The attitude in DC was, "those people on the internet think they can do whatever they want, we'll show them." Well, they showed us and we lost a truly inspiring person.

"But most of all, the legal profession has failed. Democratic governance depends upon responsible individuals throughout the entire system who understand and uphold the law, not who understand and exploit it. On average, lawyers have become so deeply corrupt that it is imperative for major changes in the profession to take place, far beyond the meek proposals already on the table. To start, the term “legal ethics,” upon which codes of conduct and licensure are nominally based, has become an oxymoron. Mossack Fonseca did not work in a vacuum—despite repeated fines and documented regulatory violations, it found allies and clients at major law firms in virtually every nation. If the industry’s shattered economics were not already evidence enough, there is now no denying that lawyers can no longer be permitted to regulate one another. It simply doesn’t work. Those able to pay the most can always find a lawyer to serve their ends, whether that lawyer is at Mossack Fonseca or another firm of which we remain unaware. What about the rest of society?

The collective impact of these failures has been a complete erosion of ethical standards, ultimately leading to a novel system we still call Capitalism, but which is tantamount to economic slavery. In this system—our system—the slaves are unaware both of their status and of their masters, who exist in a world apart where the intangible shackles are carefully hidden amongst reams of unreachable legalese. The horrific magnitude of detriment to the world should shock us all awake. But when it takes a whistleblower to sound the alarm, it is cause for even greater concern. It signals that democracy’s checks and balances have all failed, that the breakdown is systemic, and that severe instability could be just around the corner. So now is the time for real action, and that starts with asking questions." [1]

[1] https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/20160506-j...

Clearly demonstrated this summer, when these people [1] were charged with crimes punishable by life imprisonment. One of their charges had a 45 year mandatory minimum sentence. What sense does it make to create more Draconian laws? According to a former AUSA, "It's batshit... and I'm a pretty law-and-order guy."

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/nyregion/nyc-protests-law...

I think that due process rights of despicable people should be protected precisely because I want them to be available to disfavored affinity groups like religious minorities, labor movements, and pacifists.

Because right now, people accused of terrorism can be held in Guantanamo without habeas corpus. They are also subject to inclusion on government "kill lists"[1] with no opportunity for judicial review. The executive branch is claiming powers it has not had since the time of absolute monarchy. We should carefully consider any proposal to expand the meaning of the word "terrorism".

I'm outraged too, but I think these criminals should be afforded full due process rights. At both the investigatory stage and the trial stage.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/us-invokes...

Sealed sender means that an eavesdropper who can introspect into RAM inside Signal's AWS infrastructure is no better off than a network eavesdropper who passively sniffs ingress/egress.

That doesn't mean they can't build a reasonably accurate metadata database covering most people--people who communicate from a limited number of mobile ips to a limited number of mobile ips.

Signal is way better than matrix, but let's not pretend it has totally solved the metadata problem.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25654122

Points: 3

# Comments: 1

[1] https://media.kasperskycontenthub.com/wp-content/uploads/sit...

Similarly, no self-respecting country in 2030 will rely entirely on foreign integrated circuits. FPGAs will play an important role for small countries, but large groups like EU can afford to go big.

[1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/11/09/how-a-cia-cove...