3 ms·

I am for a full pardon. The risks to our privacy are greater now than they have ever been and a lot of people think it will keep us safe. If I knew more about h

I am for a full pardon. The risks to our privacy are greater now than they have ever been and a lot of people think it will keep us safe. If I knew more about history I'd be tempted to compare it to something like a more insidious version of the cuban missile crisis, but it's probably a bad comparison. Any historians around here - what would you compare it to?

felice_landry 10y ago
I'm not a historian, but consider that the "medium" if you like, the Internet, all it's awful mudpie history of protocols etc, is ripe for the plucking by both sides. Do you stand idly by while the hostile ones (whatever that might mean) use it to their advantage, or do you get your government with their huge funds to help in this regard? The latter, of course. Trouble is when that agency becomes rogue, which it certainly seems like the NSA have, with rubber stamping. But we still need some form of accountable defense I think. It's just gone horribly wrong.
- newman8r 10y ago
  Yeah it's a tough question, and due to the complex nature of the technical and political systems involved, it's probably impossible to simplify/distill the situation down so that ordinary people can have any sort of informed opinion. Right now, people say "give us privacy" because it's a smart thing to say - but they don't understand what they're fighting for so I fear they'll be quick to give up at the first sign of resistance. There might not be a single person in the world who understands all the moving parts well enough to say what's right.
- icecold12741 10y ago
  That debate will always be at the forefront of security. In the 19th century, when the first professional police departments were established, people were outraged and convinced that the police were there to take away their liberty. It doesn't excuse all action to improve security, but we do have to occasionally align our security with modern standards. What would happen if we left all cybersecurity (including banks, power systems, etc) to the private sector? And then, where do we draw the line? Is it okay for the FBI to target people who visit a child pornography site? Most would say yes... People who download The Anarchist's Cookbook? Probably another yes. But what about collecting info on the people who supported that whole ordeal with Clive Bundy? Or people who belong to a non-state sponsored militia? That's where the line starts to gray for many. The point being, it's never cut and dry.
  - newman8r 10y ago
    should you be on a list just for mentioning the anarchist cookbook? Personally I think being targeted for being curious what the anarchist cookbook is is a bit much - I think every other high schooler in my generation downloaded the thing for kicks - most of it is utter bullshit anyway. But yeah - clearly most people have their own definition of when it's justifiable to spy on people vs what's not so it does create difficulties.
newman8r 10y ago
How about comparing it to the war on drugs over the last 100 years? is the war on privacy taking a similar path? Starts out using racism by claiming we need to restrict privacy (drugs) to prevent muslims (hispanics) from terrorizing us. Next it's associated with sexual deviants (reefer madness), and anyone who opposes it must be one of them. Then people start to realize that privacy isn't just an ideal, but it's a physical feeling of freedom - a feeling that they have never felt before, the freedom to be the captain of your life (damn hippies!) - people have tasted freedom and they want more of it. To fight against it, governments spends trillions of dollars hunting out anyone who provides privacy services (drug smuggling). Eventually there is reform,etc etc... so, it took like a century for cannabis.. 20 years for privacy?
- themartorana 10y ago
  Lots of crazy shit has been walked back over the years, and I assume it felt very doom-y at the time. That said, I don't see this being walked back. Snowden outed the US Government as ever conspiracy theorist's worst nightmare minus lizard people, and the country kinda shrugged.
  - meowface 10y ago
    >Snowden outed the US Government as ever conspiracy theorist's worst nightmare minus lizard people Not even close. For one, many non-crackpots (IT/infosec professionals and academics) strongly suspected NSA possessed capabilities similar to these and were probably exploiting them for many years before Snowden. Most details weren't known, but many people were not remotely surprised by the revelations. Actual conspiracy theorists tend to believe far more ridiculous scandals. Most of them believe mass homicides are orchestrated by governments to achieve political goals (Bush destroyed WTC to invade Afghanistan and Iraq; Obama murdered Sandy Hook children to pass stricter gun control legislation). If any conspiracy like that were ever proven in the same way NSA surveillance was, the shitstorm would (justifiably) be 1000x worse. But it is true that history almost definitely will not treat NSA's current actions kindly. It's only a matter of how far away we are from that time.
    - 10y ago

