@yogthos It's so amazing, it seems like corporations simply can't handle any type of even basic responsibility to their users ... the world belongs to the shareholders and what they want, which is always the same "more blood";)
this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
159 points (94.4% liked)
Technology
35129 readers
85 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
We all know that companies like Adobe, Amazon, Google, Zuckerbot products and M$ are everything, but trustworthy when it comes to security and privacy. But too many times FOSS is confused with being reliable, secure and private, which is profoundly false, especially in recent years, since precisely the aforementioned companies got massively into the world of OpenSource, injecting and controlling many FOSS products with their APIs.
The big evil today is called surveillance advertising, that is, selling user data to advertising companies and others, to create income, which is not only an invasive privacy problem, but also a serious security problem as it is not controllable how these data, often sensitive, are processed and protected.
Especially in products from the US, where privacy regulation is practically non-existent and which require an urgent review in this regard, irrelevant if it is FOSS or proprietary soft. It also requires a revision of the definition of OpenSource, where products that send data to third parties and large companies are not really Open Source, other than in an evil sense..
Which FOSS projects are you speaking of
All from Google Code (Chromium, Chromium OS, Android, irbase, etc....) and alot of third parties which include APIs from Google, Facebook and the other mencioned. Well, as FOSS you can all of these gut and fork, but if not, the are not more private and secure as any other proprietary soft. You can take a look also on the over 6200 Microsoft Open Source repositories in GitHub (also from MS), eg Docker, LinuxTracepoints, Live-share.....
https://github.com/orgs/microsoft/repositories?type=all
Or in the Open Source repositories from Zuckerbot (eg. React)
Also Amazon
https://aws.amazon.com/en/opensource/
Most trustworth those from the NASA, but most very specific apps. Maybe Worldwind as alternative to Google Earth.
Just because its open source doesn't mean its FOSS
i know, because off this I named what is FOSS and what is OSS. But even FOSS, when it include APIs, also FOSS, from Big Brothers, it isn't really FOSS, it's only because the traditional definition, same for "Open" Source as such. This is because I said that the traditional definition need a revision.
Free and Open Source Software? I think they qualify
None of those projects are GPL
No, but eg, Chromium has a BSD 3 license, that means simplified do what you fucking want with it at your own risk, exept if you want to put the original Chromium author on your shabby fork or derivated products, you need a permission to do it. Even Gecko has a more restrictive license (MIT, also very liberal but need copyright mencion if you use it)
People are running Microsoft VsCode deploying via Microsoft github to Vercel or Render, and consider themselves an open source advocate
Edward Snowden cannot be trusted.
He was all high and mighty with respect to leaks in the US (arguably relevant and justified), but immediately folded when things got real and decided to collaborate with the Russians (arguably one of the most brutal fucked regimes both currently and historically).
Your comments completely lack empathy, wow. If you were in Snowden!s shoes, I bet you'd have folded to Russia at their first threat. "Visa or plane to Washington" and that would've been the and of it.
But because you are the big tough guy on the internet, Snowden is weak willed. You, the Alpha Moonchild would've resisted Russia in their prison and died like Navalni, with your head held high after they tortured your girlfriend in front of you. A true martyr baths in the glory and knowledge that their cause is just and true.
Your death would've driven all Americans and Europeans onto the streets! It would've been the flint to light the fire of a generation ♨️ like a true Scotsman, a patriot, a fearless defender of truth, morals, and internet tough guys!🫡
We all respect your hypothetical sacrifice and moral superiority. Long may it live in our memories.
You know nothing about me.
But please, feel free to keep LARPing as some sort of deep and empathetic individual.
Do I need to know much about you? You're judging Snowden as if you'd had fared better in his situation. You portray the situation as if his life were not on the line and he were on vacation in Russia.
Then why all this stuff about "A true martyr baths in the glory and knowledge that their cause is just and true."?
And the random stuff about Navalniy? What do you even mean?
