Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
* Andrei POPESCU [21-03/12=Fr 17:51 +0200]: > When Facebook was in its infancy (at least in my country) > they were spamming my e-mail inviting me to join [...] I wanted to know what "my country" designated, so ... - `g Andrei POPESCU` --- Andrei Popescu is a Romanian lawyer and a judge at the General Court of the European Union. He graduated in law from the University of Bucharest in 1971 and obtained his doctorate in 1980. -- Wikipedia Andrei P - VP of Software Engineering - Android - Google Inc ... uk.linkedin.com/andreip Dr Andrei Popescu | Computer Science | The University of Sheffield Andrei Popescu-Belis - Professor of computer science at HEIG-VD iict-space.heig-vd.ch/apu Andrei Popescu. Carnegie Master. As a passionate musician, [...] Dr Ion-Andrei Popescu. Ortho and trauma surgeon [...] Andrei Popescu (born 1985-02-20=We) is a Romanian professional footballer Andrei Popescu. Singapore. Co-Founder of COSS.IO & SCX Holdings [...] Andrei Popescu(. Moscow, INR. ) Andrei Popescu (37) is a tennis player from Romania. Andrei Popescu. Andrei Popescu is an actor, known for Professor Thompson (2018). Dr Andrei Popescu is an Emergency Medicine Specialist in Los Angeles CA. Dr Andrei Popescu, MD is a board certified internist in Wooster, Ohio. You, sir, have led a rich, varied, well-traveled, and colorful life! -- Will Mengarini Free software: the Source will be with you, always. perl -le"print unpack '%C*',MENGARINI"
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Sat, May 8, 2021, 7:22 AM Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Du, 21 mar 21, 09:55:32, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > > Of course the *primary* private key should be protected properly. A > > Debian recommendation (that I can't find) was suggesting to generate and > > keep it on a Tails USB stick and use it only for certifying other keys. > I would modify that slightly: Save it on two, *different* Tails USB Sticks, and save them in different locations. Kenneth Parker > > > > Day to day work (messages, signing packages, etc.) should be done with > > sub-keys instead. > > Found it: > > https://wiki.debian.org/GnuPG/AirgappedMasterKey > > > Kind regards, > Andrei > -- > http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser >
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Du, 21 mar 21, 09:55:32, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > Of course the *primary* private key should be protected properly. A > Debian recommendation (that I can't find) was suggesting to generate and > keep it on a Tails USB stick and use it only for certifying other keys. > > Day to day work (messages, signing packages, etc.) should be done with > sub-keys instead. Found it: https://wiki.debian.org/GnuPG/AirgappedMasterKey Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Tue 23 Mar 2021 at 21:21:32 +0200, ellanios82 wrote: > On 3/23/21 5:51 PM, Viktor Vogel wrote: > > An observation from a native English speaker - > > > > I've lived and worked in the Republic of China, and had gotten a fairly > > good grasp of Mandarin. In my experience tackling Russian I found it > > much more difficult than Chinese. > > > > Chinese has different sounds, and tones that need to be mastered, but > > the grammar is dead simple. > > > > Russian also has different sounds, and the grammar is incredibly > > complex, baroque and inconsistent. > > - wonder if someone has observations on learning Modern Greek ? Gerunds are somewhat more difficult than in Ancient Greek. Apart from that, most modern Greeks seem to cope with them. -- Brian.
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On 3/23/21 5:51 PM, Viktor Vogel wrote: An observation from a native English speaker - I've lived and worked in the Republic of China, and had gotten a fairly good grasp of Mandarin. In my experience tackling Russian I found it much more difficult than Chinese. Chinese has different sounds, and tones that need to be mastered, but the grammar is dead simple. Russian also has different sounds, and the grammar is incredibly complex, baroque and inconsistent. - wonder if someone has observations on learning Modern Greek ? regards
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On 2021-03-23, Viktor Vogel wrote: > An observation from a native English speaker - > > I've lived and worked in the Republic of China, and had gotten a fairly > good grasp of Mandarin. In my experience tackling Russian I found it > much more difficult than Chinese. > I remember seeing an interview with Norman Mailer after he published his book about Oswald, which he researched for an extended period of time in Russia. He said that if he would have been the crying type, he would've cried from frustration trying to learn Russian (he never managed to do it, though he tried).
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
An observation from a native English speaker - I've lived and worked in the Republic of China, and had gotten a fairly good grasp of Mandarin. In my experience tackling Russian I found it much more difficult than Chinese. Chinese has different sounds, and tones that need to be mastered, but the grammar is dead simple. Russian also has different sounds, and the grammar is incredibly complex, baroque and inconsistent. Viktor On 3/22/21 1:35 PM, John Hasler wrote: deloptes writes: You mean Chinese is easier than Russian and Russian is harder than French? I have no experience with Chinese but I found Russian harder than French (though I've pretty much forgotten both). -- "It's always rewarding to talk to a clever man" - Raskolnikov, "Crime and Punishment"
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On 23-03-2021 06:06, deloptes wrote: > Weaver wrote: > >> Not an easy language to learn, however, unless you already have Slavic >> roots. > > You mean Chinese is easier than Russian and Russian is harder than French? > And I mean not only speaking, but also writing Yes, once you understand the structure of Mandarin, it's not hard to get on top of it. Russian is harder than French, but the French find it easier to learn than most, because they are already familiar with concepts such as verb conjugation, which they both share. Cheers! Harry -- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. — Lucius Annæus Seneca. Terrorism, the new religion.
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
deloptes writes: > You mean Chinese is easier than Russian and Russian is harder than > French? I have no experience with Chinese but I found Russian harder than French (though I've pretty much forgotten both). -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
Weaver wrote: > Not an easy language to learn, however, unless you already have Slavic > roots. You mean Chinese is easier than Russian and Russian is harder than French? And I mean not only speaking, but also writing
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On 23-03-2021 05:47, deloptes wrote: > Weaver wrote: > >> Yes. >> But, once there, far better to learn the language. >> The resultant experience is well worth it. >> The money is not the same, but the cost of living is much lower. >> Cheers! > > I was thinking to go to Chech Republic or Russia - found the language > easier, but thanks anyway - will consider next Russia is a great experience also. A nation of workers, all going flat out. Good-hearted, genuine people. Not an easy language to learn, however, unless you already have Slavic roots. Cheers! Harry. -- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. — Lucius Annæus Seneca. Terrorism, the new religion.
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
Weaver wrote: > Yes. > But, once there, far better to learn the language. > The resultant experience is well worth it. > The money is not the same, but the cost of living is much lower. > Cheers! I was thinking to go to Chech Republic or Russia - found the language easier, but thanks anyway - will consider next
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On 22-03-2021 19:00, deloptes wrote: > Weaver wrote: > >> They have some excellent language schools and, being surrounded by it, >> it's a fast way to learn. > > you mean I can look for a position in China without knowing Chinese? Yes. But, once there, far better to learn the language. The resultant experience is well worth it. The money is not the same, but the cost of living is much lower. Cheers! Harry -- `The World is not dangerous because of those who do harm but because of those who look on without doing anything'. -- Albert Einstein
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 01:20:02 + (UTC) Long Wind wrote: > > term Chinese government is quite misleadingit's used as if it's same > as other legitimate government, i.e. elected by people its true > nature is criminal group, as described in bill by US senator > All governments are criminal groups. -- Joe
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
Weaver wrote: > They have some excellent language schools and, being surrounded by it, > it's a fast way to learn. you mean I can look for a position in China without knowing Chinese?
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On 22-03-2021 18:13, deloptes wrote: > Long Wind wrote: > >> where do you live? most rich Chinese are considering emigration to West, >> this is called vote by feet. how many people in West come to live in >> china? > > my problem is the language, otherwise we could switch for couple of years to > exchange experience They have some excellent language schools and, being surrounded by it, it's a fast way to learn. -- `The World is not dangerous because of those who do harm but because of those who look on without doing anything'. -- Albert Einstein
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
Long Wind wrote: > where do you live? most rich Chinese are considering emigration to West, > this is called vote by feet. how many people in West come to live in > china? my problem is the language, otherwise we could switch for couple of years to exchange experience
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
LOn Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 11:49 PM Long Wind wrote: > where do you live? most rich Chinese are considering emigration to West, > this is called vote by feet. how many people in West come to live in china? > I know quite a few Chinese people who lived in the US for 5-8 years and could have easily stayed here. They had planned to, and then they changed their minds. I always asked them why? And that all said “I didn’t want to raise my kids in American.” This totally blew my mind.
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
deloptes writes: > The difference as said is, that you know what China is doing You think you know what China is doing. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On 22-03-2021 16:49, Long Wind wrote: > On Monday, March 22, 2021, 2:20:20 PM GMT+8, deloptes > wrote: > > The difference as said is, that you know what China is doing, but you > do not > > know what USA is doing. The moment you speak out (Assange, Snowden and > many > > many others) it is the same as China. > > China is bad, but the illusion of democracy we live in here is even > worse. > > where do you live? most rich Chinese are considering emigration to > West, this is called vote by feet. how many people in West come to > live in china? Quite a few. Including many business class. > PS: now i have difficulty in using mail, because of government's > blocking, gmail and google is completely blocked, (yahoo is partially > blocked) -- `The World is not dangerous because of those who do harm but because of those who look on without doing anything'. -- Albert Einstein
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On 22-03-2021 16:19, deloptes wrote: > Long Wind wrote: > >> term Chinese government is quite misleadingit's used as if it's same as >> other legitimate government, i.e. elected by people its true nature is >> criminal group, as described in bill by US senator > > The difference as said is, that you know what China is doing, but you do not > know what USA is doing. The moment you speak out (Assange, Snowden and many > many others) it is the same as China. > China is bad, but the illusion of democracy we live in here is even worse. I feel more free in China and Russia than I ever did on multiple trips to the U.S. I've been there half a dozen times to attend and speak at conferences. The last time, I wasn't even going there, just passing through. Waiting at L.A. International for a connecting flight. I was required (there was no option) to provide a retinal scan and undergo fingerprinting. A number of us were subjected to this. Note: we weren't in the country, had no intention of entering the U.S., and were all citizens of other (friendly) countries. This was in the days pre-TSA. I have never been there since, and never will. I check out all flights - I do a substantial amount of travelling - and if there's a U.S. connection involved, I choose a different route. The land of the free? Bullshit! The only ones who sincerely believe that have no point of comparison. I have had in depth discussions on any subject you care to name in both Russia and China. I really can't recall discussing political issues in the U.SW.: in those days I was simply too busy. I have never been subjected to treatment like that in either China or Russia. Cheers! Harry -- `The World is not dangerous because of those who do harm but because of those who look on without doing anything'. -- Albert Einstein
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Monday, March 22, 2021, 2:20:20 PM GMT+8, deloptes wrote: The difference as said is, that you know what China is doing, but you do not know what USA is doing. The moment you speak out (Assange, Snowden and many many others) it is the same as China. China is bad, but the illusion of democracy we live in here is even worse. where do you live? most rich Chinese are considering emigration to West, this is called vote by feet. how many people in West come to live in china? PS: now i have difficulty in using mail, because of government's blocking, gmail and google is completely blocked, (yahoo is partially blocked)
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
Long Wind wrote: > term Chinese government is quite misleadingit's used as if it's same as > other legitimate government, i.e. elected by people its true nature is > criminal group, as described in bill by US senator The difference as said is, that you know what China is doing, but you do not know what USA is doing. The moment you speak out (Assange, Snowden and many many others) it is the same as China. China is bad, but the illusion of democracy we live in here is even worse.
