6 ms·

She has a point. You might actually have delusional thoughts about the government if you spend too much time on the Internet, especially on forums like this. I

She has a point. You might actually have delusional thoughts about the government if you spend too much time on the Internet, especially on forums like this. I mean, look at the support you're getting here! Pretty much every commenter is on your side with this. HackerNews isn't really known for being able to cater to outside opinions. What do you mean by "the government collects all of our data". What do you mean by "the government"? Do they come in to your house and go through your private photographs? Do they break in to your house and read your journal while you're at work? Or do you mean that the NSA intercepts electrical signals that you publicly broadcast from your house? Did you talk about the details of how the government collects all of our data? Perhaps you were both unable to disassociate your paranoid thoughts about a totalizing outside power from the reality of the situation. The reality is that the government is not collecting all of our data. It is collecting most of the data that we publicly broadcast. The politics of this are a totally separate concern from your feelings of anxiety. Maybe the problem is you spend too much time publicly broadcasting electrical signals and too little time dealing with your actual private thoughts and effects. Maybe write a poem that no one will ever hear outside of being recited in your own living room! Maybe keep a physical journal that you keep safely stored under your pillow! There are plenty of things you can be doing to convince yourself that the government is not collecting all of our data. Edit: facepalm...

EdSharkey 11y ago
I think this comment is not very compassionate/overly harsh. But you have some good nuggets in here ... > The reality is that the government is not collecting all of our data. It is collecting most of the data that we publicly broadcast. There are some recent troubling moves towards collecting "telemetry" about offline user actions in operating environments like Windows 10, but this observation largely rings true. Where I think you need some empathy is understanding how some people wrestle with the knowledge that "stuff I/family/friends broadcast is stored, indexed, and could be used against me/family/friends." The knowledge that to broadcast one's thoughts exposes one to possible tyranny can only squelch discussion, and that drives people apart. We're social creatures, so that's not healthy. Techies are especially cognizant of what "broadcasting" means in today's landscape. Celphones broadcast one's movements, audio, images, and store personal information that could be secretly stolen. Yeah, I can see why some people are anxious. You're absolutely right that people need to write down private thoughts on paper and keep journals that they don't share. That's good for mental health in any case.
- williamcotton 11y ago
  > I think this comment is not very compassionate/overly harsh. But you have some good nuggets in here ... What parts? I'm not trying to be harsh but nor am I trying to be compassionate. I think what may be considered "not very compassionate/overly harsh" is nothing more than a subjective reaction to the vast difference in political opinion that I express compared to the rest of the HackerNews community. > The knowledge that to broadcast one's thoughts exposes one to possible tyranny can only squelch discussion, and that drives people apart. We're social creatures, so that's not healthy. Yes, we are indeed social creatures, which is why we should all spend more time offline. There is a world outside of the Internet and I think a lot of techies forget that. The government is not listening in on our conversations down at the local pub. The government is not taking minutes on Kiwanis and Rotary Club meetings. This perceived totalizing nature of the "surveillance machine" is mainly experienced by people who mainly interact with the outside world on the Internet. It's like a Greek tragedy! I posit that too much cellphone and Internet use can cause many kinds of mental health issues. Go outside more! You're totally free! The streets are yours for the taking! Go hand out pamphlets in the town square! Grab a guitar and sing for an audience in a public park! Go to the beach and make new friends! There are no gatekeepers! Choosing to have your entire life thinly channeled through a certain kind of electrical signal that you constantly broadcast from your person and then suffering under the consequences is quite maddening.
  - entropyneur 11y ago
    Mom? Seriously though, you are not at all free offline. Playing a guitar and making friends are safe activities that you can do online just as fine and not worry about government. But try crossing a border. (Pamphlets are a special case since a pamphlet can have much greater impact if "handed out" online) Our frustration comes not from a delusion that Internet made us less free but from losing the hopes for liberation we once placed on it.
    - williamcotton 11y ago
      I think everyone's mother need to spend time moderating these forums. It would lead to a much more productive atmosphere.
onetimePete 11y ago
sometimes paranoia is the only way to copying with isolation and loneliness. If nobody is caring and watching out for me - at least the government does. All of that aside- there are no paranoid people after snowden. Just realists and delusional ones.
mikeash 11y ago
You use the phrase "publicly broadcast" three times. Yet the stuff we're talking about is typically sent out over a wired connection with a single destination. It's neither public nor broadcast.
- williamcotton 11y ago
  See my other comment pertaining to the third-party doctrine.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    You make a good point with that, but it's not even remotely the same thing. Just because the third party doctrine exists does not mean our activity is a "public broadcast," nor does it somehow mean that we're not allowed to be upset at these activities. Your original post basically said that we shouldn't be upset when the government collects our data because we're just shouting it to the world anyway. With the new post, you're saying that the government can legally collect our data without a warrant if we first give it to someone else. That's a very different point to make!
    - williamcotton 11y ago