I don't have the right to judge Snowden for this?
https://images2.imgbox.com/60/c1/qA3S0gar_o.png
This is not promoting russian propaganda? Is he not calling for millions of my fellow citizens to be subject to yoke of russian occupation?
Lol OK what the fuck was he supposed to do stay home and get thrown in jail?
He could have return to the US. Instead he chose to help the russians; why do feel that he is beyond criticism for this?
He didnt choose to help russia. His visa was cancelled by the US government while he was in russia.
He chose to collaborate with them and promote their propaganda goals.
He could have refused.
Return to USA to be imprisoned? Why would he do that?
Then don't collaborate with the russians.
He could have return to the US.
And be executed for treason?
There is no reason to believe this would be the case, see Chelsea Manning.
Don't be ridiculous. The US government is doing everything it can to convict Assange of treason and he is not even American. Manning denounced soldiers, and things were light on her because of the direct intervention of President Obama. Snowden denounced the National Security Agency, including actions directed directly by the presidency, there is no way to compare.
Assange has also worked directly on russian payroll (he had a program on RT) and has basically admitted that he supports russian imperialism (not in such an explicit manner, but we are all adults here). Not to mention he had no issues undermining the safety of whole multitude of people in his leaks as part of his quest for fame.
Snowden knew (or should have known) what he is signing up for. Collaborating with the russians (whose internal control of local internet services and jailing of people for social media posts makes the US look reasonable and human rights focused) is not right.
And even from a pragmatic standpoint; let's say I believed all the stories about Snowden not having any other options (I speculate that he actually supports russian imperialism and their methods); why should anything he says be given any attention?
Tomorrow the russians might tell him that he needs to promote that Stallman is evil pedophile and Adobe are a great company. You're saying he will suddenly reject their orders and refuse to execute them?
What is your logic here?
Edit to add after the fact: https://lemmy.ml/post/16580444/11527133
Tankies are a no-go for me as I am Ukrainian. Even mainstream leftists, who generally have good ideas, like Yanis Varoufakis, turn into complete degenerates when it comes to NATO or Russian imperialism. And Varoufakis is just the tip of the iceberg.
Yeah… you may find yourself having a rough time here, buddy.
You may want to know that degenerate is a word in English often associated with fascists.
A wild 
appears!
Assange has also worked directly on russian payroll (he had a program on RT)
So has Chris Hedges, who’s always produced exemplary work. So what?
and has basically admitted that he supports russian imperialism
First of all there’s nothing really there to support, because Russia is hardly imperialist, despite the projection by imperial core states, think tanks, and corporate media to the contrary.
Around 20 years ago Russia—at the time lead by Putin—wanted to join the imperialism club, but the US rejected them. Ex-Nato head says Putin wanted to join alliance early on in his rule. Since then Russia, rejected by the Global North, has had no choice but to join with the Global South as allies instead of neocolonizers. Hence BRICS+ and the larger developing multipolar bloc that’s going its own way, ignoring the US’ “rules-based international order” sanctions, developing its own international balance of payments outside of US dollar hegemony, and working to get out from under the boot of the IMF’s & World Bank’s debt traps.
the Russians (arguably one of the most brutal fucked regimes both currently and historically)
You have got to be kidding me.
- List of Atrocities committed by US authorities
- A Detailed Chronological List of US Interventions, Invasions, Destabilzations, and Assistance to Oppressive Regimes (ending in 2002)
- The U.S. Did Not Defeat Fascism in WWII, It Discretely Internationalized It
- Shock therapy (economics)
- Are We The Baddies?
- The blueprint of regime change operations How regime change happens in the 21st century with your consent
- Infographic: US military presence around the world The US controls about 750 bases in at least 80 countries worldwide and spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined.
- World Incarceration Rates If Every U.S. State Were A Country
- Michael Parenti: Africa is Rich
.
As for the US’ actions against post-Soviet Russia in particular:
The US has wanted to break up or otherwise weaken/isolate Russia ever since almost immediately after the break-up of the USSR. That’s why it’s been expanding NATO ever-closer to Russia despite originally having sworn up & down never to move one inch eastward. The US couldn’t allow a Ukrainian government to stand that was friendly with Russia. That’s why it couped Ukraine’s government in 2014.
- Reuters, 2014: Leaked audio reveals embarrassing U.S. exchange on Ukraine, EU
- Leaked recording between Nuland and Pyatt: audio | transcript
- CouterPunch, 2014: US Imperialism and the Ukraine Coup
- BBC, 2014: Ukraine underplays role of far right in conflict
- Human Rights Watch, 2014: Ukraine: Unguided Rockets Killing Civilians
- Consortium News, 2015: The Mess That Nuland Made
- The Hill, 2017: The reality of neo-Nazis in Ukraine is far from Kremlin propaganda
- The Guardian, 2017: 'I want to bring up a warrior': Ukraine's far-right children's camp – video
- WaPo, 2018: The war in Ukraine is more devastating than you know
- Reuters, 2018: Ukraine’s neo-Nazi problem
- The Nation, 2019: Neo-Nazis and the Far Right Are On the March in Ukraine
- Jacobin, 2022: A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War
- Consortium News, 2022: Evidence of US-Backed Coup in Kiev
- Al Jazeera, 2022: Why did Ukraine suspend 11 ‘pro-Russia’ parties?
.
The US doesn’t want Europe and Russia to develop closer ties, because it doesn’t want the “Eurasian landmass” to ever cohere, because then it would become too self-sufficient and powerful for the US to control. Zbigniew Brzezinski laid this theory out when the Soviet Union fell. That’s why the US tried to convince Europe not to build Nord Stream 2 and then later not to turn it on, why Biden said he would “bring an end to it” if Russia invaded, and why they ultimately did bring an end to it.
The US also very much wants regime change or balkanization in Russia so it can resume its neocolonial “shock therapy” plundering of it, which started under Yeltsin and ended under Putin. That’s why the US has a special hate-on for Putin.
Keep LARPing buddy!
My logic is survival, you know, a human instinct. And nothing you said about Snowden makes his statement wrong.
Nah, your logic is virtue signalling.
You don't want compromised inviduals promoting your points; there are many other who have a measure of consistency in their beliefs and don't back down (to a regime that makes US surveillance seem like a walk in the park) at the first sign of trouble.
If you don't want to make such choices, then don't get involved in activism. It's very simple.
regime that makes US surveillance seem like a walk in the park
There isn't such a thing as "good surveillance", or "better surveillance", if you do surveillance you can't pretend a position of moral superiority to others who do the same, even if you still don't chase people who say certain things online, it's on the horizon. Thanks to Snowden sacrifice we know some of the USA government surveillance. He didn't "back down at the first sign of trouble", what he did made him lose the life he had, I'd like to see you in his position.
I don't care about the messenger, I care about the message, if it's true, it doesn't matter who's saying it. If Putin says the sky is blue, it won't turn green. Can Snowden have another intention when he talks about what Adobe is doing? Maybe, I personally doubt it. The point is: this is irrelevant. This does not change the core of what Adobe is doing in any way, nor does it make what it is saying a lie. Just as Stallman defending a member of Epstein's list does not make false anything that he has said about big corporations, privacy and freedom.
While RMS does come off as provincial and somewhat delusional, he is a very smart and forward-looking fellow. I agree with his take on big corporation, privacy, freedom.
What I don't agree with is promoting Snowden as a messenger for RMS' viewpoints. You can't have it both ways; he can't be both forced to collaborate with the russians for his "survival" and be open in his statements. There are many other folks worth promoting who share RMS' viewpoints.
There isn’t such a thing as “good surveillance”, or “better surveillance”, if you do surveillance you can’t pretend a position of moral superiority to others who do the same, even if you still don’t chase people who say certain things online, it’s on the horizon. Thanks to Snowden sacrifice we know some of the USA government surveillance. He didn’t “back down at the first sign of trouble”, what he did made him lose the life he had, I’d like to see you in his position.
