Recent submissions

Comment · 3 months ago
why not zip the entire internet to 1MB so everyone can have a copy? because it is not possible - we don't know if it is possible. I mean we know it is impossible, but we don't know if it is possible to do it with acceptable quality loss.
Comment · 9 months ago
>No, you did something fake to avoid doing what you were asked to do.

Yes, that is what plausible deniability is.

>But there are very effective ways to find hidden encrypted volumes on devices. And then you’ll be asked to decrypt those too, and then what?

I emphasized "done right". If existence of hidden encryption can be proven, then you don't have plausible deniability. Something has gone wrong.

My point was: OP claimed plausible deniability does not apply in legal cases which is a weird take. If you can have plausible deniability, then it can save you legally. This does not only apply to tech of course, but encryption was the subject here. In all cases though, if your situation is not "plausible" (due to broken tech, backdoors, poor OPSEC in tech, and / or damning other evidence in other cases as well) then you don't have plauisble deniability by definition.

Having ways of definitively detecting hidden encrypted volumes might be the norm today, might be impossible tomorrow. Then you will have plausible deniability and it will work legally as far as that piece of "evidence" is concerned.

Comment · 9 months ago
It absolutely offers some legal protection. If it is implemented correctly, no legal framework for it is required. Government forces you to enter your password. You comply and enter "a" password. The device shows contents. You did what you were asked to do. If there is no way for the government to prove that you entered a decoy password that shows decoy contents, you are in the clear. Done correctly (in device and OPSEC) government can't prove you entered your decoy password so you can't be held in contempt. And that is the entire point. It is not like asking the government to give your "plausible deniability" rights. It is about not potentially incriminating yourself against people that abuse the system to force you to incriminate yourself.
Comment · 11 months ago
Kind of that. I'm not USA based. In my country you can do it through gov. insurance which is a lot of bureaucracy that I can't handle. Will go through the private route (fast) and pay out of nose. This to help my anxious mind and learn through the experiences of others.
Comment · 1 year ago
Private court system? How does it work? Regular court system works because the government has the threat of violence, has the muscle and rights to hunt, capture and detain. if "private court" rules against me and I refuse to obey, how will they make me obey? There is no "or else" embedded in it so it will be useless.
Comment · 1 year ago
You can create e-mail addresses for single use, even temporary ones.
Comment · 1 year ago
Someone might think: surely seeing ads targeted for them instead of random ads must be useful / beneficial for the user!
Comment · 2 years ago
I don't understand this. Copyright law does not prevent people from sharing their information freely. It gives the option for "rent seekers" to do their thing. Enforcing your rights for return is optional for people that don't want to do it. I'm not talking about right-to-repair here, but the idea of copyright in general.

A lot of information is generated by taking some financial risk with the hopes of creating something of value and recouping that investment + some profit. Copyright makes that kind of venture possible. It doesn't prevent altruistic souls from putting in the same effort without any expectation of return. We always had this, by default. Copyright framework allows pursuit, generation and dissemination of huge swaths of valuable information that would otherwise not exist.

Comment · 2 years ago
the point is, if your economic model cannot survive / adapt to the environment it is living in, is it viable? Cuba froze itself in time decades ago, is it just the embargoes? Why do they need capitalist trade to go a single step forward?
Comment · 2 years ago
your antivirus is arguably a malware itself. you don't need to give a 3rd party your entire internet browsing content to have a secure computer.
Comment · 2 years ago
did you read the article? author says you get approval from Apple for your use case then it is kosher.
Comment · 2 years ago
you're not the target. advertisements work. the people managing ads are very meticulous about their spend vs. return. if you are seeing an ad of something for any noticeable duration of time, that means it works. by that I mean they get positive return from showing the world their ad. if it generates negative returns, it will be pulled pretty quickly. they are humans just like you and me, we don't like losing money.

also one should always be skeptical about the extent they believe they are not influenced by ads. that runs pretty deep. you say you instinctively don't trust it. but when the time comes to buy something, you won't automatically steer yourself towards a product that you have never heard before just because you have not seen an ad for it. having some names in your mind, even them showing up when you do research creates influence.

Comment · 2 years ago
spent a lot of time trying to troubleshoot why vscode can't access extension marketplace as I just installed a new computer and am trying to bring in my profile but getting XHR errors, and devtools showing CORS errors... after an hour+ of trying to get it to connect, finally figured the services are down.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton