4 ms·

So far, it seems that the data dumped is purely "personal effects." E.g. pictures of children, phone numbers, private chats with family. Democracy and public p

So far, it seems that the data dumped is purely "personal effects." E.g. pictures of children, phone numbers, private chats with family. Democracy and public policy do NOT benefit from this kind of "transparency." This is the "ad hominem" of hacks: vacuous, mean-spirited and — hopefully — entirely ineffectual.

chopin 8y ago
It's exactly the kind of data our politicians deemed fair game for mass surveillance (eg. BND at DE-CIX). I have little sympathy. I also disagree that there is no potential benefit. Maybe it reminds those in power that any data retained may come back to haunt you. And it might dampen attempts to weaken encryption. Even legislation which explicitly exempts politicians from mass surveillance would probably make the public more aware of the problem.
- adimitrov 8y ago
  You do have a point that this kind of data is, in fact, collected by mass government surveillance. I don't think the reverse holds, though. Politicians will not end up understanding private people's concerns over surveillance, because to them it's something else entirely. One is a frivolous attack on the individual, the other is a more abstract policy goal for the Good Cause™. I'm not saying this line of thought is legitimate, but instead that I have the strong suspicion this will not be interpreted as a message for "Datensparsamkeit" by the powers that be. I'm also wary of the argument that they "deserve" it. A lot of people who have nothing to do with said decisions were targeted, and maybe even some who opposed surveillance. The notion that "politicians" "deserve" to have their private data exposed by virtue of being politicians is Sippenhaft — collective punishment.
  - chopin 8y ago
    Unfortunately no politician in power has voted against surveillance. Even the green party is guilty of this where in power (Polizeiaufgabengesetz in Hessen and Baden-Württemberg, both of which I consider anti-constitutional).

chopin 8y ago

It's exactly the kind of data our politicians deemed fair game for mass surveillance (eg. BND at DE-CIX). I have little sympathy. I also disagree that there is no potential benefit. Maybe it reminds those in power that any data retained may come back to haunt you. And it might dampen attempts to weaken encryption. Even legislation which explicitly exempts politicians from mass surveillance would probably make the public more aware of the problem.

adimitrov 8y ago
You do have a point that this kind of data is, in fact, collected by mass government surveillance. I don't think the reverse holds, though. Politicians will not end up understanding private people's concerns over surveillance, because to them it's something else entirely. One is a frivolous attack on the individual, the other is a more abstract policy goal for the Good Cause™. I'm not saying this line of thought is legitimate, but instead that I have the strong suspicion this will not be interpreted as a message for "Datensparsamkeit" by the powers that be. I'm also wary of the argument that they "deserve" it. A lot of people who have nothing to do with said decisions were targeted, and maybe even some who opposed surveillance. The notion that "politicians" "deserve" to have their private data exposed by virtue of being politicians is Sippenhaft — collective punishment.
- chopin 8y ago
  Unfortunately no politician in power has voted against surveillance. Even the green party is guilty of this where in power (Polizeiaufgabengesetz in Hessen and Baden-Württemberg, both of which I consider anti-constitutional).