I don't understand how blockchain applications can ever be considered "anonymous", when there's a public ledger and everyone knowing your wallet address can track all your transactions.
That sort of transparency is not an intrinsic property of blockchain-based systems. There are already several cryptocurrency protocols in use that obscure data in their blockchains to various extents.
Dash [0] does CoinJoin-style mixing at the protocol level. Some newer systems use cryptographic techniques to provide even better security guarantees. Monero [1] implements the Cryptonote protocol, which uses ring signatures [2] to obscure who owns what and who's transacted with whom. Zcash, an implementation of the Zerocoin protocol [3] that should go live in a couple of months, will use zero-knowledge proofs [4] to similar effect.
There have even been a couple of well developed proposals for changing the Bitcoin protocol to make it impractical to track transfers of coins. And one of them will probably get implemented eventually, since privacy (unlike transaction throughout) is a real concern among many of the leading Core developers.
There was a paper a few years ago (when the need for proper anonymous bitcoin spending came up), something about zero-knowledge proofs, and you can switch your known bitcoin (public key, basically) to this anoncoin and you can then switch that back to a bitcoin, but all outside observers will just see that your known address "bought" an anoncoin. Of course, if someone observes the whole anoncoin switcher network, all they would see is that anoncoin users together bought some bitcoins.
> Earlier this year the Brazilian government used the courts to block WhatsApp for 72 hours as it seems they did not like being unable to peer into the private communications of their citizens. This happened again just a couple of weeks ago and it seems what the government cannot control should be blocked or even banned.
It's very hypocritical when an American criticises foreign "corrupt, oppressive" governments for "peering into private communications" by using public legal means against US corporations, whereas the US government has done exactly the same thing (using legal and illegal means) but you just didn't know about it (because most Internet companies are based in the US).
[I'm not sure that the author is an American, but there are undoubtedly many Americans that share this attitude.]
Remember: if you're a non-US citizen outside the US, then the US Constitution protection against search (4th Amendment) doesn't apply to you! We have no 4th Amendment protections!
I'm as opposed to mass surveillance as anyone on HN, but I've been surprised by this kind of reaction. Why are non-citizens surprised at this lack of constitutional protection? Are there actually any countries whose constitutional protections apply to non-citizens and/or non-residents? I think that would be pretty cool and progressive if it were the case, but I'm not aware of any.
I've said it before, but why WOULDN'T a country provide protections and rights to non-citizens (residents or not) that it outlines in it's constitution? After all, the US founding fathers believed it to be "self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". If it is always wrong for a government to do certain things, then clearly it is wrong for a government to do those things no matter to whom they are done.
Morally it's clear that you should treat others by the standards that you believe to be universal.
A government's ability to guarantee and protect these rights is, of course, limited by its geography. Other people may have different value systems which mean they protect a different set of rights than those defined in the US constitution (although the DoI does declare them to be 'unalienable'). But that's not what people are talking about when they talk about US government spying internationally. The US government violates rights it considers to be universal, and many of the people who's rights are violated are in countries with similarly enshrined values, and also who's countries are not at war with the US.
Completely agreed, especially with the US Constitution's philosophy of restricting the government, rather than providing rights for citizens. A government can only guarantee rights for citizens that are under its jurisdiction, but it can always forbid itself to take actions.
I think you're missing a key tenant of the purpose of government. Of the people, for the people, doesn't mean all humanity, but rather the people who are being governed and both pay into and benefit from the system. Government being a collective outsourcing of the force required to achieve some common good, again, for the people doing the outsourcing.
That's not to say there couldn't be ratified treaties between countries which give up some measure of sovereignty in order to set some better ground rules. We ratify all sorts of treaties like that, Obama ratified (by executive order, which I didn't know was possible) the Paris accord just last week. But I don't know of any treaties the US has signed to limit non-domestic wiretapping.
And I call BS when I see it. A nation state is morally responsible to it's citizens to uphold the law and order and protect it's citizens [from threats internal and external]. This is funded by the tax money collected by the state from it's subjects. Nation state may, willingly provide protections and other services reserved for it's citizens to others. But concept that it must or should is flawed at heart. World today remains a hostile place and the game for supremacy remains as strong as ever.
The French constitution references the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen which covers "all men, French, foreign, prisoners and enemies".
Yes, it does. There was a ruling long ago (early 1970's) which led to the formal inclusion of the Universal rights of man in the French constitution. It was only referenced (think of that as a hyperlink) and this reference was expanded to include the text in full.
We covered some of this in our class on 'staatsinrichting' where not only the Dutch but also other important European countries organizations were discussed. This one stands out for me because it seems that at least one European country got this one exactly right.
