nacho's recent activity
-
Comment on Do you own/run a business? What is it, where is it, how do you get customers? in ~finance
-
Comment on The Roman Space Telescope, NASA's next great observatory, is ready to launch Aug 30 in ~space
nacho Link ParentAmazing! There was so much hype around James Web in my circles. Do you have any idea why there's been so little about Nancy Grace Roman? Do you think it's strategic while Republicans have been...Amazing!
There was so much hype around James Web in my circles.
Do you have any idea why there's been so little about Nancy Grace Roman? Do you think it's strategic while Republicans have been cutting this that and the other for no reason?
-
Comment on Andy Burnham succeeds Keir Starmer as the UK's seventh prime minister in ten years in ~society
nacho Link ParentA year or two, maybe? At least this is someone who's saying they'll implement socially democratic policies to let the average Briton have it less tough economically. And that's what made Burnham...A year or two, maybe?
At least this is someone who's saying they'll implement socially democratic policies to let the average Briton have it less tough economically.
And that's what made Burnham popular in Manchester.
However, the whole issue is that the British electorate, like the American one, has voted against their own interests for quite some time. That's tough to get out of. When you don't reason yourself into a bad spot, how can you reason yourself out of it?
Voters get to choose. They get to make bad choices, but then they have to live with them. And somehow collectively learn from their mistakes and overcome. Brexit will ruin UK politics for many years yet.
-
Comment on Signal, NordVPN, Proton to leave Canada over C-22 in ~society
nacho Link ParentThe FBI being unable to access content in more than half the phones they wanted to legally search during a stretch of 11 months isn't enough for you to accept that this is hugely impacting law...The FBI being unable to access content in more than half the phones they wanted to legally search during a stretch of 11 months isn't enough for you to accept that this is hugely impacting law enforcement's ability to solve crimes.
By necessity, we expects huge holes in data: Both for crimes that go unreported, but also for crimes that are never discovered. It a necessary truth that it's nigh on impossible to quantify the size of these unknown unknowns. We'd expect these holes to get larger and larger with pervasive encrypted communications because we don't find those crimes like we used to be able to previously.
Reported crimes are going down hugely. There seems to be less crimes in many areas. Another quick search will lead to finding lots of reports that this decrease may be overstated as crimes are harder to detect because of factors like communication.
It's not like one can magically create new evidence to solve for a crime if digital communication isn't available. You get morsels and see if they lead on to new morsels that in time may put together a large picture. We're not in a CSI world of silver bullet tests. Circumstantial evidence combines to create solutions.
There's also the gigantic issue of the amount of resources for solving crimes increasing hugely if there's poor digital data. That's expensive and with limited resources, it leads to closing of cases without getting close to finding a culprit.
You're right that this is becoming circular. No evidence, nor the combination of many factors seems like it'll satisfy. There's little counter-argument.
-
Comment on Signal, NordVPN, Proton to leave Canada over C-22 in ~society
nacho Link ParentThese are just my first five search results in order: https://theconversation.com/police-solve-just-2-of-all-major-crimes-143878...These are just my first five search results in order:
https://theconversation.com/police-solve-just-2-of-all-major-crimes-143878
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/24/what-the-data-says-about-crime-in-the-us/
https://www.stephenmorgan.org.uk/record-low-number-of-crimes-being-solved-under-the-conservatives/
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/clearances
Again, it's a simple google search away finding Comey saying as early as 2014 that they don't want a back-door. They want regulated "front door" access, so there's no backdoor for others to exploit:
The 15 countries that make up the Virtual crime alliance have consistently said ad nauseum that their efforts are hampered by encryption:
https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/statement-on-end-to-end-encryption
The FBI consistently says encryption means they can't get into thousands of devices they get their hands on:
Quite frankly, I'm not the one making extraordinary claims. To the contrary, the claims I'm making are basic facts that stem from basic logic of how one conducts a search, gets evidence and follows a trail of evidence.
How in the world wouldn't encryption and traffic rerouting hugely impact law enforcement investigations?
