stevetrewick

Joined 13 years ago

Karma
1,286
Submissions
326
Member since
Mar 10
Former dark matter programmer, analyst, startups to large multinationals. Currently indy Mac/iOS dev and part time tennis coach. Occasionally take interesting consulting gigs (reverse engineering, legacy system hacking). Cat person.
View on Hacker News

Recent submissions

Comment · 7 years ago
Well, somebody’s passport number.
Comment · 8 years ago
Comment · 8 years ago
Mildly OT, as you’re a blind tennis fan, have you ever tried the adapted version of the sport for blind and partially sighted participants? If not, and you’re interested, I might be able to point you in the right direction depending on where you’re based.
Comment · 8 years ago
No. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. IP addresses are considered PII if and only if they can actually be legally used to identify an individual. And even where they can be, what on earth are you doing with them that you imagine is non compliance?
Comment · 8 years ago
GDPR is for the most part making explicit things were implicit in the pre existing EU legislation, many of which have been subject to EU court rulings. There is a ton of precedent.
Comment · 8 years ago
Comment · 8 years ago
Comment · 8 years ago
404
Comment · 10 years ago
Maybe. But where was he, and where were the rest of his party when this abomination was being shoved through parliament? Abstaining in the commons and cheerleading it in the lords. So pardon me if I don't buy him being a decent chap having any bearing whatsoever on this issue.
Comment · 10 years ago
I think everyone can understand why it's been done. Because parliamentarians have looked at the legislation and come to the conclusion that it would infringe on what they believe to be their legitimate privileges.

It's just that they don't believe those same privileges should extend to everyone else.

Note the use of the word 'privileges' rather than rights, because once parliament starts making that distinction between groups that have them and groups that don't that's exactly what they become.

Comment · 10 years ago
Guess we're about to find out. The current government (albeit with a different (arguably more liberal) PM) has already revealed it has a desire to criminalise any crypto it can't decrypt. Because paedos and terrorists. That kind of legislation seems a natural outgrowth of this, once they find a 'think of the children' case to use as leverage. That's why we worry about the 'thin end of the wedge'.
Comment · 10 years ago
Cool. Now all I have to do is prove that to the satisfaction of the investigation while they crawl all over the rest of my life looking for clues as to what it is I'm so keen on hiding. The process is the punishment.
Comment · 10 years ago
To make you censor yourself so they don't have to. Same deal with the porn one. There was a piece by Alec Muffet not so long ago discussing the consultation process for age verification. All those involved knew that the headline group (teenagers) the law was supposed to protect were by far the most likely to circumvent the measures, so any such system is essentially not fit for its stated purpose.

Even if the intent is to play well with the authoritarian and/or socially conservative portions of the electorate, the effect will still be self censorship.

My SO and I both have to undergo enhanced disclosure and barring service checks on a regular basis for our jobs, one of which is in education. The UK Department of Education just effectively prevented Milo from speaking at his old school 'because extremism'. So how should I be feeling right now about following links from Reddit or other forums discussing US electoral politics that might lead to Breitbart? What if there's another situation like Sad Puppies vs the Hugos and I'm trying to get a picture of what's going on and I click on a link to find a Vox Day equivalent? Did I just endanger one of our prospects for future employment? Hard to say. Will using a VPN service get us tagged as 'something to hide' and affect our eligibility to work with children and vulnerable adults? Don't know. Worth betting someone's career on?

Comment · 10 years ago
I fail to see how placing an entire population's electronic communication under surveillance is a proportionate response to this kind of 'low hanging fruit' offender.
Comment · 10 years ago
"To ensure they do not succeed, we do not comment publicly on the methods or capabilities available to the security and intelligence agencies."

Oh but you don't need to, because it's obvious. All my encrypted traffic to my overseas based VPN will be logged (legal). Then you'll demand my keys so that you can decrypt it. If I don't or can't comply then I will be - by definition - a criminal and potentially a terror suspect.

Which is why 'just use a VPN' is not really a satisfactory response to this kind of legislative landscape. Just doing so paints a target on you.

Which is not to say I don't appreciate the VPN providers stepping up, the more VPN users there are the more expensive it is to persecute them individually.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton