New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Enjoy your open source encryption and OS (Linux) - and BACKDOORS!
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Well, he gave his reasons and from his last post stating to use the term "government" simply for brevity reasons i deduct that there's an intention to more or less evenly apply those. Not really my personal take on the subject but i don't see anything outrageous about it either.
The central point here is specific. Lies and propaganda are not specific. Basically any government employs those in regards to this or that topic at such and such extend. Hell, any (somewhat successful) politician does. As far as i'm concerned that's generic "government" activity.
By the way, it's not really my business but:
As much as i'm amused by him getting a taste of his own debating style i'd strongly advise against it. Unless you have very hard proof for such an assumption it just comes across as something between cheap and crazy.
In the end counter-propaganda is still very much also just propaganda. I'm not sure if i'm misreading the statement (there's quite some difference between countering propaganda and counter-propaganda) but if the meaning implied by the hyphen is actually intentional i'd again very much advise against it.
Here we go again.
It's a little funny that this journalist who has worked for RT and is branding himself as an investigative journalist exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions has never written anything negative about Russia on his website.
Trustworthy guy.
I find it amusing that his best response to me is find "Russians in the Kremlin" so objectionable. At this point, metaphorically, he's already on the ground, not managing to get back up
From the language/rhetoric I am less sure
True, but this is why I don't personalise it/name the actual person because it is not personal so saying for example "Barak Obama illegally bombed Libya" is moot as if Hillary Clinton/Bolton/McCain/Pope/.. had been in that position they would have been told to do the same. So when they say "so and so is evil and was a bad President" it's a waste of time because it provides an excuse to the regime, and it is the REGIME that is evil. Everyone thought with Obama being black/African whatever that he would be different but he expanded USA illegal forever wars from 2 to 7, kept Guantanamo open, torture continued, blacks actually got poorer and he deported more Mexicans than the "President" before him, so basically carried on the same policies of the regime, the color change made no difference. It's a duopoly/deep state.
I'm Just breaking some testicles.
I meant countering-propaganda in that other thread. My English not so good. I left for long time because that thread is a waste of time, but I came back to see if any change in minds but still same people writing same boring delusional unhinged essays ad nauseum.
Well, it happened in Russia (aka a place most western mainstream media hasn't cared about a whole lot for the longest time) and then these kind of news don't really tend to get a whole lot of airtime in general.
How many reports have there been about the EU's "Security through encryption and security despite encryption" resolution (basically the EU's stab at mandating backdoors for any E2E encrypted service) or it's ongoing realization? Where was any kind of public debate on the EU's "Digital Services Act" and it's wide reaching impact in regards to freedom of the press and freedom of information?
Maybe i'm just looking in the wrong places but i have the feeling there just isn't much of anything on such topics.
So he didn't get digitally strip searched and told that it is offense to refuse to answer questions (no right to silence/self incrimination), it is an offense to give false answers to questions, and they didn't imaged his laptop, phone, and asked him to give his passwords.
I'm very sure that if he wasn't exposing the security state and "exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions" he would have not had this experience and he is not the first. Guardian newspaper was forced to destroy Snowden leaks containing hard drives with hammers with MI5 agents present to make sure they did it. The regimes only target people exposing THEIR lies, and NOT the ones propagating their lies.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/20/nsa-snowden-files-drives-destroyed-london
On Saturday 20 July, in a deserted basement of the Guardian's King's Cross offices, a senior editor and a Guardian computer expert used angle grinders and other tools to pulverise the hard drives and memory chips on which the encrypted files had been stored.
As they worked they were watched by technicians from Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) who took notes and photographs
Well, i basically agreed with you anyways. Deception in general is something i view as generic to governments (or really politics in general), so it isn't specific and therefore i usually don't see a point in attaching names either (unless there's something about it that makes it exceptional for some other reason). I'm sorry if that didn't come across clearly.
I see. Yeah, that little difference actually has a huge impact and i also very much know what you mean in regards to that thread.
Strictly speaking, Durov said that it happened on a visit of his to the US in 2016. (If you mean the alleged FBI encounter)
But I see your point
Such topics are often perceived as obscure or nerdy/geeky, which is unfortunate
Because "Russians in the Kremlin" is a ridiculous language/phrase! No normal person uses such phrase. The only time I hear similar is from rabid Russophobes or propagandists.
Except when it's an adversary (in your language "Russians in the Kremlin" or "CCP"), then gets quite a bit of airtime. There's been a massive clampdown on right to protest in Germany, France and UK over the genocide in Gaza but very little coverage in the mainstream press - Yanis Varoufakis's meeting was shut down by German police by force a few days ago. If same was being done by "Russians in the Kremlin" or "CCP", we would hear "Putin has launched a brutal crackdown against protesters using his FSB henchmen" non-stop on state TV across the Civilized Club of Nations (TM)
To be perfectly honest, i didn't read the article and just had a brain fart. I mentally mixed the situation up with when Telegram got ordered to backdoor their encryption by the Russian administration, while in reality the only thing Russian about the FBI incident would have been Durov (at least i think he's Russian?), which is kind of irrelevant though.
If this is your best response (and apparently, it is), then I'm afraid that you lost this round. Better luck next time. (But be careful about who you insinuate is a Russophobe, okay?)
Does anyone doubt that there are Russians in the Kremlin/in power who make a variety of decisions that influence the lives of ordinary Russians?
Nice try!
I didn't insinuate you are Russophobe. You are inferring which is poor and making yourself the victim. I said it's similar to language from Russophobes. Please read better.
But no normal person refer to them as "Russians in the Kremlin" as it is a ridiculous language/phrase to say. Only John Bolton/McCain types would say something like this and they are Russophobes or propagandists and is well known.
Please use you energy to moderate better and in a less biased way, that would be a more valuable use of you time and a benefit for us forum users.
I am confused about your argument. Are there devastating exploits or backdoors in open source software sometimes? Yes obviously. Can open-source software be used in such a way under the right circumstances to exploit and backdoor something else if modified? Yes obviously. But so what? This seems like a similar argument that someone died once because of some freak accident wearing a helmet on a bike and therefore no one should ever wear a helmet on a bike because wearing a helmet is dangerous. Open-source software is still way safer than using closed-source software and I doubt that there exists wide massive exploits or exploits in open-source software such that it compromises their security entirely. You can see court orders where the US gov is unable to get messages from signal, data from Tor, decrypt a computer, etc. Besides with the Snowden leaks we would have likely seen evidence that there exists widespread security issues in open source software but we didn't. I don't believe there is a wide-ranging conspiracy theory where western governments like the US are able to widely control the security of open source software. I mean they certainly try but open source software is still the most private and secure choice.
Hey aren't you the guy that clicks phishing links? giving your IP address away, you should probably be more careful.
If you need help i can probably find you a youtube video on how to use a computer safely. Remember to rubber up, before clicking (that's when you push down a mouse button when the cursor is over the screen item you want to learn more about) check the link destination.
I'm sure you'll get the hang of it eventually. But let me know if you need a video guide or a mouse cheatsheet.
Good luck!
Unfortunately, the best that I can say to you is better luck next time. I rest my case
(If you get a chance and you're curious, try to understand what an insinuation is. Bringing up "Russophobe" here made no sense. No one here was talking about Bolton or McCain.)
Yes, we discuss John Bolton/McCain above. Sorry you wrong again.
Here you use the word insinuation (a verb of insinuate)
Here you use the word insinuate.
Insinuation, insinuate, learn some new words please. You inferred something and played victim. I am sorry for hurt your feelings, but facts not care about feelings.
I think you should use you energy to moderate better and in a less biased way, that would be a more valuable use of you time and a benefit for us forum users.
Thank you for playing.
It's different if a programmer badly coded software and accidentally left code that could be exploited.
Here USA govt tries to get some engineer to collaborate in introducing a back doors/exploits using open source software that (probably they) have intentionally created and put a back door in. So assume they have done this to ALL open source software and have got other closed software authors to collaborate in spying on citizens (maybe McAfee said no and was suicided I don't know). This a whole different level with a STATE actor involved and means you can't trust open source anymore either, may be even less so than closed source.
And lets remember that Intel chips contain MINIX operating system that runs at a lower level than the OS we install so ALL our (Intel) machines have a potential backdoor that USA govt can exploit even if we can somehow guarantee that all software is free of backdoor/exploits.
How am I wrong?
No one else here was talking about Bolton or McCain. You brought them up. As far as we know (and you've presented no evidence to the contrary), neither Bolton nor McCain had anything to do with Telegram. These two persons are completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread
It was just a desperate (and failed) attempt on your part to introduce "Russophobia" into this thread (when you had nothing else to say)
The correct phrase is "ruzzian(вырусь) terrorists in the kremlin".
I'm not sure what the issue is -- Russophobia is a real legit thing today. Invading neighbors, raping, stealing children, sending hundreds of missiles and drones into civilian structures and schools, annexing lands. I have absolutely no problem with people being Russophobic. When I was in Dnipro last week, Russia sent two cruise missiles into a high school and preschool downtown. Only teachers were injured, as students raced to the bomb shelters upon the alert, but there is good reason for people to be Russophobic.
OK. I'll be the bigger man and say I am sorry for hurt your feelings. Feel better?
I think you should use you energies to moderate better and in less biased way, that would be more valuable use of you time and a benefit for us forum users.
Thank you for playing.
Any chance you can remove my warning which Arkas give me in unfair/biased manner?
Oh, boy! Here we go.
Just to be clear, I was talking about this thread, which is about Telegram, and in particular, about my direct interaction with @asterisk14 in this thread, my point being that neither Bolton nor McCain had anything to do with Telegram, so his mentioning them in this thread as a way to evoke "Russophobia" was uncalled for (and a sign of desperation that he had nothing else to say)
(It's another question whether the Russians in the Kremlin may have done things that might understandably increase Russophobic sentiments among non-Russians. This is conceivable)
But you didn't hurt my feelings, so no need to apologize for this!
That said, I will hold you responsible for trying desperately to introduce "Russophobia" into this thread
@disasterisk14
we have a thread for your Russian propaganda, you should probably keep it isolated there. No one wants to hear your conspiracies.
Why is there now two threads about Russian politics?
One was already too much, get out of my LET home page ffs
It should be against the rules to try and make the forum to be about something its not
Edit: Just not worth it
You protest too much....LOL.
Get your facts straight. I didn't bring Russia into this thread AT ALL. The first mention of Russia/"Russians in the Kremlin" is by ....
Then @JosephF replied to @angstrom quoting the above and then @angstrom mentioned Russia again in his next reply!
Get your facts right before hurling false accusations please.