woodman

> Evidence of the NSAKEY being a backdoor includes some description of how the backdoor might work...

It would only work one way with an API relying on a PKI with a single CA, zero transparency, and trusted keys named after spy agencies suddenly appearing out of nowhere. I'm gonna bail here, because I'm now not sure if you honestly don't know what the CAPI was in relation to the NSAKEY - or if you're trying to waste my time by getting me to explain the most basic principles of public key infrastructure.

> The entirety of the NSAKEY evidence is "it has NSA in the name."

Your comparison is out of line because of ridiculous characterizations like this. Microsoft said that it was a backup key, which either means that they have the most poorly implemented scheme for backing up cryptographic materials ever devised, or they don't mean what most people think when they hear the word "backup". Microsoft then claimed that the backup was necessary for passing the export control review, which is a bold lie to tell since the Export Administration Regulations are available for review to everybody. One thing not included in the EAR that might influence Microsoft's conduct in trying to get permission from the USG to reach global customers: executive orders. The government had a hard limit at 56-bits and was proposing that anybody wanting to export crypto beyond that needed to participate in their push for private-key escrow, which they were calling "key-recovery". Recovery... sounds kind of like a backup plan...

I provided links in my response to the parent comment.

It was a debugging symbol that a Microsoft developer either negligently or heroically included in a public release... so that explains away the "nobody would be so stupid" argument. You are aware of how the Intel ME killswitch was located right? A commented xml file included with the flashing software helpfully informed anybody willing to look that a field was related to the NSA's High Assurance Platform program. This was after ten years of security researchers pointing at the fact that this was a backdoor. For whatever reason both Intel and the NSA were happy to let the public remain needlessly vulnerable all that time... But yeah, I'm just like one of those water fluoridation loons. The NSA wasn't at all hamfisted in the intentional weakening of elliptic curves and blatant RSA bribery, this isn't an obvious pattern emerging.

This is one of those situations that makes me wonder at how obvious the right way to go is, and how unlikely that is to happen. Offense/defense costs are not even close to being symmetrical, it is insane that the USG would advance the state of the art in electronic warfare - while not even pretending to try and match the effort in defense. This is why we abandoned our biological weapons program, we were effectively developing the technology for incredibly cheap weapons of mass destruction that any banana republic could mimic... not unlike the rootkit leaks.

> > "If every investor..."

This is already a thing, and it is starting to look like an incredibly bad idea. Well over a year ago I had lunch with my financial advisor and he tried to sell me on a portfolio balanced on some kind of social responsibility metric (female board member ratio, carbon credits, etc). At the time I thought it was just a new way to separate morons from their money, but now I'm starting to think that the US markets are setting themselves up for a fungibility attack. I remember, many years ago, the debate on bitcoin tainting - keeping a register of illegally obtained coins (and leaf transactions) and refusing to accept them. That is obviously an attack on the utility of the currency - a unit of value.

So what is the metric here, what is the new unit of value? The best case outcome is a Tower of Babel pandemonium, worst case is an irreversible further consolidation of kingmaking power.

ctrl+f 'transformative'... No matches.

I'm surprised by the sympathy I'm seeing for this position. You people know that she is effectively complaining about fair use, right? This is not something that can be budged on, even in deference to the feelings of a "writer/feminist/educator". Fair use is the only thing that stands between us and massive intellectual property cartels guiding the public consciousness through selective enforcement. Wanna go back to network television? Because this is how you do it.

There is a good chance they subscribe to a blocklist, so you could be blocked by anyone of a thousand people. Image the old PGP web of trust, but for crafting perfect echo chambers. I wonder if anybody has ever done the math on that.

The insane spike is for low traffic sites, so I'm guessing a blog platform defaulted RSS.

I'm curious, how are you defining "the like"? The list of people denied service looks a lot more like those you wouldn't want preceding your Coca-Cola ad buy. Why would Patreon care? Because payment networks care.

   8chan
   Encyclopedia Dramatica
   BitChute

If you expand the scope beyond Patreon and include Paypal then you can throw in:

   Wikileaks
   Numerous Antifa chapters
   World Socialist Web Site

As somebody who has been involved with bitcoin since 2012, I can tell you from first hand experience that when Visa declares you a persona non grata - a large number of businesses quickly do the same. Yes, the full list of Patreon service denials includes a lot of unsympathetic figures - but you'd be a fool to think that this behavior doesn't shift with the Overton window (welcome back to the world of crypto currency, Dwolla, betcha feel silly for screwing up that perfect opportunity Paypal gave you).

I'd say the former, but it really doesn't matter - the point is the subjectivity of collective "good" and "correctness". Also, a lot of people are under the impression that these things are numerically based - the democratic tyranny of the majority... this is not the case. We see the same thing play out in the slow failure of competing interest to guard against lobbyist abuse, it is an issue of motivation - not quantity or legitimacy.