This is where you have a very primitive and parochial take. Getting sent to jail via kangaroo court for a relatively moderate social media post is far more damaging than the impact of western surveillance. If you don't understand this you are lost.
He did back down at the first sign of trouble. He chose to work with the russian security services when things got rough. He had other choices, go back to the US, refuse to work with the russians and just let them know that he would prefer to keep quiet.
You seem to have a very "hollywood" interpretation of russian security services. Yes, they are brutal, but their propaganda/communication outreach is not some "star wars antagonist" type bullshit. They see value in Snowden, simply executing him or even sending him to jail would undermine this value for them.
He is at Rusia because Europe denied him passage when he was traveling to south-america. And of course, he benefits the fact that Rusia and the US are not in good terms. But... how in earth that makes him accountable by the acts of the government of the country he lives in? That's just a falcious argument (ad-hominem), not a real fact. Where, in which acts, what actions he did to "collaborate" with "one of the most brutal fucked regimes currently and historically"? Is like saying you as american citizen (if you are), are directly accountable for all the "brutal and fucked up" actions your government does and supports along the world. But this is not technology, is politics... in what this article is important for this comunity is that a remarkable known specialist on security endorses what we (supporters of FOSS way of doing things, that includes Stallman, on which we could have also a lot of other difference, but not on that) have been saying during years.
He has been directly collaborating with russian security services via his internet outreach. I don't know if you know russian or know anything about their propaganda initiatives (both current and its ideological roots), but this is pretty obvious from his messaging. I disagree with your characterization as a fallacious argument; you seem to be ignorant of the matters at hand. Honestly, you seem concerned that someone dared criticize an individual that you seem to venerate.
You don't see any issue (in context of technology-focused discussion) of highlighting his endorsement of FOSS while ignoring that he works for a regime that has absolute surveillance powers over local digital services and routinely jails people for social media posts?
so... just to be on point. On which part your arguments are related, to sustain or deny, this:
Because all the rest, is just not an argument.
Believe it or not but my first paragraph is actually relevant to the matter at hand; as I mentioned earlier, you seem to be ignorant.
The part where he is genuine about "Stallman is right". If you want to promote FOSS, oppose technology monopolies and keep user freedoms, you want to do it in an effective manner. Not reference know collaborators who promote the agenda of a regime that cares not about FOSS or user freedoms.
Very few places that wouldn't extradite Snowden instantly, even fewer that can't be paid to do it. With Russia, Venezuela, and North Korea remaining his options, then Russia was the obvious choice. At least survival in Russia came with a price, had he stayed then the pay-to-play model for life wasn't available.
He could have chosen to not collaborate with the russians and refused to act as their mouthpiece (For example, he was hardcore promoting the "russia is not going to invade" rhetoric before Feb 24; a key element of russia's short term communication strategy at that point).
There are many people in russia (both well known dissidents and just average people) who refused to toe the government's line or even in some cases took direct action against the regime.
Don't you see the irony of Snowden focusing on "spying in the US", while also choosing to work with the russian regime that has absolute control over local digital services and arrests people for social media posts and Twitch stream?
This might not a big deal for you, but on a purely theoretical level, you don't see how this hypocrisy could be important for others?
He could have chosen to not collaborate with the russians
Yes, he could indeed. He could be the metaphorical guy with the bags standing in front of a line tanks. But why should he?
This might not a big deal for you, but on a purely theoretical level, you don't see how this hypocrisy could be important for others?
If you insist on applying a purely theoretical analysis, on the actions of a very real person with very real concerns for his safety, then I think I've found the problem with this discussion. You can't lift this problem to this level of abstract theoretical morality.
But to answer your question more clearly: no, I don't see how this perceived hypocrisy could be important for others.
Do you sincerely believe, that Snowden should have stayed put and faced a firing squad for whistle blowing? Snowden is trying to survive, and if daddy Putin says "go on TV and say these lines", then the sentence doesn't have to end with "or else". Snowden did what he had to do for his country, by telling the public about the surveillance, now he's paying for it. Why should Snowden be fighting for the Russian people as well?