Here siple sources that again show that using cryptocurrencies enables crimes greatly:
More into the details of how it works: https://www.merklescience.com/blog/money-laundering-in-crypto-how-criminals-hide-their-tracks
The extreme claims here are the opposite of what I'm saying.
I mean what even is the purpose of stablecoins other than avoiding sanctions/criminal prosecution or exchanging money across borders without declaring it?
-
Comment on Signal, NordVPN, Proton to leave Canada over C-22 in ~society
nacho Link ParentActually, it's completely the other way around. Clearance rates for all sorts of reported crimes are much, much lower than they were years ago. A quick search will find you the same results all...Crimes being solved isn't cosmic luck, it's what happens more often than not.
Actually, it's completely the other way around. Clearance rates for all sorts of reported crimes are much, much lower than they were years ago. A quick search will find you the same results all over Europe and elsewhere.
I regularly spend time in court as a witness or on behalf of companies as part of my job. Especially in cases relating to digital theft or network penetration where we try to help customers get their systems back in action.
I know very well what evidence is presented. How reasonable doubt is established by a lack of digital trails. The frustrations of law enforcement investigators and how dumb luck is what results in having legal means to randomly come upon ongoing crimes that have been taking place for years undetected.
I get inside information on a publicly listed company due to my tasks at work. I know precisely how records of who are insiders are made. I've experienced audits on lists from government bodies.
Insider trading often hinges on proving that a perpetrator gave information. It's specifically a communications crime: did x person give y person insider information to trade on?I know how I could trade on non-public information in ways that'd never get tied back to me and that I couldn't be connected back to. With a political insider, I could bet on markets in general. That'd be completely undetectable unless they could tie communication between me and an insider.
It's precisely because I know how crime works in practice and because I work in networking that I'm saying with such conviction that digital technology has massively reduced risk for organized crime and all other non-stupid criminals. Performing these crime are also way easier and more efficient
We even have digital currencies that are extremely effective in avoiding leaving a financial trail too.
I think you're very right that most people don't grasp how crimes work in practice, have distorted views on how crimes are solved and how often they're solved based on tv shows.
That's why they don't understand the impact of encryption, online traffic forwarding (VPNs) and how that trivializes crime for people who wouldn't otherwise know where to start or dare to start.
I also completely understand why law enforcement agencies don't speak out about the tools they don't have and therefore give instruction manuals for how to avoid detection. Sometimes I think they should speak to this because in many areas they're completely blind anyway.
That needs to change.
-
Comment on Signal, NordVPN, Proton to leave Canada over C-22 in ~society
nacho Link ParentI totally get what you're saying. I just don't agree with your "deeper points" because they do not match how I believe the world works, what's possible to do in practice. I think your analysis is...I totally get what you're saying. I just don't agree with your "deeper points" because they do not match how I believe the world works, what's possible to do in practice.
I think your analysis is wrong. I think civics proves you wrong every day and that the evidence showing as much is all around uss all the time. The massive benefit of global trade is just one example that proves this, also when trade is encumbered.
I believe viewing institutional problem solving as a mistake is extremely dangerous.
There are plenty of problems that necessarily have to be solved at a societal level. There are a number of subset of problems that need to be solved at a societal level that necessarily mean curtailing individual freedom (think mandated drivers' licenses, vaccines, safety standards, global warming - the list goes on and on).
The world would be a much easier place to navigate, but much more nihilistic, if you were right. As far as I'm concerned, that's just not the reality we live in.
The world doesn't mean that anyone who understands what I'm saying agrees with what I'm saying.
-
Comment on Signal, NordVPN, Proton to leave Canada over C-22 in ~society
nacho Link ParentMilitary, law enforcements, courts, intelligence agencies are technologies that provide immense good for everyone involved. None of them are all-or-none propositions. It's not about stopping...Military, law enforcements, courts, intelligence agencies are technologies that provide immense good for everyone involved. None of them are all-or-none propositions. It's not about stopping crime, it's about reducing it. It's not about ending inter-group conflicts, it's about massively reducing them.
State militaries have reduced the rate of violent death immensely. It gives us resources to live our lives rather than looking over our shoulders.