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On 22-03-2021 11:20, Long Wind wrote: > deloptes wrote: > > Well, they are brain washed - in a sense they know that it is > impossible to > > stand up against and also might be not wise, because proven is the > fact > > they manage things better than neighbor India or developed Europe. > > I wanted to avoid being criticized for praising China. > > can you give some examples that china manage better than india or > europe? > like all dictatorship, china rule by violence and propaganda Rubbish! Obviously never been there. The Chinese cops are the friendliest I've ever come across. Nobody there has any hesitation in going to them with a problem. They see themselves as public servants, which is a perception that doesn't live in many westernised countries any more. If you need directions or advice, go to them: most of them have a translation app on their smart phones, and they'll set you right and do it with a smile. If you want governmental corruption, go to India. There's so much back-pocket business going on there, it's a whole new industry and, arguably, India's largest. Developed Europe? What would you call that? Macron's France or Merkel's Germany? > china do better , because all bad news are hidden by communist > leadership Garbage! There's an extremely active anti-corruption drive happening in China. Politicians found guilty of it get heavy prison sentences, at best, and often a death sentence. China now has lifted its entire population above poverty level. It's lauded by the World Bank as an unprecedented achievement. > term Chinese government is quite misleading > it's used as if it's same as other legitimate government, i.e. > elected by people It was. China has already had its revolution. What would you call a legitimate government? The U.S., where congressmen become millionaires, even billionaires, on salaries it's impossible to do it on, and nobody says a word? > its true nature is criminal group, as described in bill by US senator I think you need to stop believing everything you see on TV. But thanks for providing a perfect example of exactly what we have been talking about in the earlier stages of this conversation. Cheers! Harry. -- `The World is not dangerous because of those who do harm but because of those who look on without doing anything'. -- Albert Einstein
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
deloptes wrote: Well, they are brain washed - in a sense they know that it is impossible to stand up against and also might be not wise, because proven is the fact they manage things better than neighbor India or developed Europe. I wanted to avoid being criticized for praising China. can you give some examples that china manage better than india or europe?like all dictatorship, china rule by violence and propaganda china do better , because all bad news are hidden by communist leadership term Chinese government is quite misleadingit's used as if it's same as other legitimate government, i.e. elected by people its true nature is criminal group, as described in bill by US senator
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Sun, 21 Mar 2021 14:33:50 +0100 deloptes wrote: > Weaver wrote: > > > > I was in China at the time, and it was far from > > `totalitarian/militant'. The people just played it smart, as they > > also did in New Zealand, which was also not > > `totalitarian/militant'. > > Well, they are brain washed - in a sense they know that it is > impossible to stand up against and also might be not wise, because > proven is the fact they manage things better than neighbor India or > developed Europe. I wanted to avoid being criticized for praising > China. > > The Chinese government knows that it is the government of China, and not a participant in some kind of international PC-willy-waving contest with no prizes. The same with Russia and a few other non-western countries. -- Joe
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
Weaver wrote: > On 21-03-2021 20:39, deloptes wrote: >> Andrei POPESCU wrote: >> >>> In hindsight, what was meant as a joke probably came out as mocking, I >>> apologise for that. >>> >>> I'm sure you do know that the public key needs to be made available for >>> others to be able to send you encrypted messages. >>> >>> Of course the *primary* private key should be protected properly. A >>> Debian recommendation (that I can't find) was suggesting to generate and >>> keep it on a Tails USB stick and use it only for certifying other keys. >>> >>> Day to day work (messages, signing packages, etc.) should be done with >>> sub-keys instead. >> >> Yes, I recall this from the past. So basically there are two use cases >> here. What I was reffering to is cases like Snowden or Assange or some >> investigative journalists who do not survive like Navalni and are not >> Russians ;-). > > Well, Navalny isn't an investigative journalist, he's just an agitator. > And, word is, he's a CIA asset, so you're right in he isn't Russian, > either. He got it lucky: I thought he'd wind up in Black Dolphin, or > similar, but he got a really easy gig in a work camp, not far from > Moscow. > Yes he is working for one guy called Bill Browder, who himself is behind the anti Russia campaigns - google it - it is worth reading/knowing. Everytime I write in public about it, I fear, although I am in a western democratic country. I fear, because I know what happened to people with much more capabilities than me. >> You are reffering to cases in the public domain, but IMO here it works >> perfectly well (signing packages or similar) >> In the use case I reffer to one should take care of his/her life. > > This is important. The individual has the right to make their own > decisions on their own personal existence. The right to make the wrong > one, and the right to suffer by it. > Indeed - this is why I am against over regulating stuff. For example I find it good that in the EU food manufactureres are obliged to write the content on the package. You then decide if you buy and eat or not. It is amazing to me that these products still sell - something called food and does not have anything to do with food. No wonder stomach and other types of cancer explode. >> Exchanging >> keys via public domain is not what I would do and even so - it was >> proven "they" are capturing your screen (after you decrypted) and sending >> it home for further analyses. > > Making the `public domain `public' again would be a good move. When the > network is owned, as it is now, there will always be compromise. There > will be a `product' to sell. > Agree - but it is complicated topic. IMO it is similar to Water Supply - also very interesting stories, no one is talking about (France, England, Germany etc.). >> In the public domain I do not see how the avg. Joe would manage it to >> stay safe. It is impossible ... most do not care, do not understand or do >> not have the capacity. > > Most are currently involved with whether they're going to be voting > Republican or Democrat, next time, in and endless cycle of always voting > for the same party with two different names, and which of the two only > pre-selected Presidential candidates they are going to place their faith > in, in a show that is no more than the illusion of a democratic process. > >> I would not bother unless they have the right to vote - >> and yes they do and so determine your future. >> >> So to jump to the conclusion - this form of democracy is counter >> productive and we should have open debate regarding some better form of >> democracy - lets say next generation democracy. (Covid-19 also showed >> that a more totalitarian/military style approach gives better results - >> and I do not mean China here). > > I was in China at the time, and it was far from `totalitarian/militant'. > The people just played it smart, as they also did in New Zealand, which > was also not `totalitarian/militant'. Well, they are brain washed - in a sense they know that it is impossible to stand up against and also might be not wise, because proven is the fact they manage things better than neighbor India or developed Europe. I wanted to avoid being criticized for praising China.
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On 21-03-2021 20:39, deloptes wrote: > Andrei POPESCU wrote: > >> In hindsight, what was meant as a joke probably came out as mocking, I >> apologise for that. >> >> I'm sure you do know that the public key needs to be made available for >> others to be able to send you encrypted messages. >> >> Of course the *primary* private key should be protected properly. A >> Debian recommendation (that I can't find) was suggesting to generate and >> keep it on a Tails USB stick and use it only for certifying other keys. >> >> Day to day work (messages, signing packages, etc.) should be done with >> sub-keys instead. > > Yes, I recall this from the past. So basically there are two use cases here. > What I was reffering to is cases like Snowden or Assange or some > investigative journalists who do not survive like Navalni and are not > Russians ;-). Well, Navalny isn't an investigative journalist, he's just an agitator. And, word is, he's a CIA asset, so you're right in he isn't Russian, either. He got it lucky: I thought he'd wind up in Black Dolphin, or similar, but he got a really easy gig in a work camp, not far from Moscow. > You are reffering to cases in the public domain, but IMO here it works > perfectly well (signing packages or similar) > In the use case I reffer to one should take care of his/her life. This is important. The individual has the right to make their own decisions on their own personal existence. The right to make the wrong one, and the right to suffer by it. > Exchanging > keys via public domain is not what I would do and even so - it was > proven "they" are capturing your screen (after you decrypted) and sending > it home for further analyses. Making the `public domain `public' again would be a good move. When the network is owned, as it is now, there will always be compromise. There will be a `product' to sell. > In the public domain I do not see how the avg. Joe would manage it to stay > safe. It is impossible ... most do not care, do not understand or do not > have the capacity. Most are currently involved with whether they're going to be voting Republican or Democrat, next time, in and endless cycle of always voting for the same party with two different names, and which of the two only pre-selected Presidential candidates they are going to place their faith in, in a show that is no more than the illusion of a democratic process. > I would not bother unless they have the right to vote - > and yes they do and so determine your future. > > So to jump to the conclusion - this form of democracy is counter productive > and we should have open debate regarding some better form of democracy - > lets say next generation democracy. (Covid-19 also showed that a more > totalitarian/military style approach gives better results - and I do not > mean China here). I was in China at the time, and it was far from `totalitarian/militant'. The people just played it smart, as they also did in New Zealand, which was also not `totalitarian/militant'. Cheers! Harry -- `The World is not dangerous because of those who do harm but because of those who look on without doing anything'. -- Albert Einstein
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
Andrei POPESCU wrote: > In hindsight, what was meant as a joke probably came out as mocking, I > apologise for that. > > I'm sure you do know that the public key needs to be made available for > others to be able to send you encrypted messages. > > Of course the *primary* private key should be protected properly. A > Debian recommendation (that I can't find) was suggesting to generate and > keep it on a Tails USB stick and use it only for certifying other keys. > > Day to day work (messages, signing packages, etc.) should be done with > sub-keys instead. Yes, I recall this from the past. So basically there are two use cases here. What I was reffering to is cases like Snowden or Assange or some investigative journalists who do not survive like Navalni and are not Russians ;-). You are reffering to cases in the public domain, but IMO here it works perfectly well (signing packages or similar) In the use case I reffer to one should take care of his/her life. Exchanging keys via public domain is not what I would do and even so - it was proven "they" are capturing your screen (after you decrypted) and sending it home for further analyses. In the public domain I do not see how the avg. Joe would manage it to stay safe. It is impossible ... most do not care, do not understand or do not have the capacity. I would not bother unless they have the right to vote - and yes they do and so determine your future. So to jump to the conclusion - this form of democracy is counter productive and we should have open debate regarding some better form of democracy - lets say next generation democracy. (Covid-19 also showed that a more totalitarian/military style approach gives better results - and I do not mean China here).