It's interesting to note that since the revolution the French legislators have had an universalist view of things. The goal was to spread the enlightenment ideas to the world (who said the French weren't pretentious).
Of course in practice things haven't always followed the theory. For example in French colonies, although indigenous people were supposed to enjoy the same protections than the French colonists, it didn't happen that way. The excuse was that they needed to be put "up to speed" first.
I'm not a constitutional lawyer but a subset of the protections seem to apply. The French constitution does an "include" of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. A constitutional court decision of 1971 has confirmed its applicability.
As a non-US citizen I don't expect much protection from US constitution. Historically, it had peacefully coexisted with many kinds of discrimination. But I'd rather US government didn't record my communications, constitutional or not. It is not a constitutional matter, it is a human rights matter.
Of course, enforcing it is problematic because the USA is the most powerful country in the world and other governments are not keen on protecting their citizens' rights in this regard. On the contrary, they seem acutely envious of US surveillance powers and are trying to get some of them themselves.
The US has an obligation to spy to the maximum extent possible on foreign citizens and entities. Just as every foreign government has the same obligation to spy on the US.
Do we? I would say that the obligation of the US government is to follow the goals set in the Constitution as much as possible, until such time as the Constitution is amended or replaced. As much as spying does "provide for the common defence", it is defensible. When the spying alienates allies, it is too much. When the spying forces foreign-held companies to pull out, can it really be said to "promote the general Welfare"?
Why would there be such an obligation for unlimited spying?
And when spying becomes counterproductive, should we still increase the level of spying? When US-led coups destabilize a region, does this maximize national security? When US-based surveillance causes a drop in investment, does this maximize national prosperity?
It hasn't yet become counterproductive. And there is not a point at which becoming more aware of what everyone else is doing becomes counterproductive.
Spying allows increased national security at minimal cost compared to higher military preparedness. Thus, it allows the same level of security at lower levels of funding.
In addition, spying can give a leg up to domestic commercial interests over foreign commercial interests.
> Are there actually any countries whose constitutional protections apply to non-citizens and/or non-residents? I think that would be pretty cool and progressive if it were the case, but I'm not aware of any.
Yes, Germany.
Almost all of German constitution applies to any "Person", not even just any human.
And the government has the constitutional requirement to help ensure those rights are granted to people globally.
In Germany there is a distinction between citizens and non-citizens.
The most important basic rights are enjoyed by everyone.
Only citizens enjoy some basic rights (freedom of assembly, for example).
But there is a "catchall" basic right (Article 2, paragraph I) that can be used by non-citizens to claim those rights, as well.
The difference is that this catchall basic right is weaker when weighing it against conflicting basic rights (practical concordance) and it has imminent limitations (statutes can override it – although that must be useful and proportional).
Germany had a history of the government claiming "those people there aren't 'people' hence the rights don't apply to them". I suspect the courts might take that into consideration if the government tries that line again.
That's impressive. I guess that's the difference between a modern, progressive constitution written over 2 centuries ago versus one written 50 years ago.
Semantic point, do you differentiate between a "human" and "person"? This may be a translation issue, but to me there's no practical difference between the two.
You're absolutely correct. I was thinking of what is called natural personhood. But I'm curious specifically how the German constitution differentiates the two.
To me, "human" is a member of the human race, "person" is any creature with consciousness, feelings, personality. So, if an ape/dolphin/alien/robot/whatever is intelligent enough, they are a person to me.
This is my opinion, though a lot of it was shaped by the German education system, so it's definitely possible that when this question becomes actually relevant in a decade or two that a judge might rule this the official interpretation.
ECHR applies to European governments as regards anyone who is a human, including nonresident nonnationals. This was used to make claims for rights violations against Iraqi nationals during the occupation by coalition forces.
Why does it apply this way? Think of the history of the Third Reich violating the rights of noncitizen nonnationals.
In the UK the Human Rights Act applies to all Humans (the current government is trying to change this but it still applies) The notion of human rights applying to only citizens is very strange to me.
> Are there actually any countries whose constitutional protections apply to non-citizens and/or non-residents?
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union protects you too! If you're non-US & non-Canadian, and use Facebook, then your data is under the control of Facebook Ireland Ltd, in Ireland. And the CFREU will protect you!
Duh? That's trivially true. Similarly, as a non-EU citizen outside the EU, the freedom to travel within the EU does not apply to me. Or, as a non-Canadian outside Canada, I cannot receive medical coverage from their national health care plan.
> Duh? That's trivially true. Similarly, as a non-EU citizen outside the EU, the freedom to travel within the EU does not apply to me.
1. That's not a valid analogy. The EU has no control over how people travel in other countries and any restrictions they may face. The US government does have control about how it treats people outside US borders. They're not remotely analogous.