State punishments and the police's monopoly on violence against the population has hugely reduced people taking their own justice and people doing things that harm others.
Intelligence agencies in the cold war did hugely deescalate the cold war. "Trust, but verify" creates trust and prevents misunderstandings, it greatly reduces the chance of pre-emptive attacks.
The nation state and democracy are massive successes that benefit our lives greatly. Just because they aren't perfect doesn't mean that our institutions are head and shoulders better than all the alternatives. Society evolves one little improvement after another.
Of course bad-intentioned leaders want to misuse institutions. That's because they're so successful and powerful. That's why the regulations both of institutions and what politicians can and cannot do is such an important task for lawmakers, why the division of state powers is imperative.
That doesn't mean we should weaken institutions and therefore cause harm to everyone in society, just in case someone wants to take them over.
If there's an issue in society, the whole role of politicians and government is evaluating what should/shouldn't be done.
-
Comment on Signal, NordVPN, Proton to leave Canada over C-22 in ~society
nacho Link ParentThings like how the FBI ran their own encrypted phone company, ANOM, and saw how criminals work and therefore how their tools cannot possibly catch criminals who know what they're doing on other...Things like how the FBI ran their own encrypted phone company, ANOM, and saw how criminals work and therefore how their tools cannot possibly catch criminals who know what they're doing on other encrypted systems?
The sheer volume of criminal activity they knew nothing about that they randomly saw from this stroke of luck, the randomness of one criminal agreeing to a plea deal leading to over a thousand arrests?
Because we have black swans, random events of massive coincidence that lead to unveiling single instances of crime does not mean that we can catch any but the most unlucky, stupid, or coincidental cases of crime.
It's not about true impossibility, it's about effective or near impossibility. We can all concoct cosmic situations of massive luck that sometimes led to crime solving.
The core premise here is that if I as a simple layman can keep things permanently undiscoverable from anyone else, cheaply and with minimal risk, then all but the stupidest criminals can do the same.
Do you disagree with that premise? Is there any counter-evidence to that?
What evidence gets criminals caught? Is it stupidity, things that can be avoided? If so, wee should expect those that aren't unlucky and/or stupid are getting away with it, no. That's basic deductive reasoning.
Are there trustworthy sources and experts in the area that believe today's situation works well? Do we find and solve these crimes at scale?
There's no evidence to suggest that things are hunky-dory.
I want to reiterate: We're not talking about cybercrime here. We're talking about all manner of crimes where digital communication is used and would be key evidence (because that's where the stuff happens) but that is now undiscoverable.
-
Comment on Signal, NordVPN, Proton to leave Canada over C-22 in ~society
nacho Link ParentIt doesn't matter if we talk about sex pictures, business secrets, child exploitation images, mass insider trading, the chatroom organizing a murder spree, or whatever else: VPNs and encryption...So let me get this straight. You don't want my wife, a consenting adult who I know and love, to be able to safely and securely send me pictures of her cooter, with the knowledge that ain't nobody except the neither of us gonna be able to see them pictures, all because some criminal might use the same technology to commit some crime some day?
It doesn't matter if we talk about sex pictures, business secrets, child exploitation images, mass insider trading, the chatroom organizing a murder spree, or whatever else:
- VPNs and encryption are content-agnostic: if they work for one type of content, they work for all types of content.
- VPNs and encryption that work for one individual or group, work for all individuals or groups. It's not like we can forbid just -some- folks from using them; It's all or none.
I'm pointing out the reality that if I can send an image completely securely, I can do all manner of illegal things with minimal risk doing lots of harm to individual people and/or society at large.
You don't disagree with this basic description of how these technologies work, right? You don't disagree that steps for keeping data secure are the same for all types of data?
That has the implications I outline in all the other comments in this thread.
-
Comment on Signal, NordVPN, Proton to leave Canada over C-22 in ~society
nacho Link ParentShould we just abdicate so the Trumps of the world and their cronies get to keep doing what they're doing? I believe you mean well by wishing the government to be as noninvasive as possible....Should we just abdicate so the Trumps of the world and their cronies get to keep doing what they're doing?