felice_landry 10y ago

I'm not a historian, but consider that the "medium" if you like, the Internet, all it's awful mudpie history of protocols etc, is ripe for the plucking by both sides. Do you stand idly by while the hostile ones (whatever that might mean) use it to their advantage, or do you get your government with their huge funds to help in this regard? The latter, of course. Trouble is when that agency becomes rogue, which it certainly seems like the NSA have, with rubber stamping. But we still need some form of accountable defense I think. It's just gone horribly wrong.

newman8r 10y ago
Yeah it's a tough question, and due to the complex nature of the technical and political systems involved, it's probably impossible to simplify/distill the situation down so that ordinary people can have any sort of informed opinion. Right now, people say "give us privacy" because it's a smart thing to say - but they don't understand what they're fighting for so I fear they'll be quick to give up at the first sign of resistance. There might not be a single person in the world who understands all the moving parts well enough to say what's right.
icecold12741 10y ago
That debate will always be at the forefront of security. In the 19th century, when the first professional police departments were established, people were outraged and convinced that the police were there to take away their liberty. It doesn't excuse all action to improve security, but we do have to occasionally align our security with modern standards. What would happen if we left all cybersecurity (including banks, power systems, etc) to the private sector? And then, where do we draw the line? Is it okay for the FBI to target people who visit a child pornography site? Most would say yes... People who download The Anarchist's Cookbook? Probably another yes. But what about collecting info on the people who supported that whole ordeal with Clive Bundy? Or people who belong to a non-state sponsored militia? That's where the line starts to gray for many. The point being, it's never cut and dry.
- newman8r 10y ago
  should you be on a list just for mentioning the anarchist cookbook? Personally I think being targeted for being curious what the anarchist cookbook is is a bit much - I think every other high schooler in my generation downloaded the thing for kicks - most of it is utter bullshit anyway. But yeah - clearly most people have their own definition of when it's justifiable to spy on people vs what's not so it does create difficulties.

newman8r 10y ago

How about comparing it to the war on drugs over the last 100 years? is the war on privacy taking a similar path? Starts out using racism by claiming we need to restrict privacy (drugs) to prevent muslims (hispanics) from terrorizing us. Next it's associated with sexual deviants (reefer madness), and anyone who opposes it must be one of them. Then people start to realize that privacy isn't just an ideal, but it's a physical feeling of freedom - a feeling that they have never felt before, the freedom to be the captain of your life (damn hippies!) - people have tasted freedom and they want more of it. To fight against it, governments spends trillions of dollars hunting out anyone who provides privacy services (drug smuggling). Eventually there is reform,etc etc... so, it took like a century for cannabis.. 20 years for privacy?

themartorana 10y ago
Lots of crazy shit has been walked back over the years, and I assume it felt very doom-y at the time. That said, I don't see this being walked back. Snowden outed the US Government as ever conspiracy theorist's worst nightmare minus lizard people, and the country kinda shrugged.
- meowface 10y ago
  >Snowden outed the US Government as ever conspiracy theorist's worst nightmare minus lizard people Not even close. For one, many non-crackpots (IT/infosec professionals and academics) strongly suspected NSA possessed capabilities similar to these and were probably exploiting them for many years before Snowden. Most details weren't known, but many people were not remotely surprised by the revelations. Actual conspiracy theorists tend to believe far more ridiculous scandals. Most of them believe mass homicides are orchestrated by governments to achieve political goals (Bush destroyed WTC to invade Afghanistan and Iraq; Obama murdered Sandy Hook children to pass stricter gun control legislation). If any conspiracy like that were ever proven in the same way NSA surveillance was, the shitstorm would (justifiably) be 1000x worse. But it is true that history almost definitely will not treat NSA's current actions kindly. It's only a matter of how far away we are from that time.
  - 10y ago