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Sb, 20 mar 21, 19:11:07, deloptes wrote: > Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > In my (not so humble) opinion, this level of security could make sense > > for a disident in a totalitarian state, less so for regular users in > > democratic country. > > > > And you disappoint me here too - you believe in illusion of democracy, which > is not so obvious as i.e. in China, but I found out it is even much worse. > No need to argue and explain - I will not - Assange, Snowden are enough! > This is like in The Matrix. > Enjoy the feeling for democracy as long as you can, but keep in mind the > reality is not so far from a "totalitarian state" and don't take the > colorful glasses off - it may lead to depression. As someone who grew up in a totalitarian state I'm quite aware of the differences as well as similarities, thank you. My point is that going full "encrypt everything on an air-gapped machine" might work for you, but it's *not* going to scale well as a defence to *mass* surveillance. While it might protect you, the vast majority of users will just dismiss this as complete paranoia and carry on *willingly* providing their data to various companies and governments, data that totalitarian surveillance in previous times could only dream of. Mass surveillance doesn't care about any single individual, the point is to get data from as many people as possible, whether in the name of "security" or to sell it to advertisers. Protecting only ourselves is meaningless in this context, we are just a statistical rounding error anyway. Getting the majority of users on services that are resistent to mass surveillance (even if less than perfect) is the only way to make a difference here. I'm guessing most of us are the ones friends and family turn to for advice on those pesky technical matters that they don't care about enough to learn, and we can make a difference simply by getting them to switch from WhatAspp to Signal or from Gmail to ProtonMail. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Sb, 20 mar 21, 19:03:58, deloptes wrote: > Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > Good luck in doing public key cryptography without publishing the public > > key :) > > Andrei - you disappoint me here! In hindsight, what was meant as a joke probably came out as mocking, I apologise for that. I'm sure you do know that the public key needs to be made available for others to be able to send you encrypted messages. Of course the *primary* private key should be protected properly. A Debian recommendation (that I can't find) was suggesting to generate and keep it on a Tails USB stick and use it only for certifying other keys. Day to day work (messages, signing packages, etc.) should be done with sub-keys instead. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On 21-03-2021 17:06, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On Sun Mar 21 00:01:59 2021 Stefan Monnier wrote: > >>> In my (not so humble) opinion, this level of security could make >>> sense for a disident in a totalitarian state, less so for regular >>> users in democratic country. >> >> Reminds me of the saying that the difference between USA and USSR was >> that in USSR the population knew that it was propaganda. > > Under capitalism, man exploits man. > Under communism, it's just the opposite. > -- John Kenneth Galbraith That's actually a paraphrase of an old Polish proverb: `Under capitalism man exploits man; under socialism the reverse is true' -- Polish Proverb. Cheers! Harry -- `The World is not dangerous because of those who do harm but because of those who look on without doing anything'. -- Albert Einstein
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Sun Mar 21 00:01:59 2021 Stefan Monnier wrote: >> In my (not so humble) opinion, this level of security could make >> sense for a disident in a totalitarian state, less so for regular >> users in democratic country. > > Reminds me of the saying that the difference between USA and USSR was > that in USSR the population knew that it was propaganda. Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. -- John Kenneth Galbraith -- cgi...@surfnaked.ca (Charlie Gibbs)
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
Stefan Monnier wrote: > Reminds me of the saying that the difference between USA and USSR was > that in USSR the population knew that it was propaganda. Exactly - this part is absolutely the same. The difference is in the methods. There it was wellknown, here - not until internet came out ... or is Assange, or Snowden a free person. This BS is a joke - I would have never imagined I would watch RT to get a different point of view :/ or that I would stop reading the magazines I grew up with (it became unbearable around 2007-2010). But may be it is part of the transformation we experience with these new technologies incl. the Social Media, we discuss.
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
> In my (not so humble) opinion, this level of security could make sense > for a disident in a totalitarian state, less so for regular users in > democratic country. Reminds me of the saying that the difference between USA and USSR was that in USSR the population knew that it was propaganda. Stefan
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
Andrei POPESCU wrote: > In my (not so humble) opinion, this level of security could make sense > for a disident in a totalitarian state, less so for regular users in > democratic country. > And you disappoint me here too - you believe in illusion of democracy, which is not so obvious as i.e. in China, but I found out it is even much worse. No need to argue and explain - I will not - Assange, Snowden are enough! This is like in The Matrix. Enjoy the feeling for democracy as long as you can, but keep in mind the reality is not so far from a "totalitarian state" and don't take the colorful glasses off - it may lead to depression.
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
Andrei POPESCU wrote: > Good luck in doing public key cryptography without publishing the public > key :) Andrei - you disappoint me here!
Re: [OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Vi, 19 mar 21, 00:54:08, deloptes wrote: > Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > I hear there's a lot of interesting discussions there about how to > > communicate safely, but sadly so far I haven't managed to configure my > > safe not-internet-connected machine to participate. > > do you think it is possible to have public & encrypted discussion, when we > do not know each other? It is pointless. > My point is that even if you use GPG on network computer, it is a risk that > you get compromised. > I don't remember if it was StaxNEt that was making screenshots of your > mobile display and sending them home for further analyses and this was may > be 10y ago. Today with the one and only iPhone and Android ... even with > encrypted whatever part. > > The best way is > 1. download the encrypted message (usb/SD or uSD) > 2. upload to isolated machine > 3. decrypt, read, answer, encrypt The message itself could be used to compromise the offline machine. > 4. upload encrypted message to the networked machine (usb/SD or uSD) > > Note: all keys on the isolated machine (especially the private keys) Good luck in doing public key cryptography without publishing the public key :) > This worked 30-40y ago, works also now (well back then it was a floppy > drive). > I am writing it, because people get lazy but in the same time wine about > privacy. On the battle field (or in the jungle) if you are lazy, you die. > It should be clear that even with the best security network it still may get > compromised. And if you are stupid, nothing can help you anyway :) In my (not so humble) opinion, this level of security could make sense for a disident in a totalitarian state, less so for regular users in democratic country. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
Celejar wrote: > I certainly agree that they aren't "perfectly comparable or even the > same," and I certainly do trust open source software considerably more. > I was just objecting to absolutist claims that non-open source software > is completely untrustworthy - claims such as yours that trusting > Facebook is "the opposite of reason, science or > self-verified-security." The problem is, you don't know and when you don't know you can not say this is trustworthy - or not trustworthy. You are willing to say something like Adam Shiff (sorry but I just watched the stupid). So the problem is we can not trust, because we do not know, while the statement Facebook is "the opposite of reason, science or self-verified-security." has proven true many times. I always ask myself why argumentation and logic is not evolving among humans. Your statement "I certainly do trust open source software considerably more" is subjective - based on what evidence do you trust? See - you qualify for the church - you believe. And I do not mind anything negative, I myself go to church, but there is difference between I know (And trust) and I believe or think. The later implicates modality, because to be honest no one has read the code and there were many findings in the past that show that also Linux OS and the applications have security issues. Please understand that in terms of ontology there is only one truth. The rest is something between speculation and false. There were even computers designed to operate with 3 states because of this.
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 17:53:13 -0300 riveravaldez wrote: > On 3/18/21, Celejar wrote: ... > > (...) The bottom line: no, I don't "know" that WhatsApp is secure, but > > neither do I "know" that anything I run is. (...) > > To put it simply, I can't accept the idea that in terms of security or privacy > "community driven open-source and corporation-profit driven closed-source > software are perfectly comparable or even the same". I think such an > implication is blatantly false, and to deal with it is to shore crazyland... I certainly agree that they aren't "perfectly comparable or even the same," and I certainly do trust open source software considerably more. I was just objecting to absolutist claims that non-open source software is completely untrustworthy - claims such as yours that trusting Facebook is "the opposite of reason, science or self-verified-security." Celejar
[OT] Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
Stefan Monnier wrote: > I hear there's a lot of interesting discussions there about how to > communicate safely, but sadly so far I haven't managed to configure my > safe not-internet-connected machine to participate. do you think it is possible to have public & encrypted discussion, when we do not know each other? It is pointless. My point is that even if you use GPG on network computer, it is a risk that you get compromised. I don't remember if it was StaxNEt that was making screenshots of your mobile display and sending them home for further analyses and this was may be 10y ago. Today with the one and only iPhone and Android ... even with encrypted whatever part. The best way is 1. download the encrypted message (usb/SD or uSD) 2. upload to isolated machine 3. decrypt, read, answer, encrypt 4. upload encrypted message to the networked machine (usb/SD or uSD) Note: all keys on the isolated machine (especially the private keys) This worked 30-40y ago, works also now (well back then it was a floppy drive). I am writing it, because people get lazy but in the same time wine about privacy. On the battle field (or in the jungle) if you are lazy, you die. It should be clear that even with the best security network it still may get compromised. And if you are stupid, nothing can help you anyway :)
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
> Perhaps you and all the others could use -debian-offtopic to air Not sure what "offtopic" has to do with this discussion, so I'll assume it was a typo for `debian-offline`. I hear there's a lot of interesting discussions there about how to communicate safely, but sadly so far I haven't managed to configure my safe not-internet-connected machine to participate. Stefan
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On 3/18/21, Celejar wrote: > On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:49:27 -0300 > riveravaldez wrote: > >> I'm getting pretty confuse with these statements. >> >> On 3/18/21, Celejar wrote: >> > (...) >> > I definitely share your concerns about Facebook (although perhaps not >> > quite your vehemence), but making **blatantly incorrect** assertions >> > like >> > the claim that Facebook is one of the ends of WhatsApp's E2E encryption >> > does not help our cause. >> (...) >> > WhatsApp **apparently** has genuine end-to-end encryption, using the >> > Signal protocol, and neither of the ends is Facebook. >> > >> > Of course, it's closed source, so **we can't know for sure what's >> > really >> > in there**, and I certainly won't use it, but as far as **anyone >> > knows**, it >> > is **the real deal**: >> >> I added all the '**' to emphasize with precision what I find >> unacceptable. >> Taking them as a whole they are simply absurd, in a very rigorous, logic >> sense. >> >> Am I wrong in this, and altogether they conform a serious and reasonable >> argument? >> >> Because as far as I used to know, once you put one foot in closed-source >> clients territory you're no longer speaking about security but >> insecurity. >> The whole discussion becomes irrelevant, you're simply **having faith** >> - **in Facebook**, to make it even more intense - , which is, by >> definition, >> the opposite of reason, science or self-verified-security. >> >> Is that I'm completely wrong in this? >> >> How can anyone **know** that WA's claimed E2E encryption is **the real >> deal**? > > I agree that no one "knows," in the sense of absolute epistemological > certainty. (...) I wasn't "asking" for that much, in fact, that category of 'certainty' is probably unachievable (even more, in scientific terms, it's probably a misconception). Just the difference between an open-source code more or less checked, audited and edited-in-collaboration by certain community (and with the inherent risk of being transparent if you pretend to inject anything malicious), against a closed-source code, completely and perfectly obscure, for which nobody have no kind of access, and which direction and actions are solely decided by the profit interest of some number of shareholders, specially when its profit mechanism relies specifically in the capture and collection of as much as possible user's data, etc. I'm sorry that my English is pretty poor and rustic but maybe with a little of good intention this is clear enough. > (...) someone might reasonably assume that if Moxie talks > like this about WhatsApp, then it is likely trustworthy: > > https://signal.org/blog/whatsapp/ > https://signal.org/blog/whatsapp-complete/ > > (Of course, the first one is from around the very beginning of the > Facebook days, and the second one is still five years ago.) Five years, in this matter, is an unacceptable amount of time to consider, at least in my opinion, we could be talking about a completely different code. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong. > (...) The bottom line: no, I don't "know" that WhatsApp is secure, but > neither do I "know" that anything I run is. (...) To put it simply, I can't accept the idea that in terms of security or privacy "community driven open-source and corporation-profit driven closed-source software are perfectly comparable or even the same". I think such an implication is blatantly false, and to deal with it is to shore crazyland... But again, I'm always sincerely open to be corrected. Kind regards.