2. The US constitution could easily be interpreted as a way that the US government should treat human beings, which means the 4th amendment describes how they should approach search and seizure of any person's property, wherever the US government has influence. Given the internet, influence now extends to computers across borders.
>2. The US constitution could easily be interpreted as a way that the US government should treat human beings, which means the 4th amendment describes how they should approach search and seizure of any person's property, wherever the US government has influence. Given the internet, influence now extends to computers across borders.
If you were willing to ignore English grammar and definitions, and several centuries of precedent, and many many other things, you could interpret it that way. But it would be ridiculous to do so. The Constitution is "We the people" laying down a basic framework for governing ourselves. It lays out how the government we create will act towards us. It specifically puts foreign affairs (how the government will act towards not-US people) under the jurisdiction of the President and does not extend rights to them.
This is well trodden ground. Your interpretation is facetious.
> If you were willing to ignore English grammar and definitions, and several centuries of precedent, and many many other things, you could interpret it that way.
Wow, talk about being uncharitable. I'll just ignore your insult that I'm an ignoramus talking out of my ass and just address the content: the Supreme Court has ruled only twice on the interpretation of "the people", but there is still considerable debate over its true meaning [1].
The declaration of independence also makes a broad statement that all men are created equal with unalienable rights. It's not at all a stretch that the bill of rights is an enumeration of how a government should preserve some subset of those rights. This is precisely how constitutional protections have been interpreted in other countries, for instance.
> The Constitution is "We the people" laying down a basic framework for governing ourselves.
It's actually "the People" in the constitution and the declaration of independence when referring to the governed, and only "the people" in the bill of rights. Capitalization matters, particularly if we're talking about intent.
Further, the constitution lays the basic framework for establishing a government, and "governing yourselves" is only ONE purpose. Or did you forget about "provide for the common defense" aspect of government? It's in the opening paragraph of your constitution.
> This is well trodden ground. Your interpretation is facetious.
No, this is objectively not well-trodden ground, and you're kind of acting like a dick. I recommend not doing that.
>The declaration of independence also makes a broad statement that all men are created equal with unalienable rights.
So? The Declaration of Independence is not part of the laws of the United States. Its statements have no bearing on them.
> This is precisely how constitutional protections have been interpreted in other countries, for instance.
Luckily, we're not talking about other countries.
> Or did you forget about "provide for the common defense" aspect of government?
That aspect would argue more that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are applicable by the US government only to US citizens, residents, or visitors, and not to all people everywhere. The Insular Cases support this view.
>No, this is objectively not well-trodden ground, and you're kind of acting like a dick. I recommend not doing that.
Yes, it is well trodden ground. That you refuse to acknowledge it does not make a difference.
> So? The Declaration of Independence is not part of the laws of the United States. Its statements have no bearing on them.
Excuse me, but tons of hoopla is made about the intentions of the founding fathers. The declaration of independence obviously has direct bearing on this question, and therefore obviously has direct bearing on interpreting the constitution.
> Luckily, we're not talking about other countries.
That's a weak reply. The point you've failed to grasp is that a constitution requires interpretation, and interpretations change, even despite contrary precedent. The Supreme Court has changed interpretations on fundamental rights multiple times over the US's existence. The US constitution can be interpreted in the same way as other countries have done.
> The declaration of independence obviously has direct bearing on this question, and therefore obviously has direct bearing on interpreting the constitution.
Insofar as the intent of framers of the Constitution (a set distinct from, though overlapping, the drafters and signatories of the Declaration of Independence) has relevance to interpreting the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence has very little value in establishing that intent, not only because the people are different, but because it is separated by fairly critical events from the drafting of the Constitution, which was, after all, not a response to the conditions that the DoI was drafter in response to, but a response to the perceived failures of the system of government adopted under the Articles of Confederation.
Honestly I see this whole WhatsApp debacle as a big old scape goat.
They're putting a big corporation on the spot so they can extort money from it, make people talk about this and ultimately it's just a means to keep spying on every single brazilian citizen.
People say WhatsApp is evil for not cooperating now and pretend the government is a pure entity only seeking good.
Meanwhile they forget we probably just had a silent coup for the presidency, the whole government is corrupt and so is the justice system that is enforcing these rules. I see talks about how evil the americans are for not helping the poor brazilian government, pretending like before WhatsApp existed crime in Brazil was almost non-existent. It's honestly sad.
The best part is that this only generates animosities between citizens, who attack each other because they support "red" or "blue" allowing the corrupt to keep doing whatever they want.
The whole world has shown exemplary individuals that despite living in their corrupt environments stand up and take a stand for us all. Despite that we're stuck pointing fingers at each other with blind faith in our own corrupt governments.
