is that 3 years ago we seemed to >> manage happily without it, but one person changing job meant that it >> now seems to be essential. I've asked higher ups why we now seem to >> have a defacto requirement to use WA, but no one seems to know. And I >> don't see why I should buy a second phone (and ongoing costs with >> running it) for what this year is likely to be 10 days use. > > I totally agree that it's absurd. But it's essentially a war and a > second phone is a weapon. > >>> I use the same technique with email. I have a spam-email that >>> currently has around 20k spam messages in it, and this is the one >>> most companies get. >> >> I have my own domain. Companies usually get a unique email >> address. Those that abuse it, or leak it, are soon found out, and may >> lose business as a result. > > And I think we have to take back this spirit of running the Internet > ourselves. Remember---we are the ones that really know how to run it, > not Whatsapp, Facebook users. So I think we all should host our own > mail again, host our own code, our own NNTP servers, our own mailing > lists... > > I also feel that things are changing. To what I don't know, but > essentially when the changes become more clear, we'd be ourselves ready > with solutions and also not worried that we're helping the movement > that's hurting us. It feels great to realize that we don't put in even > a cent towards this movement. > This is my idea on how to counter the laws all around the world that seek to forbid encryption. There is safety in numbers, and completely impossible for the authorities to arrest 10s or 100s of thousands of people. My dream is that people will start to use small self-hosted, end-to-end encrypted chat services, so that the laws forbidding encryption become meaningless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-20 18:47 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <8734g8ffvs.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #26525 |
D <nospam@example.net> writes: [...] > My dream is that people will start to use small self-hosted, > end-to-end encrypted chat services, so that the laws forbidding > encryption become meaningless. That's my idea, too. I don't think the USENET is actually a perfect project. I think communities should not too large. So I think we should build more NNTP servers to be used by small communities. And then these servers should have a standard API so that an index could be created somewhere where people can discover communities. Imagine how many closed NNTP servers, mailing lists are out there and nobody knows. The web is like that. A website sends you to another one. This is decentralization. No NNTP servers send you to another one, except those that have peers, but then it's as if they're all the same. My idea is to make NNTP servers more like the web. I don't know if it works. I'm thinking out loud.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.misc
csiph-web