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Thu 18 Mar 2021 at 21:09:58 +0100, deloptes wrote: > to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > Come on, as soon as you go out to the street you can be run over by a > > bus... > > > > You'll still take some precautions, as it might enhance your odds of > > survival :) > > > >> Why should I bother with your encryption efforts, when I can read your > >> screen? > > > > This is a good point: one of the weak points of E2E encryptions is, > > indeed, the one end. The other is... the other end ;-) > > If I were to advise someone on using encryption I would recommend the > isolated island solution. Well worth considering. Isle of Man version is popular. > As Snowden said do not use a phone with a microphone on it ;-) How wise! > Anything that is connected to a network is already compromised. If you are I wish I had realised that before getting involved in this internet stuff. > paranoid - isolate the machine where you read and write, encrypt and > decrypt your messages! I was thinking of starting a crowdfund project for > such a device, but no time to even draft a business plan. Perhaps you and all the others could use -debian-offtopic to air opinions about life and big-tech? I'll crowdfund the move there :). Just a suggestion from someone who hasn't derived a single benefit from this long-running conversation on privacy. -- Brian. > >
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > Come on, as soon as you go out to the street you can be run over by a > bus... > > You'll still take some precautions, as it might enhance your odds of > survival :) > >> Why should I bother with your encryption efforts, when I can read your >> screen? > > This is a good point: one of the weak points of E2E encryptions is, > indeed, the one end. The other is... the other end ;-) If I were to advise someone on using encryption I would recommend the isolated island solution. As Snowden said do not use a phone with a microphone on it ;-) Anything that is connected to a network is already compromised. If you are paranoid - isolate the machine where you read and write, encrypt and decrypt your messages! I was thinking of starting a crowdfund project for such a device, but no time to even draft a business plan.
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:49:27 -0300 riveravaldez wrote: > I'm getting pretty confuse with these statements. > > On 3/18/21, Celejar wrote: > > (...) > > I definitely share your concerns about Facebook (although perhaps not > > quite your vehemence), but making **blatantly incorrect** assertions like > > the claim that Facebook is one of the ends of WhatsApp's E2E encryption > > does not help our cause. > (...) > > WhatsApp **apparently** has genuine end-to-end encryption, using the > > Signal protocol, and neither of the ends is Facebook. > > > > Of course, it's closed source, so **we can't know for sure what's really > > in there**, and I certainly won't use it, but as far as **anyone knows**, it > > is **the real deal**: > > I added all the '**' to emphasize with precision what I find unacceptable. > Taking them as a whole they are simply absurd, in a very rigorous, logic > sense. > > Am I wrong in this, and altogether they conform a serious and reasonable > argument? > > Because as far as I used to know, once you put one foot in closed-source > clients territory you're no longer speaking about security but insecurity. > The whole discussion becomes irrelevant, you're simply **having faith** > - **in Facebook**, to make it even more intense - , which is, by definition, > the opposite of reason, science or self-verified-security. > > Is that I'm completely wrong in this? > > How can anyone **know** that WA's claimed E2E encryption is **the real > deal**? I agree that no one "knows," in the sense of absolute epistemological certainty. But we don't live our lives based upon epistemological certainty - we make assumptions, or assign rough probabilistic weights to the likelihood of various things. Is an open source communications software package worthless if the hardware it's running on isn't open and hasn't been audited? You certainly can't "know" that it's secure! And even if all your hardware and software is open, if you haven't audited it *yourself*, how can you "know" it's secure? The answer is trust - you trust that someone would notice problems if there are any, and that the auditors aren't lying, and you assign a low probability to the contrary possibilities. In the same vein, someone might reasonably assume that if Moxie talks like this about WhatsApp, then it is likely trustworthy: https://signal.org/blog/whatsapp/ https://signal.org/blog/whatsapp-complete/ (Of course, the first one is from around the very beginning of the Facebook days, and the second one is still five years ago.) The bottom line: no, I don't "know" that WhatsApp is secure, but neither do I "know" that anything I run is. One makes decisions about what to use based upon a variety of criteria, including how much one trusts various people and institutions. And FWIW, I don't use WhatsApp, in part because I don't trust it / Facebook - but not primarily because I think they may be blatantly lying about E2E, but more because of more subtle implementation details and decisions that I, who am not a cryptographer, won't even think to consider or fully understand. Celejar
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
Suffice it to say that the only Social Media outfit I trust less than I trust Facebook or Twitter (neither of which I trust any further than I can throw the U.S.S. Hornet) is LinkedIn. Which I have loathed since *before* they became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Microsloth. -- JHHL (I'd use a stronger dysphemism for M$, but I don't know this List's policy about Yiddish profanity.)
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 17:25:48 +0100 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 10:07:08AM -0400, Celejar wrote: > > [...] > > > I definitely share your concerns about Facebook (although perhaps not > > quite your vehemence), > > :-) > > >but making blatantly incorrect assertions like > > the claim that Facebook is one of the ends of WhatsApp's E2E encryption > > does not help our cause. > > I don't know. I just don't trust them. Much less after their change in > terms of service. I tried to explain this in another mail: possibly, I certainly don't trust them, either. > under the right conditions, E2E is a thing in WhatsApp. Possibly, > making those "right conditions" happen is less-than-trivial for the > user. > > > I suppose you're a follower of Sen. Goldwater: "Extremism in defense of > > liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” > > (veering dangerously off-topic, so this is my last word on > this specific thing) > > That depends on how you define extremism, I guess. I'm not for > throwing stones at a human being (nor in general for causing > harm). But choosing which corporation I trust... doesn't quite > feel "extremist" to me ;-) Well said. > > https://www.niskanencenter.org/on-the-saying-that-extremism-in-defense-of-liberty-is-no-vice/ > > > > (Teasing: I'm pretty sure your politics are diametrically opposed to > > his.) > > Possibly. I've been doing too much framework javascript today. I > dont feel like adding pain to that, so I'll skip the link :-D I don't know what framework javascript is, but whatever it is, you have my sympathy ;) Celejar
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:49:27 -0300 riveravaldez wrote: > I'm getting pretty confuse with these statements. > > On 3/18/21, Celejar wrote: > > (...) > > I definitely share your concerns about Facebook (although perhaps > > not quite your vehemence), but making **blatantly incorrect** > > assertions like the claim that Facebook is one of the ends of > > WhatsApp's E2E encryption does not help our cause. > (...) > > WhatsApp **apparently** has genuine end-to-end encryption, using the > > Signal protocol, and neither of the ends is Facebook. > > > > Of course, it's closed source, so **we can't know for sure what's > > really in there**, and I certainly won't use it, but as far as > > **anyone knows**, it is **the real deal**: > > I added all the '**' to emphasize with precision what I find > unacceptable. Taking them as a whole they are simply absurd, in a > very rigorous, logic sense. > > Am I wrong in this, and altogether they conform a serious and > reasonable argument? > > Because as far as I used to know, once you put one foot in > closed-source clients territory you're no longer speaking about > security but insecurity. The whole discussion becomes irrelevant, > you're simply **having faith** > - **in Facebook**, to make it even more intense - , which is, by > definition, the opposite of reason, science or self-verified-security. > > Is that I'm completely wrong in this? No. > > How can anyone **know** that WA's claimed E2E encryption is **the real > deal**? > Not possible. Even if the original WA was clean, we can assume that any updated version under new ownership will mine the maximum possible amount of data. If anyone doubts the lengths that some people will go to in order to steal, look up Superfish, actually installed by Lenovo on new laptops a few years ago. This is software designed and made to break https. -- Joe
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 10:07:08AM -0400, Celejar wrote: [...] > I definitely share your concerns about Facebook (although perhaps not > quite your vehemence), :-) >but making blatantly incorrect assertions like > the claim that Facebook is one of the ends of WhatsApp's E2E encryption > does not help our cause. I don't know. I just don't trust them. Much less after their change in terms of service. I tried to explain this in another mail: possibly, under the right conditions, E2E is a thing in WhatsApp. Possibly, making those "right conditions" happen is less-than-trivial for the user. > I suppose you're a follower of Sen. Goldwater: "Extremism in defense of > liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” (veering dangerously off-topic, so this is my last word on this specific thing) That depends on how you define extremism, I guess. I'm not for throwing stones at a human being (nor in general for causing harm). But choosing which corporation I trust... doesn't quite feel "extremist" to me ;-) > https://www.niskanencenter.org/on-the-saying-that-extremism-in-defense-of-liberty-is-no-vice/ > > (Teasing: I'm pretty sure your politics are diametrically opposed to > his.) Possibly. I've been doing too much framework javascript today. I dont feel like adding pain to that, so I'll skip the link :-D Cheers - t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On 3/18/21, riveravaldez wrote: > I'm getting pretty confuse with these statements. > (...) Sorry to everybody, I forgot to fix the addresses...
