><i>A/I’s cadre of radical hackers and tech developers provide a full spectrum of services – including encrypted chats and email, web hosting, secure video conferencing and streaming, anonymity shields, and a suite of other technological tools [...] while remaining anonymous, untraceable, and beyond the reach of the law.</i><p>ignoring the political leanings, this type of rhetoric will certainly be used to further the campaign against encryption, bolster the case for id verification requirements, etc. it paints the use of everyday normal tools: email, web hosting, etc. as inherently bad if they are private.
><i>Rose City Antifa also used A/I Collective tools and services to disseminate doxing lists and release illegally obtained personal information of Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement, along with calls for targeted attacks on ICE agents in the streets and “in their homes.”</i><p>That's what DHS does. They dish it out but can't handle it when it's done to them. Cowards.
Very strange to decide to only supply a communications system to people ideologically aligned with one. That seems like it would make one stand out to an undesirable degree, and it makes me wonder whether these groups actually do this, or whether they're setting others up. If this is correct I almost whether they're going after something set up by the Italian government.<p>Still, it seems like this would likely to be protected under the US first amendment, and it would probably be reasonable to bring legal action in the US to avoid silly stuff happening in Europe, when this in inevitably used to send goons and annoying infiltrators across the sea to Italy and Europe.
It’s fairly common, given the presence of Disroot and Riseup. The problem for political groups is that they can’t necessarily trust non-aligned hosts not to betray them. A warrant is one thing, you have to comply regardless, but non-aligned hosts may hand over data upon request even if there is no warrant.
Yeah, but it is possible to make distributed systems.<p>I've written up a little toy in Erlang where you have lots of connections to peers and send dummy messages, all of the same size, to all your peers continuously and then, because of this, you can obviously send a message to whoever you like without anyone being able to know to whom you sent it. With a bit of extra delay you can add retransmission, and then you can have huge networks. Complete resistance to traffic analysis.<p>The only thing you need to accept to have this kind of security is to accept that message timing might be 1/s, or 0.1/s, but for things like e-mail that isn't a problem at all.<p>My system is not done. I had intended to finish it if ChatControl 2.0 passed, but since it didn't, and there's upon that a war on I didn't put it out, and I thought it was a bad idea to popularize this kind of thing since there was a war on, but it's quite straightforward. Many here could probably write something like it.
There are plenty of P2P and anonymous collaboration tools out there, but the problem for these groups is that members will use insecure tools unless they are as convenient and capable as what they are used to. This is the same reason that the government constantly screws up its own opsec. Nontechnical people in any group are a serious problem for maintaining security.<p>(This is also why law enforcement concerns about encryption are overblown.)
Yes, but then you have to accept that they can't be part of a group that needs security.<p>If they aren't willing to do things correctly, not be lazy etc., and you tell them that this means that adversaries will be able to pinpoint them, and pinpoint you and everybody else, and they don't express that they're going to take the effort to be reasonable, then maybe you shouldn't talk to them.
True. If you look at the average person who gets involved in radical politics, many often have issues sticking to a strict security regime. I think this may be why “black bloc” groups and the like are normally smaller splinter groups within the larger movement. Garden variety protestors, activists, and local organizers are probably fine using something like Signal.
American companies have contested warrants have they not? The jump from request to warrant is not the major hurdle.<p>Imo people often make the wrong tradeoff here. If the government really wants something jurisdictional questions will not stop them. You're actually inviting them to just steal it at that point.<p>Better to keep things in the US where there will at least be a clear paper trail. And instead of wasting money on non-aligned infra budget for a half decent lawyer. American companies and citizens will have an easier time holding the American government accountable than "non-aligned" hosts. The current administration in particular is routinely embarrassed in the courts.<p>Sometimes I read about left wing civic groups and their privacy efforts and it feels delusional. You would think many of them would relish a paper trail of persecution and the publicity of a victorious court battle. The US government will not be deterred because you are hosting something in Europe or your homegrown service. It's really a bit of a joke to think so.<p>Plus what do you think is going to happen in two years? It feels like now is the time to lean into being on the shit list (if you can manage it - most of them are so ineffective they barely even register) so you can benefit when the tables turn in two years.
[flagged]
Every announcement from these psychos reads like a missive from the Ministry of Peace
Declaring a group of "hackers" as global terrorists? Mark off that spot on your Cyberpunk Dystopia Bingo cards.
Well this is concerning, hopefully they aren’t planning to go after Disroot and Riseup as well. The ability to access secure hosting shouldn’t depend on political orientation.
Where's "antifa" headquarters, exactly? Who's their leader? And who's 2nd in command?
