18
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2024
18 points (73.7% liked)
Cybersecurity
5845 readers
84 users here now
c/cybersecurity is a community centered on the cybersecurity and information security profession. You can come here to discuss news, post something interesting, or just chat with others.
THE RULES
Instance Rules
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- No Ads / Spamming.
- No pornography.
Community Rules
- Idk, keep it semi-professional?
- Nothing illegal. We're all ethical here.
- Rules will be added/redefined as necessary.
If you ask someone to hack your "friends" socials you're just going to get banned so don't do that.
Learn about hacking
Other security-related communities !databreaches@lemmy.zip !netsec@lemmy.world !securitynews@infosec.pub !cybersecurity@infosec.pub !pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub
Notable mention to !cybersecuritymemes@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Why roll Debian in that? It doesn't have a formal structure. I know it's kind of moot, but still.
Well, yes, it does: https://www.debian.org/intro/organization
But the corporation that handles all their funding and owns their trademarks is in the US, so they're possibly subject to the same pressure. And of course a good number of those people in that org tree are in the US, so again, same issue.
My point was more 'this is silly, because if you REALLY think that, there's nobody and no project that's got any ties at all to the US that can be considered safe, and you should maybe get rid of all your computing devices now', rather than an intent to say that Debian or anyone there is at more or less risk.
While the organizational structure exists, it isn't represented in a legal manner like a 501c3.
Software For The Public Interests is, but they only handle trademarks and like you said some rare funding.
Sure, but the way this usually works is that the government tells you to do something and if you don't, they'll find someone (or a couple of someones) on that list, arrest them, and charge them with a crime.
Doesn't matter if they did the crime, and it doesn't matter if they'd be convicted, but the play is to keep your friends in jail until you capitulate to what they want. This is actually something that's happened with tech companies before, like what they did with GoDaddy's C-level in India.
The problem is that there's no damn way I'd want to be arrested by the upcoming US administration, because I'd bet $100 that their playbook will portray not doing what they're demanding as a national security or terrorism offense, and if you've been watching ANYTHING for the last damn near 25 years, that's a free pass for them to basically just vanish you until they feel like doing otherwise.
It's fantastic leverage against organizations that have US people and are, presumably, not willing to just let their friends spend who-knows amount of time in prison, and could probably result in some cooperation.
And I'm about to both get downvoted and WELL AKSHULLY'd about how you can't just vanish people under the US justice system, and sure, you're technically correct. Except we've passed law after law after law since 9/11 that have basically given the government the ability to do any damn thing they please if they call you a national security risk or terrorist, up to and including Gitmo, in case you've forgotten that existed: which you shouldn't have, because we STILL have prisoners sitting there.
This is doomer as fuck, and horribly unlikely, but so is a demand to stuff backdoors into everything. But, if we head down that road, the only safe software will be ones that can't be blackmailed like this which is essentially none of the major projects.