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
I'm getting pretty confuse with these statements. On 3/18/21, Celejar wrote: > (...) > I definitely share your concerns about Facebook (although perhaps not > quite your vehemence), but making **blatantly incorrect** assertions like > the claim that Facebook is one of the ends of WhatsApp's E2E encryption > does not help our cause. (...) > WhatsApp **apparently** has genuine end-to-end encryption, using the > Signal protocol, and neither of the ends is Facebook. > > Of course, it's closed source, so **we can't know for sure what's really > in there**, and I certainly won't use it, but as far as **anyone knows**, it > is **the real deal**: I added all the '**' to emphasize with precision what I find unacceptable. Taking them as a whole they are simply absurd, in a very rigorous, logic sense. Am I wrong in this, and altogether they conform a serious and reasonable argument? Because as far as I used to know, once you put one foot in closed-source clients territory you're no longer speaking about security but insecurity. The whole discussion becomes irrelevant, you're simply **having faith** - **in Facebook**, to make it even more intense - , which is, by definition, the opposite of reason, science or self-verified-security. Is that I'm completely wrong in this? How can anyone **know** that WA's claimed E2E encryption is **the real deal**? Thanks a lot for any answers. Kind regards.
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 09:28:06 +0100 wrote: > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 10:54:24PM -0400, Celejar wrote: > > On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 09:45:28 +0100 > > wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 09:24:50AM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > Fortunately most of the > > > > conversations have been moving to WhatsApp (where they are supposed to > > > > be encrypted, at least). > > > > > > Yeah, right. Encrypted. End-to-end. One of those ends is Facebook, though. > > > Ouch. > > > > I'm not sure whether you're being serious or facetious, but WhatsApp > > apparently has genuine end-to-end encryption, using the Signal protocol, > > and neither of the ends is Facebook. > > I am "hinting" at the subtle fact that FB bought WhatsApp for 19 billion > (same Wikipedia ref you gave). They are going to do whatever it takes > to make those investors happy. Quoting the same source: > >"In January 2021, WhatsApp announced a new Privacy Policy which >users will be forced to accept by February 8, 2021, or stop >using the app. The new policy will allow WhatsApp to share data >with its parent, Facebook. The new policy does not apply in EU, >since it violates the principles of GDPR. Facing a pushback about >Facebook data sharing and lack of clarity, WhatsApp postponed the >implementation of the privacy policy update scheduled from February >8 2021 to May 15 2021." > > So while I don't doubt that the WA client *could* *in principle* > do end-to-end encryption, they'll do whatever it takes to trick > end users to share their juicy data with the mothership, FB. It's > their life-blood. > > Should they need help with that "tricking users to do silly things" > part, the mothership, FB, has expertise on that. > > So if you do everything right, if you only communicate with a tight > knit group, if you check all the other's keys, yadda, yadda -- then > it'll possibly work (there are enough mentions of embarrasing bugs > on that Wikipedia page to underscore the "possibly" part, though). I definitely share your concerns about Facebook (although perhaps not quite your vehemence), but making blatantly incorrect assertions like the claim that Facebook is one of the ends of WhatsApp's E2E encryption does not help our cause. I suppose you're a follower of Sen. Goldwater: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” https://www.niskanencenter.org/on-the-saying-that-extremism-in-defense-of-liberty-is-no-vice/ (Teasing: I'm pretty sure your politics are diametrically opposed to his.) Celejar
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 10:55:54AM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Jo, 18 mar 21, 09:28:06, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > So while I don't doubt that the WA client *could* *in principle* > > do end-to-end encryption, they'll do whatever it takes to trick > > end users to share their juicy data with the mothership, FB. It's > > their life-blood. > > I'm guessing the full list of contacts as well as all metadata is > already very useful for Facebook. I'd guess they aren't (yet) in a comfortable position to really turn conversation content into currency. That situation might be changing slowly. The metadata, they'll take as much as they can, this is established tech by now. Once they think they need the content, they'll nudge their "users" [1] in the right direction. Watch their weasel words around the last change in their TOS (terms of service) for WhatsApp to see how it works. Flexible response included :-) > > Should they need help with that "tricking users to do silly things" [...] > Yeah... > > > But then you could do as well mail/gpg. The user interface is, at > > least better, and the most egregious bugs might be shaken out by > > now. > > What (mobile) mail clients does your definition of "better" include > (assuming they even support GPG/MIME)? Ugh. I don't "do" mobile. I know, I should -- and be it that I should be able to share my experience with others. But I've (up to now) found way more pleasant ways to burn my time :-) If "mobile" means "android", I've heard good things about K9 [1] [2] [GAH. How I hate that Internet. A search for free mail clients lands you into one of those horrible Tech Republic "10 best of"; they have K9 mail in there (yay!) and the link goes to... no. Not the K9 page, nor even the Wikipedia one. The Google play store. The whole friggin' Internet is turning into a Google link farm] Cheers [1] https://k9mail.app/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-9_Mail -- t > > Kind regards, > Andrei > -- > http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Jo, 18 mar 21, 09:28:06, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > So while I don't doubt that the WA client *could* *in principle* > do end-to-end encryption, they'll do whatever it takes to trick > end users to share their juicy data with the mothership, FB. It's > their life-blood. I'm guessing the full list of contacts as well as all metadata is already very useful for Facebook. > Should they need help with that "tricking users to do silly things" > part, the mothership, FB, has expertise on that. > > So if you do everything right, if you only communicate with a tight > knit group, if you check all the other's keys, yadda, yadda -- then > it'll possibly work (there are enough mentions of embarrasing bugs > on that Wikipedia page to underscore the "possibly" part, though). Yeah... > But then you could do as well mail/gpg. The user interface is, at > least better, and the most egregious bugs might be shaken out by > now. What (mobile) mail clients does your definition of "better" include (assuming they even support GPG/MIME)? Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 05:03:49AM +0100, deloptes wrote: > Celejar wrote: > > > I'm not sure whether you're being serious or facetious, but WhatsApp > > apparently has genuine end-to-end encryption, using the Signal protocol, > > and neither of the ends is Facebook. > > > > Of course, it's closed source, so we can't know for sure what's really > > in there, and I certainly won't use it, but as far as anyone knows, it > > is the real deal: > > come one - as soon as you are hooked to the internet, you are exposed. The > only way to ensure truly encrypted communication is to do the > encryption/decryption offline. Come on, as soon as you go out to the street you can be run over by a bus... You'll still take some precautions, as it might enhance your odds of survival :) > Why should I bother with your encryption efforts, when I can read your > screen? This is a good point: one of the weak points of E2E encryptions is, indeed, the one end. The other is... the other end ;-) Cheers - t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 10:54:24PM -0400, Celejar wrote: > On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 09:45:28 +0100 > wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 09:24:50AM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > ... > > > > Fortunately most of the > > > conversations have been moving to WhatsApp (where they are supposed to > > > be encrypted, at least). > > > > Yeah, right. Encrypted. End-to-end. One of those ends is Facebook, though. > > Ouch. > > I'm not sure whether you're being serious or facetious, but WhatsApp > apparently has genuine end-to-end encryption, using the Signal protocol, > and neither of the ends is Facebook. I am "hinting" at the subtle fact that FB bought WhatsApp for 19 billion (same Wikipedia ref you gave). They are going to do whatever it takes to make those investors happy. Quoting the same source: "In January 2021, WhatsApp announced a new Privacy Policy which users will be forced to accept by February 8, 2021, or stop using the app. The new policy will allow WhatsApp to share data with its parent, Facebook. The new policy does not apply in EU, since it violates the principles of GDPR. Facing a pushback about Facebook data sharing and lack of clarity, WhatsApp postponed the implementation of the privacy policy update scheduled from February 8 2021 to May 15 2021." So while I don't doubt that the WA client *could* *in principle* do end-to-end encryption, they'll do whatever it takes to trick end users to share their juicy data with the mothership, FB. It's their life-blood. Should they need help with that "tricking users to do silly things" part, the mothership, FB, has expertise on that. So if you do everything right, if you only communicate with a tight knit group, if you check all the other's keys, yadda, yadda -- then it'll possibly work (there are enough mentions of embarrasing bugs on that Wikipedia page to underscore the "possibly" part, though). But then you could do as well mail/gpg. The user interface is, at least better, and the most egregious bugs might be shaken out by now. Cheers - t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
Celejar wrote: > I'm not sure whether you're being serious or facetious, but WhatsApp > apparently has genuine end-to-end encryption, using the Signal protocol, > and neither of the ends is Facebook. > > Of course, it's closed source, so we can't know for sure what's really > in there, and I certainly won't use it, but as far as anyone knows, it > is the real deal: come one - as soon as you are hooked to the internet, you are exposed. The only way to ensure truly encrypted communication is to do the encryption/decryption offline. Why should I bother with your encryption efforts, when I can read your screen?