Yes, he could indeed. He could be the metaphorical guy with the bags standing in front of a line tanks. But why should he?
He can make his choices. And we can evaluate them and label him as a hypocrite and mouthpiece of the russian security services.
If you insist on applying a purely theoretical analysis, on the actions of a very real person with very real concerns for his safety, then I think I’ve found the problem with this discussion. You can’t lift this problem to this level of abstract theoretical morality.
But to answer your question more clearly: no, I don’t see how this perceived hypocrisy could be important for others.
Do you sincerely believe, that Snowden should have stayed put and faced a firing squad for whistle blowing? Snowden is trying to survive, and if daddy Putin says “go on TV and say these lines”, then the sentence doesn’t have to end with “or else”. Snowden did what he had to do for his country, by telling the public about the surveillance, now he’s paying for it. Why should Snowden be fighting for the Russian people as well?
Cut the bullshit with "very real concerns" and all that jazz. It is not convincing. No one is asking him to fight for the russian people. What I am saying is it is legitimate to criticize him and highlight his collaboration with the russians.
Well let me tell you as someone living in Ukraine (and was born in Donbas with my hometown being occupied in 2014 and relatives having to leave everything because of the russian occupation); you're just playing dumb. You full well know that there are real consequences from Snowden's collaboration with the russians.
I brought up "theory" to try and engage with you. To highlight the possibility that there are other perspectives and your thinking might be parochial.
Trying to survive is fair. But putting him on the pedestal and labelling him as "untouchable saviour who can do wrong" is not normal.
In 2013 we all still believed that Putin wasn't the madman that he has turned out to be. I remember thinking that our biggest threats were right wing terrorists, Iranian nukes, and maybe North Korea. Sure we had seen what happened to Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2008, but I don't think anybody in the NATO countries saw that as the test it turned out to be. My point being that when Snowden flew to Russia in 2013, intent on seeking asylum, it may not have been his first choice, but it was as crazy an idea as it would be today..
With that said, I'd like to relate to some your post:
What I am saying is it is legitimate to criticize him and highlight his collaboration with the russians.
Sure, it's legitimate to criticize anything. But without taking all the circumstances into account, the critique loses relevance. At least for me it does, and that's what I'm arguing.
Well let me tell you as someone living in Ukraine (and was born in Donbas with my hometown being occupied in 2014 and relatives having to leave everything because of the russian occupation);
This is on a completely unrelated note. I'd like to apologize to you and every other Ukrainian, for the incompetence of my country's politicians. We promised you +100 leopard 1 tanks, but due to the ineptitude of our politicians, their investments, and the resulting organization, we haven't been able to deliver a single working tank. Whenever our politicians "donate" equipment it is blown out of proportions by our media. But when it comes to delivering useful kit, it fails over and over again. Rest assured that our present government is not going to be reelected. Their replacement will not be competent either though. Anyway, I wish we would do more than ship you our outdated equipment like it was some sort of humanitarian mission. It's not a humanitarian mission, it's fucking war and half assing war is stupid... Slava Ukraini! And death to Russian orks.
You full well know that there are real consequences from Snowden's collaboration with the russians.
And we're back in the discussion at hand :) the only consequences I can think of, that comes from Snowden collaboration is the propaganda tool he is now, and the intelligence he had to offer 11 years ago. Disregard him to mitigate the propaganda consequences.
I hope that whatever intel Snowden gave the Russians, it was limited. I think that a person with Snowden's background would be able to encrypt the information he traveled with properly.
I'd like to know if I've missed something here. I really don't mean to troll you. If you believe that I'm misinformed, please inform me.
Trying to survive is fair. But putting him on the pedestal and labelling him as "untouchable saviour who can do wrong" is not normal.
