4 ms·

It's not a bad thing to do, it's just hypocritical of him to value his own privacy but tell everyone else they need to give up theirs and let the FBI and NSA ha

It's not a bad thing to do, it's just hypocritical of him to value his own privacy but tell everyone else they need to give up theirs and let the FBI and NSA have access to everything they want to keep private.

nathancahill 10y ago
Why would you be concerned about the FBI or the NSA knowing about the content of your digital communiques if you have nothing to hide? Even the most ardent supporter of personal freedoms will admit that the government observing you over a network is the same as taking pictures of you with a telephoto lens on a busy street. The truth is the same: there are too many people and you aren't special enough to deserve personal surveillance.
- fl0wenol 10y ago
  This is a very weak analogy. What the NSA is doing right now, and what the FBI would like access to, is in no way similar to taking pictures of you on a busy street. What the NSA has is every intersection wired up with cameras, recording 24 hours a day, and all of it indexed with facial recognition and license plate readers. No organization should have that much information or reach at their fingertips, no matter how virtuous the mission or the people working there.
- flukus 10y ago
  > Even the most ardent supporter of personal freedoms will admit that the government observing you over a network is the same as taking pictures of you with a telephoto lens on a busy street. Is it? If i'm having a 1 to 1 conversation with someone online then that is a private conversation. There monitoring my traffic is more like opening the letters I would be sending that person. More fundamentally though, the meat space public/private divide does not map at all to the cyber space one, all analogies and laws to apply one to the other are flawed.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- iamdave 10y ago
  Are we really still building a brick wall between "nothing to hide" and "prefer to keep personal"? I'm asking this as far away from the legal and moral realms as possible; do people just not even deserve the basic benefit of having aspects of their day-to-day kept to themselves, even if it might not be inherently and/or objectively wrong? Because that's the question I hear being begged when the "you have nothing to hide" counterpoint is brought up. You've got nothing to hide, so let me just look anyway. Sure it's none of my business, and I have no actionable legal right to it, but it's not illegal so why don't you want me to see it?
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  > there are too many people Oh please. They can probably harvest the lot. It'll be some algorithm that deems you worthy or otherwise or gets you on an "of interest" list. Let's keep "personal surveillance" for '50s spy movies and Banksy murals. More generally, what about the chilling effect on legal and legitimate conversation?
  - jeremysmyth 10y ago
    It'll be some algorithm that deems you worthy or otherwise or gets you on an "of interest" list. ...or your association with "Occupy" or some other political protest movement that someone in power disagrees with, or that your wife bullied some politician's wife for two weeks in school, or that your interfering neighbour with a petty dislike of how you landscape your garden works as a government clerk and can access your data. There are many reasons why some individual might want to know private things about some other individual. When individuals with some tiny (or vast) power want to wield it over anyone else, especially when they can do it with little oversight, it's very tempting. That "the government" has access to my private information does not mean it's blind and faceless. It's made up of people with complex motivations.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  You're probably trolling, but... The reason why we don't give broad general search powers to the government (or at least, in theory don't give the government broad general search powers) is because the government can prosecute people, and given enough information they can find a reason to prosecute anyone. Which then fully opens the floodgates to selective prosecution: anyone who's disliked by someone in power will simply be prosecuted and likely convicted and jailed, because everyone will have done something that an all-seeing government can prosecute for. Cardinal Richelieu is alleged to have said that, given seven lines written by the most honest of men, he could find something in them to create a capital offense and have the man hanged. I'd rather not live in a society where anyone has that kind of power.
takeda 10y ago
Similarly Hilary advocates for banning encryption yet makes her staffers using Signal application to encrypt their correspondence. Our government is full of hypocrites.
- sigmar 10y ago
  >Similarly Hilary advocates for banning encryption Does she? Her tech platform seemed pretty supportive of Apple's stance on encryption: http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/06/29/hillary-clintons-tech-platform-backs-apple-inc-positions-on-encryption-privacy-innovation http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/06/29/hillary-clintons-t...
  - takeda 10y ago
    It's really hard to say what she supports. She changes her opinion so often trying to appease everyone, but is clear that she wants government to be able to decrypt communication: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151220/08101633141/hillary-clinton-wants-manhattan-project-encryption-not-back-door-that-makes-no-sense.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151220/08101633141/hilla...
- meowface 10y ago
  That's much worse and far more hypocritical than Comey's remark.
abraae 10y ago
Perhaps he's not concerned about the FBI and NSA viewing him in the buff (seems to be a recurring theme here - am I the only person who uses his computer fully clothed?) but rather the Russians/Chinese/enemy.
WillPostForFood 10y ago
He might be wrong (about wanting to able to snoop), but it isn't hypocritical. He is saying protect yourself from illegal hacking by bad actors, but submit to legal snooping by the government. Again, he might be wrong about wanting various legal means to snoop on people, but not hypocritical.
derefr 10y ago
Typical mind fallacy here, I think. I don't imagine the directory of the FBI gives one whit about "privacy." Instead, picture them spending all day thinking about "national security." Citizens have to tell the government everything—because doing so enhances national security. The government must not reveal anything to its citizens—because doing so would compromise national security. Pretty straightforward.