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 09:45:28 +0100 wrote: > On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 09:24:50AM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote: ... > > Fortunately most of the > > conversations have been moving to WhatsApp (where they are supposed to > > be encrypted, at least). > > Yeah, right. Encrypted. End-to-end. One of those ends is Facebook, though. > Ouch. I'm not sure whether you're being serious or facetious, but WhatsApp apparently has genuine end-to-end encryption, using the Signal protocol, and neither of the ends is Facebook. Of course, it's closed source, so we can't know for sure what's really in there, and I certainly won't use it, but as far as anyone knows, it is the real deal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whatsapp#End-to-end_encryption https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/whatsapp-is-now-most-widely-used-end-to-end-crypto-tool-on-the-planet/ Celejar
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:54:26AM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote: [...] > I'm better at asynchronous as well, but still find instant messaging to > have it's uses [...] > And then there's group chats. There's a reason IRC still exists ;) Agreed. Tools, jobs and all that :) Cheers - t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Du, 14 mar 21, 14:49:03, Joe wrote: > On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 13:23:17 +0100 > wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 02:08:34PM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > On Du, 14 mar 21, 12:19:34, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > in the first place, I'm not the target audience for instant > > > > messaging anyway. > > > > > > Every step towards more privacy is good. Let's not let the perfect > > > be the enemy of the good. > > > > Mp doubt. Still, that wouldn't convince me to start instant messaging. > > I'm more of an asynchronous type ;-) > > > > If you need 'now!', pick up the phone. I'm better at asynchronous as well, but still find instant messaging to have it's uses, e.g. for things like "be there in 10 minutes", which is almost as fast as calling and doesn't require the recipient to answer (whereas as call would require their full attention). And then there's group chats. There's a reason IRC still exists ;) Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
>> And signal... with all due respect to Moxie Marlinspike... >> - the centralised server model >> - the fact they don't publish their server code since a while > https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server To the extent that the service is centralized, I don't really care if their code is available (it's not like I'd run my own server and start asking friends to use that one instead, and it's not like I can verify that the code they publish is indeed the code they run). I mean, I do welcome their releasing their code under a Free license, but that doesn't affect very much my overall assessment of the service, other than a gesture of good faith, >> - the construction with one foundation at its center >>are all things to push some of my customary alarm buttons. >>But in the first place, I'm not the target audience for instant >>messaging anyway. > Every step towards more privacy is good. Let's not let the perfect be > the enemy of the good. No doubt that Signal is a big step up from WhatsApp. I just find Matrix to be yet another big step up ;-) Stefan
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
> Federated services have metadata as well. > If a particular communication involves two different servers now *both* > servers will have all the metadata for that communication. Indeed, hiding all the metadata is *hard*. Still, Having the overall metadata divided among a hundred servers or more reduces significantly the amount and quality of information available at any given server, compared to having it all centralized on a single service for whole world. In any case, I don't think that is the main benefit. I think the main benefit is that it makes it easy to move from one provider to another, which completely changes the dynamics. Stefan
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
>> The problem is also the metadata: it still leaves a centralized record >> of who sent what size of message to whom at what time and from which >> IP address. > > It's definitely more than just "dry" IP addresses: I was talking about Signal (I admit I didn't make that clear). Stefan
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 13:23:17 +0100 wrote: > On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 02:08:34PM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > On Du, 14 mar 21, 12:19:34, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > [...] > > > in the first place, I'm not the target audience for instant > > > messaging anyway. > > > > Every step towards more privacy is good. Let's not let the perfect > > be the enemy of the good. > > Mp doubt. Still, that wouldn't convince me to start instant messaging. > I'm more of an asynchronous type ;-) > If you need 'now!', pick up the phone. -- Joe
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 02:08:34PM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Du, 14 mar 21, 12:19:34, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: [...] > > in the first place, I'm not the target audience for instant > > messaging anyway. > > Every step towards more privacy is good. Let's not let the perfect be > the enemy of the good. Mp doubt. Still, that wouldn't convince me to start instant messaging. I'm more of an asynchronous type ;-) Cheers - t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Du, 14 mar 21, 12:19:34, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 01:03:49PM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > [...] > > > To be clear, far from me to claim Signal is perfect, it's just (in my > > not so humble opinion) the only *feasible* option to compete with > > WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook Messenger, etc. > > Dunno. What's wrong with mail/pgp-gpg? Besides that e-mail is unsuitable for instant messaging, it's very difficult to get right. https://riseup.net/en/security/message-security/openpgp/best-practices > I'm happy with that. No reason for anything else. > > And signal... with all due respect to Moxie Marlinspike... > > - the centralised server model > - the fact they don't publish their server code since a >while https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server > - the construction with one foundation at its center > > are all things to push some of my customary alarm buttons. But > in the first place, I'm not the target audience for instant > messaging anyway. Every step towards more privacy is good. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 01:03:49PM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote: [...] > To be clear, far from me to claim Signal is perfect, it's just (in my > not so humble opinion) the only *feasible* option to compete with > WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook Messenger, etc. Dunno. What's wrong with mail/pgp-gpg? I'm happy with that. No reason for anything else. And signal... with all due respect to Moxie Marlinspike... - the centralised server model - the fact they don't publish their server code since a while - the construction with one foundation at its center are all things to push some of my customary alarm buttons. But in the first place, I'm not the target audience for instant messaging anyway. Cheers - t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Du, 14 mar 21, 09:44:27, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 06:42:01PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > >> > I'll stick with Signal for now, at least it's something that I can > > >> > confidently recommend to people as "WhatsApp, but really > > >> > secure/private". > > >> I guess it's a bit more secure/private than whatsapp because you can see > > >> the code of the client, but AFAICT it's still just as centralized :-( > > > Since it's end-to-end encrypted I fail to see what major benefit > > > federation would bring for one-to-one communication and small private > > > groups. > > > > WhatsApp is also (presumably!) end-to-end encrypted, so that's not the > > only problem with it. > > > > The problem is also the metadata: it still leaves a centralized record > > of who sent what size of message to whom at what time and from which > > IP address. Federated services have metadata as well. If a particular communication involves two different servers now *both* servers will have all the metadata for that communication. The only *potential* benefit for privacy is to restrict your communication to only specific servers with privacy policies and/or in jurisdictions of your choosing, assuming there is one. Which significantly reduces the benefits of federation. As far as I can tell federation *for messaging services* is mostly good for resilience at the cost of all the interoperability issues it brings. https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issuecomment-217339450 For me it make more sense for a social network, where I can decide where to store my stuff or even host it myself (assuming an architecture similar to diaspora). > It's definitely more than just "dry" IP addresses: > > "In January 2021, WhatsApp announced update to Privacy Policy > which states that WhatsApp will share user data with Facebook and > its "family of companies" starting February 2021. Previously, > users could opt-out of such data sharing, but the new policy > removes this option. The new Privacy Policy does not apply > within EU, since it is illegal under GDPR." [1] > > Come on. Facebook shelled out short of 20 *billion* for Whatsapp in > 2014. Don't tell me it was just philantropy. For Mark Zuckerberg's > private hobby it's a tad too expensive -- the investors want to see > return. Some more juicy "user data" than just boring IP addresses > (esp. in times where the IPv6 is kind-of randomised anyway) must > be in for that deal. Certainly, which is exactly why I'm wary of WhatsApp. > > Hopefully they throw this information away ASAP, but I have no reason to > > presume that they do (e.g. even if they do intend to, someone hacking their > > server could collect that information without their knowledge). > > Throw away? At most they let it lying around on some cloud, but I > think FB can afford the pros to not botch it up so blatantly. Smaller > start-ups, though... With federation one would have to trust all server operators involved to do the right thing. So far Signal claims to have a pretty good track record. https://signal.org/bigbrother/ To be clear, far from me to claim Signal is perfect, it's just (in my not so humble opinion) the only *feasible* option to compete with WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook Messenger, etc. And the only way it can reasonably compete is for us to bring in as many users as possible, even if it might not be *our* first choice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect As technically inclined users we already had Jabber with OTR. Matrix makes a lot of sense for organisations that want to run their own server. It might become an alternative to Signal for "regular" users at some point. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Du, 14 mar 21, 05:58:42, Tom Yates wrote: > > an excellent point. furthermore, you can be summarily thrown off a central > service, by the provider; it is *much* more difficult to eject someone from > a federated service. That can easily backfire: https://xkcd.com/1357/ Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 06:42:01PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > >> > I'll stick with Signal for now, at least it's something that I can > >> > confidently recommend to people as "WhatsApp, but really > >> > secure/private". > >> I guess it's a bit more secure/private than whatsapp because you can see > >> the code of the client, but AFAICT it's still just as centralized :-( > > Since it's end-to-end encrypted I fail to see what major benefit > > federation would bring for one-to-one communication and small private > > groups. > > WhatsApp is also (presumably!) end-to-end encrypted, so that's not the > only problem with it. > > The problem is also the metadata: it still leaves a centralized record > of who sent what size of message to whom at what time and from which > IP address. It's definitely more than just "dry" IP addresses: "In January 2021, WhatsApp announced update to Privacy Policy which states that WhatsApp will share user data with Facebook and its "family of companies" starting February 2021. Previously, users could opt-out of such data sharing, but the new policy removes this option. The new Privacy Policy does not apply within EU, since it is illegal under GDPR." [1] Come on. Facebook shelled out short of 20 *billion* for Whatsapp in 2014. Don't tell me it was just philantropy. For Mark Zuckerberg's private hobby it's a tad too expensive -- the investors want to see return. Some more juicy "user data" than just boring IP addresses (esp. in times where the IPv6 is kind-of randomised anyway) must be in for that deal. > Hopefully they throw this information away ASAP, but I have no reason to > presume that they do (e.g. even if they do intend to, someone hacking their > server could collect that information without their knowledge). Throw away? At most they let it lying around on some cloud, but I think FB can afford the pros to not botch it up so blatantly. Smaller start-ups, though... Cheers [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whatsapp#Security_and_privacy - t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 11:55:24PM +0100, grumpy wrote: [...] > How can "sheer luck" be a factor? My non-participation in Facebook > is due to a conscious decision. Good for you if you think that all you have and are is due to your own hard work. In my case, it's different. Cheers - t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021, Stefan Monnier wrote: I'll stick with Signal for now, at least it's something that I can confidently recommend to people as "WhatsApp, but really secure/private". I guess it's a bit more secure/private than whatsapp because you can see the code of the client, but AFAICT it's still just as centralized :-( Since it's end-to-end encrypted I fail to see what major benefit federation would bring for one-to-one communication and small private groups. WhatsApp is also (presumably!) end-to-end encrypted, so that's not the only problem with it. The problem is also the metadata: it still leaves a centralized record of who sent what size of message to whom at what time and from which IP address. an excellent point. furthermore, you can be summarily thrown off a central service, by the provider; it is *much* more difficult to eject someone from a federated service. -- Tom Yates - https://www.teaparty.net
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 3:39 AM The Wanderer wrote: > > I decided long, long ago (sometime in the first half of the first decade > of this century, IIRC) that I didn't trust Facebook - initially because > it and its embedded ads were a notorious vector for malware, later > because I just didn't trust it period. I made a conscious decision to > never risk visiting the site, and with that one exception (for which I > did have NoScript active) I'm fairly sure I've never broken from that. > > I'm not as strongly antipathetic towards the other social-media sites, > but I still tend not to visit them. I do have a Twitter account > nowadays, but I rarely visit it, and the number of tweets I've sent out > is in the low double (or maybe even high single) digits. > > -- >The Wanderer > Good point of view. I still have facebook and twitter :(. I don't like it but I need to use it. -- With kindest regards, William. ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org ⠈⠳⣄
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
>> > I'll stick with Signal for now, at least it's something that I can >> > confidently recommend to people as "WhatsApp, but really >> > secure/private". >> I guess it's a bit more secure/private than whatsapp because you can see >> the code of the client, but AFAICT it's still just as centralized :-( > Since it's end-to-end encrypted I fail to see what major benefit > federation would bring for one-to-one communication and small private > groups. WhatsApp is also (presumably!) end-to-end encrypted, so that's not the only problem with it. The problem is also the metadata: it still leaves a centralized record of who sent what size of message to whom at what time and from which IP address. Hopefully they throw this information away ASAP, but I have no reason to presume that they do (e.g. even if they do intend to, someone hacking their server could collect that information without their knowledge). Stefan
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
March 13, 2021 7:36:39 PM CET Larry Martell wrote: On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 10:45 AM Brian wrote: On Fri 12 Mar 2021 at 18:27:58 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 08:27:23AM -0800, James H. H. Lampert wrote: > > [...] > > > If they shun or ostracize you for not being on Facebook, they are > > neither your friends nor your family. > > I don't know whether that hard position is always viable. I mean, > I managed without Facebook (and *all* the others, btw.) but that > may well be sheer luck. To think otherwise would feel... arrogant > to me. How can "sheer luck" be a factor? My non-participation in Facebook is due to a conscious decision. > And yes, I'm interested in understanding /why/ and /how/ people > are sucked in: that's about the only way to do something against > it. Perhaps they feel a need to communicate with a group. That's hardly being "sucked in". Their choice, just like mine. Different midsets. To imply it is not quite the best and there is something that should be done about such a choice is simply vi vs emacs talk :). “In the old pre-technology days, it would have been almost impossible to replicate Facebook or Twitter. The closest you could get would be to mail dozens of postcards a day to everybody you know, each with a brief message about yourself like: "Finally got that haircut I've been putting off." Or: "Just had a caramel frappuccino. Yum!" The people receiving these postcards would have naturally assumed you were a moron with a narcissism disorder. But today, thanks to Facebook and Twitter, you are seen as a person engaging in 'social networking'.” ― Dave Barry, I'll Mature When I'm Dead: Dave Barry's Amazing Tales of Adulthood which begs the question "why do people feel the need to tell the world every tiny thing that pops into their head?"