I don't think that I'm putting Snowden on a pedestal. All I'm saying is that, like everyone else in Russia, who have a public profile, Snowden knows that he can either toe the party line, or plunge to his death from a basement window. What we really need to do, is to realize that anything coming from the mouths of anybody in Russia, is the result of a proverbial gun to their heads and should be treated thusly.
Thank you for the kind words and support for Ukraine. It genuinely means a lot to me. We are having this back and forth and banter, but this a real point that means a lot.
I believe he was going to LATAM and he couldn't continue while transiting through russia. But that's beside the point. For me personally, I question his motives wrt revealing data on US surveillance following his collaboration with the russians. All local digital services (mobile phones, ISP, social media, streaming) are under the direct supervision their security services. It's basically like the USSR. You can literally get 5 years in jail for social media post, sure this really become more common after 2022. But even back in 2012, they were well on their with establishing a digital surveillance regime.
Sure, it’s legitimate to criticize anything. But without taking all the circumstances into account, the critique loses relevance. At least for me it does, and that’s what I’m arguing.
Why is his collaborating with the russians not a fair circumstance to take in account? If he is being forced to work with them, then shouldn't we disregard what he says as being suspect? Aren't there better spokespersons for the FOSS/digital privacy movement that can be promoted instead?
And we’re back in the discussion at hand :) the only consequences I can think of, that comes from Snowden collaboration is the propaganda tool he is now, and the intelligence he had to offer 11 years ago. Disregard him to mitigate the propaganda consequences.
He is almost certainly trying to leverage his fame and influence to promote russian security services goals; i.e. try to sow discord in the US. Their approach is multi-dimensional; for example in europe they were involved with green organizations in order to counteract the possibility of a rise in shale gas production in Europe. That's why it's best to not give any attention to Snowden; he is a russian tool. I would even speculate that he has internalized a lot of their goals (he is a russian citizen after all).
I don’t think that I’m putting Snowden on a pedestal. All I’m saying is that, like everyone else in Russia, who have a public profile, Snowden knows that he can either toe the party line, or plunge to his death from a basement window. What we really need to do, is to realize that anything coming from the mouths of anybody in Russia, is the result of a proverbial gun to their heads and should be treated thusly.
While this is true, people most definitely put Snowden on the pedestal and do not critically approach his statements.
Sorry for letting you hang, I've been swamped.
I believe he was going to LATAM and he couldn't continue while transiting through russia.
That's what I recall, too. That he was going to Latin America from Hong Kong through Sheremetyevo. But then on the Wikipedia page it said that Russian authorities have claimed that Snowden applied for asylum before departing Hong Kong. But again, probably propaganda.
Why is his collaborating with the russians not a fair circumstance to take in account? If he is being forced to work with them, then shouldn't we disregard what he says as being suspect? Aren't there better spokespersons for the FOSS/digital privacy movement that can be promoted instead?
Disregarding any statements that originates within Russia's sphere of influence should be default. But on account of what Snowden did more than 10 years ago, he's still given a voice in tech media.
He is almost certainly trying to leverage his fame and influence to promote russian security services goals; i.e. try to sow discord in the US.
I agree that Snowden's fame is being leveraged, but I don't think that it's necessarily done on Snowden's initiative. As you said it yourself, Snowden is a tool in the Russian propaganda toolkit.
for example in europe they were involved with green organizations in order to counteract the possibility of a rise in shale gas production in Europe.
Yeah, a Russian woman, who had received 45k EUR from the SVR run Pravfond, was just arrested in Denmark. She had run a legal counseling service for Russians in Denmark and ran for municipal elections for the socialist communists. I wonder how many people Russia has planted to run these low intensity operations around the world.
I would even speculate that he has internalized a lot of their goals (he is a russian citizen after all).
He definitely could have internalized the Russian state's goals. But I don't think that him being a Russian citizen should be an indication. That's probably more of a middle finger from Putin in the direction of the US. Sorta like "Congratulations, that application for citizenship you didn't fill out, has been approved. Go say your lines little puppet"
view more: next ›