nathancahill 10y ago

Why would you be concerned about the FBI or the NSA knowing about the content of your digital communiques if you have nothing to hide? Even the most ardent supporter of personal freedoms will admit that the government observing you over a network is the same as taking pictures of you with a telephoto lens on a busy street. The truth is the same: there are too many people and you aren't special enough to deserve personal surveillance.

fl0wenol 10y ago
This is a very weak analogy. What the NSA is doing right now, and what the FBI would like access to, is in no way similar to taking pictures of you on a busy street. What the NSA has is every intersection wired up with cameras, recording 24 hours a day, and all of it indexed with facial recognition and license plate readers. No organization should have that much information or reach at their fingertips, no matter how virtuous the mission or the people working there.
flukus 10y ago
> Even the most ardent supporter of personal freedoms will admit that the government observing you over a network is the same as taking pictures of you with a telephoto lens on a busy street. Is it? If i'm having a 1 to 1 conversation with someone online then that is a private conversation. There monitoring my traffic is more like opening the letters I would be sending that person. More fundamentally though, the meat space public/private divide does not map at all to the cyber space one, all analogies and laws to apply one to the other are flawed.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
iamdave 10y ago
Are we really still building a brick wall between "nothing to hide" and "prefer to keep personal"? I'm asking this as far away from the legal and moral realms as possible; do people just not even deserve the basic benefit of having aspects of their day-to-day kept to themselves, even if it might not be inherently and/or objectively wrong? Because that's the question I hear being begged when the "you have nothing to hide" counterpoint is brought up. You've got nothing to hide, so let me just look anyway. Sure it's none of my business, and I have no actionable legal right to it, but it's not illegal so why don't you want me to see it?
anexprogrammer 10y ago
> there are too many people Oh please. They can probably harvest the lot. It'll be some algorithm that deems you worthy or otherwise or gets you on an "of interest" list. Let's keep "personal surveillance" for '50s spy movies and Banksy murals. More generally, what about the chilling effect on legal and legitimate conversation?
- jeremysmyth 10y ago
  It'll be some algorithm that deems you worthy or otherwise or gets you on an "of interest" list. ...or your association with "Occupy" or some other political protest movement that someone in power disagrees with, or that your wife bullied some politician's wife for two weeks in school, or that your interfering neighbour with a petty dislike of how you landscape your garden works as a government clerk and can access your data. There are many reasons why some individual might want to know private things about some other individual. When individuals with some tiny (or vast) power want to wield it over anyone else, especially when they can do it with little oversight, it's very tempting. That "the government" has access to my private information does not mean it's blind and faceless. It's made up of people with complex motivations.
ubernostrum 10y ago
You're probably trolling, but... The reason why we don't give broad general search powers to the government (or at least, in theory don't give the government broad general search powers) is because the government can prosecute people, and given enough information they can find a reason to prosecute anyone. Which then fully opens the floodgates to selective prosecution: anyone who's disliked by someone in power will simply be prosecuted and likely convicted and jailed, because everyone will have done something that an all-seeing government can prosecute for. Cardinal Richelieu is alleged to have said that, given seven lines written by the most honest of men, he could find something in them to create a capital offense and have the man hanged. I'd rather not live in a society where anyone has that kind of power.

takeda 10y ago

Similarly Hilary advocates for banning encryption yet makes her staffers using Signal application to encrypt their correspondence. Our government is full of hypocrites.

sigmar 10y ago
>Similarly Hilary advocates for banning encryption Does she? Her tech platform seemed pretty supportive of Apple's stance on encryption: http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/06/29/hillary-clintons-tech-platform-backs-apple-inc-positions-on-encryption-privacy-innovation http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/06/29/hillary-clintons-t...
- takeda 10y ago
  It's really hard to say what she supports. She changes her opinion so often trying to appease everyone, but is clear that she wants government to be able to decrypt communication: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151220/08101633141/hillary-clinton-wants-manhattan-project-encryption-not-back-door-that-makes-no-sense.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151220/08101633141/hilla...
meowface 10y ago
That's much worse and far more hypocritical than Comey's remark.

abraae 10y ago

Perhaps he's not concerned about the FBI and NSA viewing him in the buff (seems to be a recurring theme here - am I the only person who uses his computer fully clothed?) but rather the Russians/Chinese/enemy.

WillPostForFood 10y ago

He might be wrong (about wanting to able to snoop), but it isn't hypocritical. He is saying protect yourself from illegal hacking by bad actors, but submit to legal snooping by the government. Again, he might be wrong about wanting various legal means to snoop on people, but not hypocritical.

derefr 10y ago

Typical mind fallacy here, I think. I don't imagine the directory of the FBI gives one whit about "privacy." Instead, picture them spending all day thinking about "national security." Citizens have to tell the government everything—because doing so enhances national security. The government must not reveal anything to its citizens—because doing so would compromise national security. Pretty straightforward.