• 0 Posts
  • 30 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle




  • It’s barely anonymous, and poorly encrypted. The latter is the reason Durov is in custody

    There is no logic here. If it was poor it would be very easy to track anyone including criminals. You can check the news to find the reasons.

    There have absolutely been cases where a backdoor/weakness/lack of encryption used to catch criminals before

    I meant telegram related cases.

    Some are staying safe, others are being caught precisely because of this.

    I didn’t see any proofs of that.

    Using better encryption schemes is definitely part of that.

    Part of what? I don’t get the point here.


  • is not any different from just having TLS for transport

    Yes, in simple terms, all encrypted transfer protocols are similarly protected from mitm attacks.

    That just means that they store both your data in some encrypted way and the key. They can still read it trivially.

    They can and they said the decryption keys are always kept separately (there are probably more layers than I can describe) from the data to make sure the servers are not used to decrypt the data locally. They can be lying for all I care. The bigger problem is that people somehow assume this a huge threat, while all previous cases didn’t involve anything like that. People are getting into trouble for their public content - protected by some encryption but visible to anyone interested (who then report it to oppressive authorities).

    While some go extra mile to explain to you how you should use e2e for your family group chats, real criminals do their stuff everywhere (especially on telegram) for years, staying safe. Problem is not how weak or strong the encryption is, but that once you are under oppression and do opposition activities, you’re going to learn by yourself how to deal with it. Signal will not save you from people in your group chats if they are there to report on you.



  • My point is that from Russia’s point of view

    You don’t know what you’re talking about. Putin’s point of view does only represent a sad guy who lives in lies and outside of real information from the outside world. Real Russians have almost no interest or connection to their own country and decisions “it” makes. They’re only trying to survive. They only know about NATO from state media. There was even an interview (possibly not one) that NATO gave for Russians to make them understand what’s really happening. But state media is not interested in such things or would have called it all lies. Logic they force on citizens is always twisted and there is no point in last 10 years at least where I could say Russians actually had a point of view of their own.

    NATO is a hostile military alliance that has slowly been encircling Russia for the past decades

    It also expanded last year. When do you think Putin will hit Finland? Why did he not protest before that happened? Oh right, you only want to describe Russia’s point of view, not the logic behind it.

    The quote is also not much different from something like “NASA has been slowly washing people’s brains for past decades”. You can’t seriously explain someone’s actions while assuming it’s fine for them to be out of touch with the reality.

    US / EU / NATO did double down on arming Ukraine

    You sure? They have been arming Ukraine before the invasion? Did they also not arm the rest of Europe? Putin allowed that?

    I’m not excusing any of this - but these choices and events made this war predictable and inevitable

    I’d ask you to provide sources on this. Are there any reputable experts or otherwise sources that correctly predicted the war? Are there so many of them to call it obvious? Why was it not at all obvious to Russian citizens at the very least?

    Thus my example about China arming Mexico. The US would react in the exact same way, and we have ample historical evidence for that. And it’s not my point that this excuses anything, it’s that these things are predictable so we do carry a responsibility to deescalate, demand negotiations so Ukraine gets their land back while Russia gets security guarantees.

    We have historical evidence for something that never happened?

    Where is the logicality in your comments? Did you mention the US invasions to Iraq and Afghanistan to say how they were predictable? That some other countries could prevent those from happening by giving the US security guarantees?

    Why not mention how Poland provoked Hitler to start the world war, according to Putin?


  • We all live in a reality where the US did invade Iraq and Afghanistan. And here is the thought process of me trying to understand your reasoning behind mentioning these events in current context:

    • The US asked many times for Iraq and Afghanistan to not try to oppose them. According to the US, Iraq and Afghanistan bombed its own citizens (who call themselves the people of the US) for several (at least 8) years and finally the US decided to intervene.

    • But in fact it must have been caused by someone else, like China or Russia. They provided Iraq and Afghanistan with weapons and/or proposed them the place in alliance against the US, which is why the US didn’t have a choice.

    • From the very start of those invasions, the whole world decided to stand against the US and provided Iraq and Afghanistan with all the weapons and resources they could need in order to protect themselves. Massive sanctions were applied against the US to stop its war machine.

    • The US massively increased pressure on free speech and started to jail its own citizens who speak against the war. This also caused at least 1 percent of the US population to migrate elsewhere.

    • Because this all (or at least some of it) happened with the US, there is no problem in assuming that it would be fine to happen with other country (like Russia) and nobody should say a word against that country’s right for protecting its interests.

    If this is what really happened then you are correct and this not “totally different” but exactly the same.

    But if there are differences, I hope you can explain them without involving any kind of “injustice” towards Russia.











  • I think you’re missing a paragraph that tells how the border between Russia and NATO increased twofold since (and as the result of) the invasion.

    “Hey it’s all about NATO. We always wanted less NATO at our doorsteps, and you can see we tried our best to achieve this. That backfired, yes, but we ask you once again to… Ask all those countries nicely to withdraw from NATO. Having NATO at our borders is not healthy for our people, you see… With all those bio laboratories… And parent№1+parent№2 policy that you force on everyone…”