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Sb, 13 mar 21, 16:15:54, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > I'll stick with Signal for now, at least it's something that I can > > confidently recommend to people as "WhatsApp, but really > > secure/private". > > I guess it's a bit more secure/private than whatsapp because you can see > the code of the client, but AFAICT it's still just as centralized :-( Since it's end-to-end encrypted I fail to see what major benefit federation would bring for one-to-one communication and small private groups. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
> I'll stick with Signal for now, at least it's something that I can > confidently recommend to people as "WhatsApp, but really > secure/private". I guess it's a bit more secure/private than whatsapp because you can see the code of the client, but AFAICT it's still just as centralized :-( Stefan
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Sb, 13 mar 21, 09:10:36, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2021-03-13 at 09:01, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > >> Besides the social part of asking *everybody* *else* to switch I'm > >> also not aware of a viable . Fortunately most of > >> the conversations have been moving to WhatsApp (where they are > >> supposed to be encrypted, at least). > > > > W.r.t. something else, I don't know anything comparable to Facebook > > (which isn't saying much since I never used Facebook and never > > looked for something like it), but there are several alternatives to > > WhatsApp (I'm using Matrix for that). Well, I'd be very interested to look into Matrix. Tried connecting to the matrix.debian.social server: with the 2 clients in buster I tried I couldn't find a way to specify SSO[1]. The Android client did recognize the server is using SSO, but I got some error after login. I'll stick with Signal for now, at least it's something that I can confidently recommend to people as "WhatsApp, but really secure/private". > https://www.xkcd.com/918/ > > Time was that'd have been a serious suggestion, but as > https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/918:_Google%2B points out, > it's not an option anymore; Google shut it down (for the general public, > at least) a couple of years ago. Had an account and tried to promote it at the time[3]. Maybe it's better it didn't succeed though. Unfortunately the only resemblance of a FLOSS alternative is diaspora, which besides an unfortunate name[4] it still misses a lot of functionality. Apparently most developers only care about the micro blogging part, or which there are already several FLOSS alternatives. [1] As per [2], it authenticates against salsa.debian.org, where I already do have an account [2] https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DebianSocial [3] Yes, I know, Google, but it was worth a try to break Facebook's monopoly. [4] While most of my close family is in the diaspora, most of my friends are not. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 10:45 AM Brian wrote: > On Fri 12 Mar 2021 at 18:27:58 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 08:27:23AM -0800, James H. H. Lampert wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > If they shun or ostracize you for not being on Facebook, they are > > > neither your friends nor your family. > > > > I don't know whether that hard position is always viable. I mean, > > I managed without Facebook (and *all* the others, btw.) but that > > may well be sheer luck. To think otherwise would feel... arrogant > > to me. > > How can "sheer luck" be a factor? My non-participation in Facebook > is due to a conscious decision. > > > And yes, I'm interested in understanding /why/ and /how/ people > > are sucked in: that's about the only way to do something against > > it. > > Perhaps they feel a need to communicate with a group. That's hardly > being "sucked in". Their choice, just like mine. Different midsets. > To imply it is not quite the best and there is something that should > be done about such a choice is simply vi vs emacs talk :). “In the old pre-technology days, it would have been almost impossible to replicate Facebook or Twitter. The closest you could get would be to mail dozens of postcards a day to everybody you know, each with a brief message about yourself like: "Finally got that haircut I've been putting off." Or: "Just had a caramel frappuccino. Yum!" The people receiving these postcards would have naturally assumed you were a moron with a narcissism disorder. But today, thanks to Facebook and Twitter, you are seen as a person engaging in 'social networking'.” ― Dave Barry, I'll Mature When I'm Dead: Dave Barry's Amazing Tales of Adulthood > >
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
>>> Besides the social part of asking *everybody* *else* to switch I'm >>> also not aware of a viable . Fortunately most of >>> the conversations have been moving to WhatsApp (where they are >>> supposed to be encrypted, at least). >> W.r.t. something else, I don't know anything comparable to Facebook >> (which isn't saying much since I never used Facebook and never >> looked for something like it), but there are several alternatives to >> WhatsApp (I'm using Matrix for that). > > https://www.xkcd.com/918/ > > Time was that'd have been a serious suggestion, but as > https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/918:_Google%2B points out, > it's not an option anymore; Google shut it down (for the general public, > at least) a couple of years ago. I was talking about alternatives which don't suffer from the same underlying problem of centralization. E.g. Matrix is a *protocol*, with a Free Software implementation of it available in Debian, so you can run your own (e.g. as part of FreedomBox), and it can be used to communicate with users of other Matrix servers as well (using basically the same model as email), and there are several different clients available, most of them Free Software as well (and some of them included in Debian). Stefan
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On 2021-03-13 at 09:01, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> Besides the social part of asking *everybody* *else* to switch I'm >> also not aware of a viable . Fortunately most of >> the conversations have been moving to WhatsApp (where they are >> supposed to be encrypted, at least). > > W.r.t. something else, I don't know anything comparable to Facebook > (which isn't saying much since I never used Facebook and never > looked for something like it), but there are several alternatives to > WhatsApp (I'm using Matrix for that). https://www.xkcd.com/918/ Time was that'd have been a serious suggestion, but as https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/918:_Google%2B points out, it's not an option anymore; Google shut it down (for the general public, at least) a couple of years ago. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
> Besides the social part of asking *everybody* *else* to switch I'm also > not aware of a viable . Fortunately most of the > conversations have been moving to WhatsApp (where they are supposed to > be encrypted, at least). W.r.t. something else, I don't know anything comparable to Facebook (which isn't saying much since I never used Facebook and never looked for something like it), but there are several alternatives to WhatsApp (I'm using Matrix for that). Stefan
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 09:24:50AM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > Exactly. "Hey, won't *everybody* switch to using for > our communication, photo sharing, event coordination, etc.? Why? Because > I'm (the only one in the group) worried about my privacy on Facebook." > > Besides the social part of asking *everybody* *else* to switch I'm also > not aware of a viable . I offer: mail, phone, and (in non-pandemic times) show up. For the latter there is some enticement: I'm not totally bad at cooking :-) (yeah, you see I'm adopting methods from the ad industry myself). > Fortunately most of the > conversations have been moving to WhatsApp (where they are supposed to > be encrypted, at least). Yeah, right. Encrypted. End-to-end. One of those ends is Facebook, though. Ouch. Cheers - t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Vi, 12 mar 21, 18:27:58, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 08:27:23AM -0800, James H. H. Lampert wrote: > > [...] > > > If they shun or ostracize you for not being on Facebook, they are > > neither your friends nor your family. > > I don't know whether that hard position is always viable. I mean, > I managed without Facebook (and *all* the others, btw.) but that > may well be sheer luck. To think otherwise would feel... arrogant > to me. Exactly. "Hey, won't *everybody* switch to using for our communication, photo sharing, event coordination, etc.? Why? Because I'm (the only one in the group) worried about my privacy on Facebook." Besides the social part of asking *everybody* *else* to switch I'm also not aware of a viable . Fortunately most of the conversations have been moving to WhatsApp (where they are supposed to be encrypted, at least). Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Fri 12 Mar 2021 at 22:45:55 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 06:44:54PM +, Brian wrote: > > On Fri 12 Mar 2021 at 18:27:58 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 08:27:23AM -0800, James H. H. Lampert wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > If they shun or ostracize you for not being on Facebook, they are > > > > neither your friends nor your family. > > > > > > I don't know whether that hard position is always viable. I mean, > > > I managed without Facebook (and *all* the others, btw.) but that > > > may well be sheer luck. To think otherwise would feel... arrogant > > > to me. > > > > How can "sheer luck" be a factor? My non-participation in Facebook > > is due to a conscious decision. > > The price to pay to follow through this decision may be very different > for different people. Job, acquaintances, family. You name it. Indeed it might be. That is why people come to different decisions. -- Brian.
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 06:44:54PM +, Brian wrote: > On Fri 12 Mar 2021 at 18:27:58 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 08:27:23AM -0800, James H. H. Lampert wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > If they shun or ostracize you for not being on Facebook, they are > > > neither your friends nor your family. > > > > I don't know whether that hard position is always viable. I mean, > > I managed without Facebook (and *all* the others, btw.) but that > > may well be sheer luck. To think otherwise would feel... arrogant > > to me. > > How can "sheer luck" be a factor? My non-participation in Facebook > is due to a conscious decision. The price to pay to follow through this decision may be very different for different people. Job, acquaintances, family. You name it. Cheers - t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Fri 12 Mar 2021 at 20:27:09 +0100, grumpy wrote: > > > > From: The Wanderer > > Sent: Fri Mar 12 10:38:54 CET 2021 > > To: > > Subject: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating > > system?) > > > > > > On 2021-03-12 at 03:27, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:11:16PM -0800, Weaver wrote: > > > > >> I have never had a Facebook account and never will. > > > > > We (three?) are the invisible Internet Underground \o/ > > > > > > [psst. don't tell anyone] > > > > > > ;-) > > > > I can go one better than that. > > > > Unless my memory is failing me, I have only ever visited facebook.com > > once in my life - and that was a mistake, I clicked on a link to > > something that looked interesting without first checking the target domain. > > > > I decided long, long ago (sometime in the first half of the first decade > > of this century, IIRC) that I didn't trust Facebook - initially because > > it and its embedded ads were a notorious vector for malware, later > > because I just didn't trust it period. I made a conscious decision to > > never risk visiting the site, and with that one exception (for which I > > did have NoScript active) I'm fairly sure I've never broken from that. > > > > I'm not as strongly antipathetic towards the other social-media sites, > > but I still tend not to visit them. I do have a Twitter account > > nowadays, but I rarely visit it, and the number of tweets I've sent out > > is in the low double (or maybe even high single) digits. > > > > -- > >The Wanderer > > > > The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one > > persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all > > progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw > > > > the borg > people who can not function without being part of a collective Human beings are sociable. As are other animals. > they refuse to think for themselves Really? Do you mean they refuse to think the same way as you do? -- Brian.