Honestly you can even be right that the brazilian government is "legally" spying on us. That doesn't make it right.
And to say we the author "doesn't know about american government spying" seems extremely naive to me. We probably know more about how corrupt the US government is than any other government on the planet and I doubt he's not aware of that.
> It's very hypocritical when an American criticises foreign "corrupt, oppressive" governments for "peering into private communications" by using public legal means against US corporations, whereas the US government has done exactly the same thing (using legal and illegal means) but you just didn't know about it (because most Internet companies are based in the US).
Surely this is only hypocritical if the American supports his or her government's doing these things. (I am an American, and I don't support these actions, whether taken by my country or any other.) Surely you don't want to take the position that those ruled by a morally corrupt regime by that fact lose their right to protest corruption?
> Few 'bugs' in implementation and you have a nice backdoor.
This holds regardless of whether WhatsApp is a blackbox or not. Now, that doesn't make the claim of end-to-end encryption verifiable, but if you take Facebook's word for it, the bug bounty should be about as good a stalwart as there is against implementation bugs.
It's kind of complicated. There were Brazilian bans in 2015 and 2016. Whatsapp has had encryption since 2012 but it was a bit half arsed. It now seems good. I guess the courts could still order the metadata of who's been calling who though. It's a bit unclear what exactly the courts did order.
Seriously, it isn't THAT hard to at least host your blog outside the centralized disservices. You could argue that reach is negatively affected. It probably is. But if everybody (and that includes the outlets promoting decentralization) just swallows the bait, how can things ever change? (Wo)man up!
Having been raised in a country enjoying the first winds of freedom after a dictatorship of 44 years, I wonder how serious this kind of blog posts are.
Sometimes they look just doing activism from the couch.
Anything that raises a flag and makes people think and consider alternatives to FB, Google, printed money, etc, is good activism. Whether it's from the couch or the armchair, is irrelevant.
The article identifies the risk that printed money will disappear, replaced with a few large credit card companies and banks so the government can monitor everyone's use of money. Since we're clearly already heading in that direction bit by bit, I wouldn't call it a fringe theory.
It is only fringe / extremist / conspiracy theorist when its a problem I don't personally have (or have not exerted the mental energy to fully understand). If it is affecting my life, it is serious mainstream business we need to take seriously.
That is a fundamental problem with online discourse. People put on blinders on singular crusades when reality is the combined effects of many, many forces influencing one another. Topically, the anti-encryption movement by governments is tied to broader totalitarian leanings by many traditionally republican states in the west, which has hundreds of influential aspects in all kinds of fields of business and society. And those leanings have correlations in everything from fearmongering to economic uncertainty to long running campaigns by certain interests that have lasted decades.
And then we get trapped in this rat hole of arguing over what is "serious" or meaningful, when in hindsight we can historically recognize almost all of history is the combined effect of many influencing factors not apparent at that moment in the past.
What do you not find serious about it?. The author is sighting actual examples of behavior that they find concerning. Do you doubt the veracity of these examples? Also Why does it matter where activism is conducted from?
You could also checkout https://cloudron.io we do try to make it a lot more user friendly and approachable to self-host your blog and lots of other app categories. I think once self-hosting such apps doesn't require much technical knowledge anymore, it removes a lot of friction for users.
Its not even a real article. Just some mindless repetition of some braindead cia propoganda against foreign governments being used to promote a new crypto currency called shadowcash.
The first half lists lots of state actions against encryption, the second part advertises the shadow project,
a blockchain based anonymous currency, communication and commerce platform:
https://github.com/shadowproject/shadow
Has anyone of these activists ever considered the appalling inability of average person to manage private keys properly? Whether it is Bitcoin, pgp, whatever else, using private keys on own hardware where noone else has access to is absolute prerequisite of successful decentralized crypto. Yet the privkeys keep getting leaked,stolen,lost(including Zimmermann's pgp key),cracked(due to generation by buggy software) without any good solution in sight.
Sounds like the obvious solution here is to provide a blessed and convenient way for one person to allow another to use their tokens in a limited fashion.
What's the actual use case here? What are people wanting to do when they do this?
I worry about specific implementations of software for decentralisation. You can ban or block an app, arrest it's creators, but it's a lot harder to ban a protocol that has a number of different implementations. Maybe there isn't enough resources for that, maybe encryption and privacy tech is hard enough that more than one implementation isn't possible at this moment, but I think it should be a goal.
Anonymous yes, decentralized no. The bill in your hand is printed by a central authority, is given value (or taken away, at their whim) by that same central authority, is protected by law, and is technically not even your property. It's the opposite of decentralized.
It's another anonymized coin that appears to have fancy chat/marketplace support in the main wallet application as a flagship feature.