I believe you mean well by wishing the government to be as noninvasive as possible. However, we can't throw our hands in the air and go "oh. The internet is here. Guess the world's a free for all now"
Regulating online activity is a necessary part of small government, if we believe in the concept of a constitutional state.
If we don't believe in nations and a law-based society, all bets are off. I don't want to live in such a place.
-
Comment on Signal, NordVPN, Proton to leave Canada over C-22 in ~society
nacho Link ParentI'm much, much more worried about commercial companies sucking up all data they can get their hands on, not following the restrictions set in their own user agreements. I'm more worried about bad...I'm much, much more worried about commercial companies sucking up all data they can get their hands on, not following the restrictions set in their own user agreements. I'm more worried about bad actors, AI-coding criminals and so on. The government is not enemy #1, it's not even in my top 5 concerns.
There's a number of things at work we do air-gapped, or only on internal software, don't store in the cloud etc.
I treat my private data more carefully than work stuff, because that's what's got value to me. I recommend anyone who cares about their own privacy to do the same.
-
Comment on Signal, NordVPN, Proton to leave Canada over C-22 in ~society
nacho Link ParentLet's say I have basic digital competence. Which ways exactly? How are they effective? Can they be performed at scale? Piracy is just an example. We're talking about all sorts of organized crime,...Plenty of ways to get digital evidence without backdoors and mass surveillance.
Let's say I have basic digital competence. Which ways exactly? How are they effective? Can they be performed at scale?
Piracy is just an example. We're talking about all sorts of organized crime, crime as a service, billionaire economic crimes and on and on.
You've correctly pointed out that a huge proportion of evidence that used to be available to law enforcement now isn't. This is obviously a problem if we believe in stopping crime.
Society and its laws need to be adapted to the reality of digital mass communication and how that changes how society works. It's that simple.
-
Comment on Signal, NordVPN, Proton to leave Canada over C-22 in ~society
nacho Link ParentHow it's impossible to prosecute tons of crimes because they're organized online? Homicide clearance rates drastically declining? The billionaire class being able to steal billions through...How it's impossible to prosecute tons of crimes because they're organized online?
Homicide clearance rates drastically declining?
The billionaire class being able to steal billions through corruption and illegal market manipulation?
Politicians being able to insider trade without concern so they spend their careers maximizing their own wealth rather than doing their jobs as politicians for us all?
Crime networks propping up human rights-abusing authoritarian states?
The terrible reality of child sex exploitation, ordered sexual abuse online as a service?
Not being able to gather the necessary evidence to prosecute the leadership of global giants for knowingly ruining the climate?
This isn't about "the internet". The internet is an integrated part of society. Not being able to gather evidence from online activities impacts all of society.
-
Comment on Signal, NordVPN, Proton to leave Canada over C-22 in ~society
nacho Link ParentHow much more tax are you willing to pay for all the help kids need from having their lives ruined by exploitative social media at too young an age? Are you confident their literal brains can be...How much more tax are you willing to pay for all the help kids need from having their lives ruined by exploitative social media at too young an age?
Are you confident their literal brains can be fixed after the fact?
I volunteer, I donate to organizations that work on these issues, I speak to issues in my field at conferences etc.
I believe in preventing harm where we can rather than having to try to compensate for harm because people being harmed is a worse outcome from those being harmed, even if we attempt to help them afterwards. Fixing things is often way more expensive, or just doesn't get resources.
We as humans are egotistical. We too often leave the underprivileged and weak behind to solve the problems we leave to them.
Convictions have moral consequences. I'm willing to pay with time and money to help based on the implications of my views.
We have political control of intelligence agencies in democracies. The culture and leadership of public bodies is a responsibility we as an electorate delegate to our representatives.
We must do our best to elect representatives who steward society's monopoly on violence, criminal prosecution etc. in good ways on our behalf.
In many places, we need to revitalize the social contract. People should be having better lives, rather than public many being spent on the good for the few ultrarich, public resources should be spent for the many.
I'm not willing to accept those left behind and harmed by the current state of affairs. It's untenable.