      > You make a good point with that, but it's not even remotely the same thing I'm sorry, I was just being a little lazy and trying to address both points, but you're right, I didn't take the time to make the association. > Just because the third party doctrine exists does not mean our activity is a "public broadcast," The Internet is nothing but public infrastructure with a commitment to route a packet to an intended destination. A datagram has to publicly state where it came from and where it is going in order for it to be properly routed. It is totally legal for anyone to run something like Wireshark and see how these packets are being routed around. You clearly don't own all of the wiring and fiber optic cables that your packet travels on so you're always reliant on either public or third-party infrastructure. > nor does it somehow mean that we're not allowed to be upset at these activities. You shouldn't be upset when you use the radio in your cellphone to broadcast electro-magnetic signals from your physical location on earth. You should be aware of the repercussions of your activities. Anyone can see that you're broadcasting! > Your original post basically said that we shouldn't be upset when the government collects our data because we're just shouting it to the world anyway. Yes, by using the Internet we are literally broadcasting datagrams out on to a vast public network of routers and physical connections. Anyone can easily read this and track the physical location. > With the new post, you're saying that the government can legally collect our data without a warrant if we first give it to someone else. That's a very different point to make! Yeah, that's the extreme end of the legal argument. Because you are literally broadcasting information out in to public, the government doesn't need to invade your personal properties in order to search or seize. Therefore they don't need a warrant in order to read through your trash. The reason is because this is impossible to enforce. Using Twitter is pretty damn close to just writing little notes and throwing them promptly in the trash when you think about it in a certain light! :D
woodman 11y ago
> ...electrical signals that you publicly broadcast from your house... If you want to maintain your position on the matter, you're going to have to broaden that even further. You know about residential power monitoring [0] right? Sewage systems have already been used to sample drug usage for entire cities, but the BONAS project [1] takes it to a new level. How far are you willing to twist the logic? Would you consider the gravitational disturbance caused by the mass of my body within my home as a public broadcast open to government data collection? [0] http://www.leagle.com/decision/199917586CalRptr2d89_1161/PEOPLE%20v.%20STANLEY http://www.leagle.com/decision/199917586CalRptr2d89_1161/PEO... [1] https://www.bonas-fp7.eu https://www.bonas-fp7.eu
- williamcotton 11y ago
  The third-party doctrine is a United States legal theory that holds that people who voluntarily give information to third parties—such as banks, phone companies, internet service providers (ISPs), and e-mail servers—have "no reasonable expectation of privacy." A lack of privacy protection allows the United States government to obtain information from third parties without a legal warrant and without otherwise complying with the Fourth Amendment prohibition against search and seizure without probable cause and a judicial search warrant. Libertarians and liberals typically call this government activity unjustified spying and a violation of individual and privacy rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine As far as the Supreme Court's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is concerned, every electrical signal that leaves your private property or private person is considered to be publicly broadcast. Don't shoot the messenger! I'm just telling you the facts. The U.S. Constitution is a real piece of paper and the Supreme Court justices are real men and women with real power. This is how they see the world and you should carefully engage with the arguments that they make. You should at least learn to appreciate their arguments whether or not you agree with them. You might not like conservative thought but that doesn't mean that it is wrong or that it isn't influential and legally valid in a democratic republic. How far are you willing to distort your paranoia in order to keep thinking that there isn't a very reasonable and balanced conversation taking place in the third-party doctrine about individual rights weighed against the public good? If anything, the Supreme Court is duty bound to follow the constitution. If we have reached some sort of internal contradiction with the U.S. Constitution then we're going to have to make some amendments. These amendments will need a lot of political consensus to be enacted and people are going to have to accept some compromises. The 4th amendment clearly states the government is allowed under certain circumstances to partake in search and seizure of private property. Why is that? It's because we want the government to be able to deny certain individual rights in cases where it could best serve the public good. Why does this forum tend to abandon these philosophical first principles in exchange for virtualized mathematical first principles that seem blind to the physical political conditions of mankind? How, exactly, are you supposed to stop anyone from figuring out your draw on the power grid? Any outside private interest could go about collecting this information. Why and how do you specifically stop the government from doing so? If you want to install your own Tesla battery packs and your own Solar City solar panels, then you don't have to worry about your power draw on a publicly sponsored electrical grid, and I guarantee even the most ardent supporters of the third-party doctrine will fully support your rights to keeping your own information from leaving your own property and requiring the government to get a warrant in order to inspect your own internal records on power usage. I'm sure the government, or anyone else who is allowed to pilot their own aircraft in public airspace could get a pretty good estimate from other measures. Or do we need air police to protect us from other people spying on us from above? The government has consistently supported the individual protections of the 4th amendment for private property. The police need a warrant in order to attach a GPS device to a car. They don't need a warrant to go through your trash. Anyone can go through anyone's trash. How else would you police that? Do you want the police making sure that people aren't going through other people's trash? Should we have a special police force that just makes sure the regular police forces doesn't go through your trash? Who watches the watchmen? We all do. We just consider it all to be public knowledge if it leaves your private properties. It's the easiest, least contradictory solution. If you want something to be private, you need to be very careful with it! Or is it that you do disagree with the government's right to warranted search and seizure in principle?

EdSharkey 11y ago

I think this comment is not very compassionate/overly harsh. But you have some good nuggets in here ... > The reality is that the government is not collecting all of our data. It is collecting most of the data that we publicly broadcast. There are some recent troubling moves towards collecting "telemetry" about offline user actions in operating environments like Windows 10, but this observation largely rings true. Where I think you need some empathy is understanding how some people wrestle with the knowledge that "stuff I/family/friends broadcast is stored, indexed, and could be used against me/family/friends." The knowledge that to broadcast one's thoughts exposes one to possible tyranny can only squelch discussion, and that drives people apart. We're social creatures, so that's not healthy. Techies are especially cognizant of what "broadcasting" means in today's landscape. Celphones broadcast one's movements, audio, images, and store personal information that could be secretly stolen. Yeah, I can see why some people are anxious. You're absolutely right that people need to write down private thoughts on paper and keep journals that they don't share. That's good for mental health in any case.

williamcotton 11y ago
> I think this comment is not very compassionate/overly harsh. But you have some good nuggets in here ... What parts? I'm not trying to be harsh but nor am I trying to be compassionate. I think what may be considered "not very compassionate/overly harsh" is nothing more than a subjective reaction to the vast difference in political opinion that I express compared to the rest of the HackerNews community. > The knowledge that to broadcast one's thoughts exposes one to possible tyranny can only squelch discussion, and that drives people apart. We're social creatures, so that's not healthy. Yes, we are indeed social creatures, which is why we should all spend more time offline. There is a world outside of the Internet and I think a lot of techies forget that. The government is not listening in on our conversations down at the local pub. The government is not taking minutes on Kiwanis and Rotary Club meetings. This perceived totalizing nature of the "surveillance machine" is mainly experienced by people who mainly interact with the outside world on the Internet. It's like a Greek tragedy! I posit that too much cellphone and Internet use can cause many kinds of mental health issues. Go outside more! You're totally free! The streets are yours for the taking! Go hand out pamphlets in the town square! Grab a guitar and sing for an audience in a public park! Go to the beach and make new friends! There are no gatekeepers! Choosing to have your entire life thinly channeled through a certain kind of electrical signal that you constantly broadcast from your person and then suffering under the consequences is quite maddening.
- entropyneur 11y ago
  Mom? Seriously though, you are not at all free offline. Playing a guitar and making friends are safe activities that you can do online just as fine and not worry about government. But try crossing a border. (Pamphlets are a special case since a pamphlet can have much greater impact if "handed out" online) Our frustration comes not from a delusion that Internet made us less free but from losing the hopes for liberation we once placed on it.
  - williamcotton 11y ago
    I think everyone's mother need to spend time moderating these forums. It would lead to a much more productive atmosphere.

onetimePete 11y ago

sometimes paranoia is the only way to copying with isolation and loneliness. If nobody is caring and watching out for me - at least the government does. All of that aside- there are no paranoid people after snowden. Just realists and delusional ones.

mikeash 11y ago

You use the phrase "publicly broadcast" three times. Yet the stuff we're talking about is typically sent out over a wired connection with a single destination. It's neither public nor broadcast.