That always reminds me of a graffiti I saw once, which simply commanded "Anarchy!"... the irony of which got a bit lost on the artist I think...
having a hierarchy like that would make the group easier to deal with. similar groups use cell structures or leaderless approaches.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaderless_resistance" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaderless_resistance</a>
[dead]
An organization doesn't have to be centralized, just like communists weren't. This is a lazy argument.
Where are "Nazi" headquarters? Who's their leader? And who's 2nd in command?<p>Maybe an ideology doesn't need headquarters or a leader.
"Antifa" is not being presented as an ideology, it is being portrayed as a global terror cell. The specific purpose for this is to be able criminalize leftist politics, since the state has many more tools to prevent association with foreign groups.<p>"Nazi" does not have a leader, but the Nazi party had a leader. Atomwaffen had a leader. Various III% groups have leaders. Strangely, these groups are not being linked to foreign right-wing groups in an attempt to make them illegal.
Antifa is a bit more radical than classic leftist politics, advocates for and commits violence, at least in my country (France).<p>The lack of designated leader doesn't mean that they get a pass and can continue to commit homicide attempts against their designated ennemies, or journalists they don't like.<p>It's part of their strategy, just like they manage to have 10 persons to light up and throw a molotov cocktail during protests to avoid personal responsibility.
Where is the Neo-Nazi headquarters, exactly? Who's their leader? And who's second in command? Surely if there's no designated single headquarters they aren't a problem.
Copy-pasting my comment to the other poster making the same point:<p>"Antifa" is not being presented as an ideology, it is being portrayed as a global terror cell. The specific purpose for this is to be able criminalize leftist politics, since the state has many more tools to prevent association with foreign groups.<p>"Nazi" does not have a leader, but the Nazi party had a leader. Atomwaffen had a leader. Various III% groups have leaders. Strangely, these groups are not being linked to foreign right-wing groups in an attempt to make them illegal.
Rose City Antifa: Oregon gets a shout out. Seriously.
Related:<p><i>US sanctions Italian hosting provider for encrypted email to Antifa and PKK</i><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49451343">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49451343</a>
The 2001 AUMF (authorization of us of military force) needs to be repealed so that these "special designations" are no longer allowed and war has to be declared. The US federal government will still perform the same acts but at least after the 2001 AUMF is repealed they'll have to go back to secret assassinations. Instead of flouting it in semi-public with the executive disposition matrix system.
Of course the fascists in power have a problem with real freedom.
Rose City 'Til I Die. Go pound sand fascists. Traitors to the Constitution.
Why can't capitalism be judged on its own merits? Why do we need the state to get involved in shaping hegemony?
You know the answer. There’s a reason the state considers antifa a threat.
Capitalism "needs to win", but there's no way it can without being ruthlessly forced upon people. Heck even forcing it is just delaying the inevitable decline/crash.
I think that we had had enough time to judge communism on its own merits. Why do you want to try again?
Capitalism <i>has</i> been judged on its own merits, and been found to be a ridiculously simplistic, unworkable system that tends toward oligarchy, massive inequality, and authoritarianism.<p>The state needs to get involved to protect the unworkable system.
Maybe you are right, at least partially, I can identify many of its flaws myself. However for example my homeland has tried communism/socialism, and went through brief periods of anarchy, and the same can be told about all. My family has lost a lot to all of these experiments (including the current capitalist one), but stability and modest prosperity are the best, and anarchism is as far from that as it gets, especially as represented by the Antifa.<p>Even the communist regime persecuted anarchism. (though they supported it when it was not at home, as a destabilizing tool)
Worth noting that at scale larger than family/clan/tribe it beats communism and feudalism on all relevant - to people - metrics.<p>(though unconstrained capitalism is not ideal)<p>> unworkable system<p>? unconstrained pure capitalism has bad effects, but it is not unworkable unlike say pure communism applied at scale larger than a family
> Worth noting that at scale larger than family/clan/tribe it beats communism and feudalism on all relevant - to people - metrics.<p>No, it demonstrably doesn’t. The countries that have the least problems with the issues I described are ones that combine market economics with socialist approaches.
Beyond parody
Siamo tutti antifascisti!
Not around these parts, especially not in the European sense.
Not in the tech industry, apparently. As a 50 year old, it's really shocking to see what I thought were just solid, solid underpinnings of a modern liberal society like "white nationalists are bad and should be ostracized" eroding.
Wish they would pay this sort of attention to the violent right-wing groups in the US, but of course that would put too many cops and ICE agents in prison for their liking.<p>Anyway, wouldn't be a day ending in -y if this presidency wasn't yelling about "far-left terrorists".
They pay plenty of attention, that’s their recruiting pool
In two years and 2 months regime change will swing it back.
And then it will swing back again... some say the two-party system is simply broken
And the culture of hacker news will follow suit, woke 3.0
[dead]