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
> > From: The Wanderer > Sent: Fri Mar 12 10:38:54 CET 2021 > To: > Subject: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating > system?) > > > On 2021-03-12 at 03:27, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:11:16PM -0800, Weaver wrote: > > >> I have never had a Facebook account and never will. > > > We (three?) are the invisible Internet Underground \o/ > > > > [psst. don't tell anyone] > > > > ;-) > > I can go one better than that. > > Unless my memory is failing me, I have only ever visited facebook.com > once in my life - and that was a mistake, I clicked on a link to > something that looked interesting without first checking the target domain. > > I decided long, long ago (sometime in the first half of the first decade > of this century, IIRC) that I didn't trust Facebook - initially because > it and its embedded ads were a notorious vector for malware, later > because I just didn't trust it period. I made a conscious decision to > never risk visiting the site, and with that one exception (for which I > did have NoScript active) I'm fairly sure I've never broken from that. > > I'm not as strongly antipathetic towards the other social-media sites, > but I still tend not to visit them. I do have a Twitter account > nowadays, but I rarely visit it, and the number of tweets I've sent out > is in the low double (or maybe even high single) digits. > > -- >The Wanderer > > The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one > persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all > progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw > the borg people who can not function without being part of a collective they refuse to think for themselves
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Fri 12 Mar 2021 at 19:26:05 +, Jeremy Nicoll wrote: > On Fri, 12 Mar 2021, at 19:03, Peter Hillier-Brook wrote: > > > I'm just guessing, but how do they access Facebook and yet not be able > > to use a telephone? > > I think some of you miss some of the advantages of Facebook. It allows > me to stay loosely in touch with around 120 friends, many of whom I have > not seen face-to-face for maybe 30 years. They can see I'm still alive and > I them, and I'm able to feel just slightly more in-touch with them. > > The overall effect is a bit like that of receiving a once-per-year round-robin > letter from each of them, except that instead of a whole wodge of news > coming once per year, one gets - shall we say - a fiftieth of the amount > 50 times more often. > > It also allows one to comment immediately on something someone else > has done, which requires a lot less commitment than a full conversation > with someone whom, in fact, one perhaps no longer knows well. > > I would not expect most of these people ever to ring me, and by the > same token I am not going to ring 120 people, who're now spread all > across the world. As a non-Facebook user - well said. -- Brian.
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Fri, 12 Mar 2021, at 19:03, Peter Hillier-Brook wrote: > I'm just guessing, but how do they access Facebook and yet not be able > to use a telephone? I think some of you miss some of the advantages of Facebook. It allows me to stay loosely in touch with around 120 friends, many of whom I have not seen face-to-face for maybe 30 years. They can see I'm still alive and I them, and I'm able to feel just slightly more in-touch with them. The overall effect is a bit like that of receiving a once-per-year round-robin letter from each of them, except that instead of a whole wodge of news coming once per year, one gets - shall we say - a fiftieth of the amount 50 times more often. It also allows one to comment immediately on something someone else has done, which requires a lot less commitment than a full conversation with someone whom, in fact, one perhaps no longer knows well. I would not expect most of these people ever to ring me, and by the same token I am not going to ring 120 people, who're now spread all across the world. -- Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own.
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On 12/03/2021 17:41, Larry Martell wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 8:27 AM James H. H. Lampert > wrote: >> >> On 3/12/21 8:09 AM, Larry Martell wrote: >>> I did the same thing - I resisted being on FB for a very long time, >>> but eventually I had to get on because it was how my family was >>> communicating and I was being left out of the loop. I joined as my dog >>> only my family knew how to find me. Even to this day I am only >>> connected to family members. >> >> If they shun or ostracize you for not being on Facebook, they are >> neither your friends nor your family. > > No they will still be my family, but I will not know what they are up to. I'm just guessing, but how do they access Facebook and yet not be able to use a telephone?
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Fri 12 Mar 2021 at 18:27:58 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 08:27:23AM -0800, James H. H. Lampert wrote: > > [...] > > > If they shun or ostracize you for not being on Facebook, they are > > neither your friends nor your family. > > I don't know whether that hard position is always viable. I mean, > I managed without Facebook (and *all* the others, btw.) but that > may well be sheer luck. To think otherwise would feel... arrogant > to me. How can "sheer luck" be a factor? My non-participation in Facebook is due to a conscious decision. > And yes, I'm interested in understanding /why/ and /how/ people > are sucked in: that's about the only way to do something against > it. Perhaps they feel a need to communicate with a group. That's hardly being "sucked in". Their choice, just like mine. Different midsets. To imply it is not quite the best and there is something that should be done about such a choice is simply vi vs emacs talk :). -- Brian.
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 8:27 AM James H. H. Lampert wrote: > > On 3/12/21 8:09 AM, Larry Martell wrote: > > I did the same thing - I resisted being on FB for a very long time, > > but eventually I had to get on because it was how my family was > > communicating and I was being left out of the loop. I joined as my dog > > only my family knew how to find me. Even to this day I am only > > connected to family members. > > If they shun or ostracize you for not being on Facebook, they are > neither your friends nor your family. No they will still be my family, but I will not know what they are up to.
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 08:27:23AM -0800, James H. H. Lampert wrote: [...] > If they shun or ostracize you for not being on Facebook, they are > neither your friends nor your family. I don't know whether that hard position is always viable. I mean, I managed without Facebook (and *all* the others, btw.) but that may well be sheer luck. To think otherwise would feel... arrogant to me. And yes, I'm interested in understanding /why/ and /how/ people are sucked in: that's about the only way to do something against it. Cheers - t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 08:09:45AM -0800, Larry Martell wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 7:51 AM Andrei POPESCU > wrote: > > Eventually I had to give in, because I was being literally forgotten by > > a group of friends that were using Facebook for most of their > > communication (I was the only one without a Facebook account), so I did > > create an account under a fake name, tied to a new webmail address. > > I did the same thing - I resisted being on FB for a very long time, > but eventually I had to get on because it was how my family was > communicating and I was being left out of the loop. I joined as my dog > only my family knew how to find me. Even to this day I am only > connected to family members. Of course, Facbook thinks you're your dog ;-D Cheers - t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On 3/12/21 8:09 AM, Larry Martell wrote: I did the same thing - I resisted being on FB for a very long time, but eventually I had to get on because it was how my family was communicating and I was being left out of the loop. I joined as my dog only my family knew how to find me. Even to this day I am only connected to family members. If they shun or ostracize you for not being on Facebook, they are neither your friends nor your family. The very first thing I do when taking possession of a computer is to add host table entries to interdict any attempt to access Facebook or Twitter (by mapping them to 0.0.0.0). That way, it becomes impossible for me to be tricked into accessing them by disguised links (I have received such links a number of times). I have real friends. And a real web site. And list-servers and boards. And a life. -- JHHL
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 7:51 AM Andrei POPESCU wrote: > Eventually I had to give in, because I was being literally forgotten by > a group of friends that were using Facebook for most of their > communication (I was the only one without a Facebook account), so I did > create an account under a fake name, tied to a new webmail address. I did the same thing - I resisted being on FB for a very long time, but eventually I had to get on because it was how my family was communicating and I was being left out of the loop. I joined as my dog only my family knew how to find me. Even to this day I am only connected to family members.
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Vi, 12 mar 21, 04:38:54, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2021-03-12 at 03:27, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:11:16PM -0800, Weaver wrote: > > >> I have never had a Facebook account and never will. > > > We (three?) are the invisible Internet Underground \o/ > > > > [psst. don't tell anyone] > > > > ;-) > > I can go one better than that. > > Unless my memory is failing me, I have only ever visited facebook.com > once in my life - and that was a mistake, I clicked on a link to > something that looked interesting without first checking the target domain. > > I decided long, long ago (sometime in the first half of the first decade > of this century, IIRC) that I didn't trust Facebook - initially because > it and its embedded ads were a notorious vector for malware, later > because I just didn't trust it period. I made a conscious decision to > never risk visiting the site, and with that one exception (for which I > did have NoScript active) I'm fairly sure I've never broken from that. When Facebook was in its infancy (at least in my country?) they were spamming my e-mail inviting me to join because two co-workers joined (and probably gave Facebook access to all their e-mail contacts). In one of those e-mails, besides the names of the two co-workers and some other work related persons Facebook mentioned also the name of an acquaintance from my native city with no link (I was aware of) to my current workplace. That was creepy enough for me to resist creating an account for a very long time. Eventually I had to give in, because I was being literally forgotten by a group of friends that were using Facebook for most of their communication (I was the only one without a Facebook account), so I did create an account under a fake name, tied to a new webmail address. For WhatsApp I am "fortunate" enough that it's allowed on the company provided mobile phone, so at least I can keep it off my private one. I've only managed to "blackmail" some close family and friends to use Signal, though many of my (less important, unfortunately) contacts did sign up since WhatsApp tried to change their privacy policy, so I'm still hopeful. > I'm not as strongly antipathetic towards the other social-media sites, > but I still tend not to visit them. I do have a Twitter account > nowadays, but I rarely visit it, and the number of tweets I've sent out > is in the low double (or maybe even high single) digits. Twitter didn't really catch on here, Facebook dominates almost completely with it's own share of users + Instagram and WhatsApp. Hopefully they'll be split, in which case I just *might* reconsider WhatsApp for private use. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating system?)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 05:57:54AM -0500, Cindy Sue Causey wrote: [...] > My memory may be failed, but I think the reason I have a Facebook > account is because I found they had my name listed. To this day, I > don't understand how websites get away with that. The first person who > finds your name gets to claim it as their own via that "Is this you?" > thing that they do. Some websites do the same thing for businesses, > too. [...] Now a question, if I may: you don't seem OK with Facebook "claiming" your name. Why do you still have an account with them? Please, don't take my question as (hidden) judgement or something. I am just trying to understand how those things work. And (this should be obvious, but still): if you prefer to not answer, just ignore my question! Cheers - t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