It's a matter of human dignity and worth. The alternative is even more freedom for those who are privileged already. The Roman pariah class had many great views of rights, morals and principles that they were occupied with for themselves, while 90 percent of the population weren't citizens and had no rights.
I believe those less unfortunate than me, those who can't speak up for themselves, shouldn't simply be left behind because I believe my own rights (that I have the resources to easily avail myself of already) could be even more unfettered.
-
Comment on Signal, NordVPN, Proton to leave Canada over C-22 in ~society
nacho Link ParentI'm all for a global clearing system so banks and bankers can't do the things they do to today. That would also make all other criminal activity with economic components way, way harder to perform...I'm all for a global clearing system so banks and bankers can't do the things they do to today.
That would also make all other criminal activity with economic components way, way harder to perform in practice.
It'd be a great alternative to other types of regulation that have much higher costs in terms of privacy or otherwise.
The whole concept of civil disobedience is breaking the law to get consequences consequences that forces changes to the law to end up with more moral/ethical laws.
The whole point Gandhi and others perfected was exactly to show that immoral laws led to unreasonable punishments so the laws had to be changed. Demonstrating this to society at large in practice because just saying it doesn't work. (Just like a strike often has to encumber a third party to get support to force a business to accept the goals of the strike)
The whole point, what causes changes in attitudes at a societal level, is that there's a cost there that people are willing to take, that their actions mean something.
(A corollary is that internet activism and other activism that doesn't demonstrate conviction through effort are much, much less likely to enact change, but be mostly performative/feel-good)
-
Comment on Signal, NordVPN, Proton to leave Canada over C-22 in ~society
nacho Link ParentI want to make sure I'm understanding what you're saying here: Do you actually mean to say that if drug smuglers are good at hiding their drugs by using real-time digital communication and 21st...I want to make sure I'm understanding what you're saying here:
Do you actually mean to say that if drug smuglers are good at hiding their drugs by using real-time digital communication and 21st century techniques like 3D-printing, we just shouldn't try to stop them?
I don't think the intention is that we should only catch dumb criminals, those who post pictures of drugs and cash on social media to brag.
I don't think that's what you're trying to say, but that seems to be an (unintended) implication?
The optimal amount of crime isn't even close to 0. It's a balance of resources spent on enforcement, deterrence, harm, the interests of society and the interests of those directly affected by a potential criminal act.
However, we're not talking about near-zero levels of crime.
A majority of cybercrimes that are reported are immediately closed with no investigation. Estimates are often that less than 1 percent of cybercrimes lead to conviction/punishment (I'm guessing it's orders of magnitude lower in reality).
Even back in 2022, estimates in the US were that digital evidence was used in 9 of 10 criminal prosecutions of any type of crime. We're talking about the main way of catching folks for doing illegal things here, tying people to places, to orders, to all sorts of incrimination.
Good statistics are hard to find, but Sweden seems to be trying at least. It's not data from lobbying groups, which seems to be the case many other places.
They estimate (2025) that half of young men consume illegal media content every month [source] (https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-iptv-consumed-by-30-of-swedes-including-50-of-men-under-35-290529/)
It's way, way, way easier to be a criminal today than in the time of wire-taps, physical meet ups and the like.
I'm also pretty confident you don't mean that we should make law-enforcement harder than necessary: society needs digital evidence.
"just get other evidence" is not an option today. We live in a fully integrated digital world.
-
Comment on Signal, NordVPN, Proton to leave Canada over C-22 in ~society
nacho Link ParentI probably shouldn't engage with someone who immediately jumps to insults in characterizing mainstream views as "weird authoritarian arguments". That's so obviously not in line with Tildes'...I probably shouldn't engage with someone who immediately jumps to insults in characterizing mainstream views as "weird authoritarian arguments". That's so obviously not in line with Tildes' general principle of treating others with basic civility and trying to contribute in good faith.
However, I feel compelled to remind anyone that the views I've expressed are mainstream views and active legislative debates in a number of western countries right now.
Bubble effects may lead others to think that there aren't massive majorities for regulating the internet to be safer for kids.