williamcotton 11y ago
See my other comment pertaining to the third-party doctrine.
- mikeash 11y ago
  You make a good point with that, but it's not even remotely the same thing. Just because the third party doctrine exists does not mean our activity is a "public broadcast," nor does it somehow mean that we're not allowed to be upset at these activities. Your original post basically said that we shouldn't be upset when the government collects our data because we're just shouting it to the world anyway. With the new post, you're saying that the government can legally collect our data without a warrant if we first give it to someone else. That's a very different point to make!
  - williamcotton 11y ago
    > You make a good point with that, but it's not even remotely the same thing I'm sorry, I was just being a little lazy and trying to address both points, but you're right, I didn't take the time to make the association. > Just because the third party doctrine exists does not mean our activity is a "public broadcast," The Internet is nothing but public infrastructure with a commitment to route a packet to an intended destination. A datagram has to publicly state where it came from and where it is going in order for it to be properly routed. It is totally legal for anyone to run something like Wireshark and see how these packets are being routed around. You clearly don't own all of the wiring and fiber optic cables that your packet travels on so you're always reliant on either public or third-party infrastructure. > nor does it somehow mean that we're not allowed to be upset at these activities. You shouldn't be upset when you use the radio in your cellphone to broadcast electro-magnetic signals from your physical location on earth. You should be aware of the repercussions of your activities. Anyone can see that you're broadcasting! > Your original post basically said that we shouldn't be upset when the government collects our data because we're just shouting it to the world anyway. Yes, by using the Internet we are literally broadcasting datagrams out on to a vast public network of routers and physical connections. Anyone can easily read this and track the physical location. > With the new post, you're saying that the government can legally collect our data without a warrant if we first give it to someone else. That's a very different point to make! Yeah, that's the extreme end of the legal argument. Because you are literally broadcasting information out in to public, the government doesn't need to invade your personal properties in order to search or seize. Therefore they don't need a warrant in order to read through your trash. The reason is because this is impossible to enforce. Using Twitter is pretty damn close to just writing little notes and throwing them promptly in the trash when you think about it in a certain light! :D

woodman 11y ago

> ...electrical signals that you publicly broadcast from your house... If you want to maintain your position on the matter, you're going to have to broaden that even further. You know about residential power monitoring [0] right? Sewage systems have already been used to sample drug usage for entire cities, but the BONAS project [1] takes it to a new level. How far are you willing to twist the logic? Would you consider the gravitational disturbance caused by the mass of my body within my home as a public broadcast open to government data collection? [0] http://www.leagle.com/decision/199917586CalRptr2d89_1161/PEOPLE%20v.%20STANLEY http://www.leagle.com/decision/199917586CalRptr2d89_1161/PEO... [1] https://www.bonas-fp7.eu https://www.bonas-fp7.eu

williamcotton 11y ago
The third-party doctrine is a United States legal theory that holds that people who voluntarily give information to third parties—such as banks, phone companies, internet service providers (ISPs), and e-mail servers—have "no reasonable expectation of privacy." A lack of privacy protection allows the United States government to obtain information from third parties without a legal warrant and without otherwise complying with the Fourth Amendment prohibition against search and seizure without probable cause and a judicial search warrant. Libertarians and liberals typically call this government activity unjustified spying and a violation of individual and privacy rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine As far as the Supreme Court's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is concerned, every electrical signal that leaves your private property or private person is considered to be publicly broadcast. Don't shoot the messenger! I'm just telling you the facts. The U.S. Constitution is a real piece of paper and the Supreme Court justices are real men and women with real power. This is how they see the world and you should carefully engage with the arguments that they make. You should at least learn to appreciate their arguments whether or not you agree with them. You might not like conservative thought but that doesn't mean that it is wrong or that it isn't influential and legally valid in a democratic republic. How far are you willing to distort your paranoia in order to keep thinking that there isn't a very reasonable and balanced conversation taking place in the third-party doctrine about individual rights weighed against the public good? If anything, the Supreme Court is duty bound to follow the constitution. If we have reached some sort of internal contradiction with the U.S. Constitution then we're going to have to make some amendments. These amendments will need a lot of political consensus to be enacted and people are going to have to accept some compromises. The 4th amendment clearly states the government is allowed under certain circumstances to partake in search and seizure of private property. Why is that? It's because we want the government to be able to deny certain individual rights in cases where it could best serve the public good. Why does this forum tend to abandon these philosophical first principles in exchange for virtualized mathematical first principles that seem blind to the physical political conditions of mankind? How, exactly, are you supposed to stop anyone from figuring out your draw on the power grid? Any outside private interest could go about collecting this information. Why and how do you specifically stop the government from doing so? If you want to install your own Tesla battery packs and your own Solar City solar panels, then you don't have to worry about your power draw on a publicly sponsored electrical grid, and I guarantee even the most ardent supporters of the third-party doctrine will fully support your rights to keeping your own information from leaving your own property and requiring the government to get a warrant in order to inspect your own internal records on power usage. I'm sure the government, or anyone else who is allowed to pilot their own aircraft in public airspace could get a pretty good estimate from other measures. Or do we need air police to protect us from other people spying on us from above? The government has consistently supported the individual protections of the 4th amendment for private property. The police need a warrant in order to attach a GPS device to a car. They don't need a warrant to go through your trash. Anyone can go through anyone's trash. How else would you police that? Do you want the police making sure that people aren't going through other people's trash? Should we have a special police force that just makes sure the regular police forces doesn't go through your trash? Who watches the watchmen? We all do. We just consider it all to be public knowledge if it leaves your private properties. It's the easiest, least contradictory solution. If you want something to be private, you need to be very careful with it! Or is it that you do disagree with the government's right to warranted search and seizure in principle?