[Erlangolem]

Ironically it’s just these kinds of laws which may finally create a broader popular drive to re-decentralize. Those people looking for sex and drugs and whatever else aren’t going to just say, “well shit, the government said no, let’s head to church.” They’re going to look for alternatives, and alternatives will be there for them. It won’t be glossy Java-heavy “Web 2.0” of course, it will be Tor, Mastadon, and encrypted communications.

That’s the real strength of the internet, you cut of F a head and two more grow back. If more stringent laws are passed, that just creates more drive for alternatives. It’s going to be ugly, but I remember when the internet was ugly, but worked. It won’t make people filthy rich overnight, but that’s not the net either. People still want to hook up, buy guns and weed, and just talk without Big Brother breathing down their neck. It will start small, and grow fast; after all we have a few decades worth of roadmap.

People who’ve moaned about people needing to look past a handful of sites are possibly going to get their wish. The total inability for governments to field sustainable technical solutions to shutting down commas has not changed.

So fight.

[pmoriarty]

"It won’t be glossy Java-heavy "Web 2.0" of course, it will be Tor, Mastadon, and encrypted communications."

The problem is that unless these alternatives are made brain-dead easy to use securely, they won't be used by the majority, or they'll be misused.

It's the same problem as with PGP, which is too complicated and too much of a pain for most people to use -- even for relatively computer savvy people to bother with.

Without many people using them, they won't be very effective or appealing alternatives.

[mirimir]

If they're the only viable alternatives, people will adapt. And I'm sure that usability will also improve.

But yes, the potential for privacy-compromising security failures is indeed troubling.

[ben_w]

The adaptation can just as easily be sour grapes (“I can’t get it therefore it is undesirable”) as anything else. People don’t always yearn for freedom, just as they don’t always yearn for a strong leader to take control.

[chopin]

You're right but Let's Encrypt is a counterexample how previously tedious work can be automated.

[drawkbox]

Keep in mind the goal of the internet, decentralization initially.

ARPANET Definition. ARPANET was a pioneering wide area network (WAN) that was created by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (ARPA) in 1969. ... In order to provide reliable communication in the face of equipment failure, ARPANET was designed so that no one point or link was more critical than any other.

We have only partially implemented this at a systems level but have centralized at the information level. The internet can bring information to free people and allow people to live in 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' but it is being twisted to limit those things due to edge cases and extremes. The battle continues...

[hueving]

This is fully implemented at the network level. It's just the services built on top of it where this starts to go to shit.

It's dead simple to build your own intranets on fully open-source stacks.

[mirimir]

Yes, the whole "route around censorship" vibe.

And if laws like this take down stuff that enough people care about, there will be alternatives. Given that Google, Facebook, Reddit and so on are vulnerable, they may be unable to provide them. But that just disrupts stuff to the next level.

[narrator]

They can find out who's running a node, send the cops and put them in prison. It's not hard. Look at China. The idea that we can technologically solve political problems is a bit of a fantasy. If the government wants to get you, they will.

[mirimir]

They will, if your OPSEC is weak.

[Khaine]

everyone's OPSEC is weak. It is incredibly hard, if not impossible to have good OPSEC with the level of surveillance and tracking performed by companies like facebook and google.

[mirimir]

Huh? Against Google and Facebook, it's not at all impossible. Or against the FBI. Against the NSA, it's hard to say.

I have not seen any reported pwnage that didn't involve obvious OPSEC failures. You just need to compartmentalize, and avoid creating associations.

[Khaine]

Which is easier said than done. All it takes is one slip up for your hard work to be undone. One tiny mistake.

Advertisers are looking to de-annoymise you, three letter agencies are trying to de-annoymise you and all it takes is one minor slip upper being too unique (i.e. your combination of web browser, addons, screen size, IP address, etc).

It is almost impossible for a regular user to be anonymous, to have good opsec, for extended periods of time.

[mirimir]

Sure, people screw up. So systems must fail nonfunctional/closed. Whonix is an excellent example. Tor runs in one VM, and user apps run in another VM. The Tor VM is not a router. There's no forwarding. It merely exposes Tor ports on a private network. So apps can have no Internet access except through Tor.

Regarding uniqueness, using personas that must remain unlinked on the same physical machine is very risky. Given the risk of guest-to-host breakout. And because hardware signatures may be visible remotely. If WebGL is enabled in VMs, Internet sites can link VMs on a given host (graphics card) that use the same virtual graphics driver. In particular, ones meatspace identity should never share a physical machine with any personas that's at all risky. They should also be compartmentalized on separate LANs.

So Debian and the Ubuntu family have the same signature. But Windows, OS X, Centos/Fedora, Arch/Manjaro and PC-BSD have different signatures. So one can use VMs with different WebGL signatures on the same hardware. But only for personas where linkage would be survivable.

[Erlangolem]

In the US and most Western countries, it takes a lot of work to do what you’re describing, and there would be pushback. Going after a few people is no problem, but a whole population? No. China can do it because it’s an autocracy, with a long history of autocratic rule, strong central government and weak institutions. In the US politicians have to get re-elected.

[abecedarius]

https://www.wired.com/1994/10/spew/ -- ancient Neal Stephenson story which I guess it's time for me to reread.

[ggg9990]

Crime might go back to the street corners from whence it came.

[vfulco]

Agree a million percent.