Things like age-restricting access to social media sites for the mental health of children have huge majorities of support in the EU, to mention the most lowest-hanging example.
How could these wishes of huge majorities of populations possibly be enacted if a 10 year old can simply use a VPN to view pro-anorexia content, hardcore porn with choking or the like and be traumatized?
These are not issues of debate. They're uncomfortable facets of reality. My summary of the current state of affairs is accurate:
The topic at hand is finding a good enough solution for regulation and then building from there. Doing nothing is not an alternative, as is evident today.
-
Comment on Signal, NordVPN, Proton to leave Canada over C-22 in ~society
nacho Link ParentFurther, any such warrant will take so long to get that all digital traces have long since been deleted. Or the legal retention of data is so short that law enforcement can't legally keep enough...Further, any such warrant will take so long to get that all digital traces have long since been deleted.
Or the legal retention of data is so short that law enforcement can't legally keep enough material to know if it's important to an investigation to prove crimes or not.
-
Comment on Signal, NordVPN, Proton to leave Canada over C-22 in ~society
nacho Link ParentWe cannot have a world where everyone is free to perform crime because they cannot be caught and can effectively hide and plan their crimes online. That is a problem that has to be solved, like it...We cannot have a world where everyone is free to perform crime because they cannot be caught and can effectively hide and plan their crimes online.
That is a problem that has to be solved, like it or not.
The topic at hand is finding a good enough solution for regulation and then building from there. Doing nothing is not an alternative, as is evident today.
As I've posted previously:
I ran a one-person network company. "We" got bought by a huge multinational with the agreement that I would have to work for the new mother company for at least five years. I'm economically set for life. I'd do it again knowing what I do now.
The five years have passed. I now manage several employees, do completely different things than I used to and get paid a lot for my technical skill set. I mostly deal with emergency issues for our largest clients when they have issues, especially if the issues aren't actually on our end.
The buying company agreed to put a lot of things in writing to ensure the sale would go through. I'm sure they've made a lot of money on the deal, but it was totally worth it for me. I never had ambitions for building a large company or dedicating my entire life to work. I never had aspirations for getting really rich; not having to worry about money again isn't something I would say no to.
To the questions (in order):
I sold networking solutions to large companies, maintained them.
The business was entirely online-based. I'd only meet customers at their locations if they insisted.
I got a foot in the door, got a good reputation and customers found me more than I found them. The business got good within the first three months, so good I didn't have to worry about recruiting customers, so I know very little about that.
I made way more when I ran my own company than now, but selling the thing made me never have to worry about money again, and I can stop working whenever I want or do whatever I want for the rest of my life.
The best thing about running my own business was that I could just do stuff. Didn't have to have meetings or difficult decisions etc. Many things customers expected would take weeks to decide or whatever I could agree to then and there, or quickly and deliver quickly too.
If I'd done it again, I'd probably hired someone to handle the "office stuff". That way I'd have more time to do the fun things (and I'd also made way more money, even paying someone handsomely to get a person to do the job long-term). I would also probably have sold the company sooner for more if I'd built things that way. Otherwise, I was incredibly lucky and found a niche others didn't see where there was a huge willingness to pay money to save on bad networking systems.
What bothered me the most about running my own business was when stuff broke, or customers got downtime from other services/equipment so I'd essentially be on call 24/7/365. That was paid very, very handsomely when they did silly things I'd have to fix, but it's a hassle having to bring a computer and be sure you have a fast internet connection that can handle a heavy-duty VPN wherever you are, always.
I was working in an adjacent field, had an acquaintance say their large employer needed such-and-such system. I said I could build that in a couple weeks, could surely sell it to a couple smaller companies quickly to demonstrate that it worked, and others were willing to pay for it. Then I'd get back to him in a couple months. I ended up getting a bank and a software startup as my two first customers. That made getting new customers VERY easy as they both said they'd be references if I neede it (which I did until the first huge company told their suppliers they should buy my service as it'd saved them quite a bit of money and they were safer to boot.
(Sorry I'm a little vague on the details, giving more I'd be real easy to identify)