5 ms·

Warrantless searches will continue to rise, as will the other forms of surveillance, data collection, etc. as long as we let it happen. As long as most people d

Warrantless searches will continue to rise, as will the other forms of surveillance, data collection, etc. as long as we let it happen. As long as most people don't really understand the technology, and it's implications, the government will continue to accrue mass troves of data, then lose the data in breaches. Not many people I know would trust the government enough to let them do what they're doing if they truly understood. I think by the time we - as a society - realize all of the the implications, it will be much too late. In terms of risk / benefit, this is a no-brainer. We couldn't possibly ever gain enough to outweigh the risks associated with having such a massive collection of intimate data.

50656E6973 7y ago
>As long as most people don't really understand the technology, and it's implications, the government will continue to accrue mass troves of data, then lose the data in breaches. Why are you only concerned about the government accruing mass troves of data, then losing them in breaches? >In terms of risk / benefit, this is a no-brainer. We couldn't possibly ever gain enough to outweigh the risks associated with having such a massive collection of intimate data. While I'm inclined to agree, there are many people who happily give up the most intimate details of their lives for extremely small conveniences.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  I think it's biological. Herding creatures have to have the majority of the population be highly maleable to the influence of the pack leader(s). This means that with the majority of the population, reason, thinking and ideas just don't penetrate well. It's all about going along and getting along. Ideas can only be considered if group think is rejected.
  - themacguffinman 7y ago
    How ridiculously patronizing. Could it be that privacy arguments flogged to death on HN don't connect to the reality of the majority of people? Or that the arguments are not being expressed in an relatable or understandable way? Or that they share different values than you? No, it's the children who are wrong. I'm sure it's just group-think that blinds them to your brilliant ideas.
    - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
      Not my ideas. Ideas in general. I have noted that most people don't like ideas and aren't capable of dealing with them without getting really emotional. But my personal observation is backed by data. In the Milgram experiments, 65% of people will apply a deadly shock to someone who is agonizing just because an authority told them so. So I think it's safe to say that given we are herd animals, 65% just want to go along and get along. If this subset of the population don't care about people literally agonizing and killed without reason, what chance does privacy stand? I'm hardly a bastion of uniqueness by being part of the 35% who isn't semi-drone-ish in following authority. Interesting that the idea I brought wasn't addressed, though you did take the time to try and attack my character. Oh, and put words in my mouth by implying it is MY ideas that should be considered, when I never mentioned such a thing. Anyway, even if your cartoonish depiction of my perspective were true, maybe you could be so kind as to inform this horrible patronizing person why his though process is wrong?
      - themacguffinman 7y ago
        I didn't mean to imply the ideas are specifically yours (I can't edit my comment unfortunately), but I'm not really sure how that would be an attack on your character anyway. This response misses the point though. I don't need to dispute the Milgram experiment[1] or vague claims that "65% of people just want to go along" to attack this "biological" explanation as patronizing, lazy and self serving. In this world and age awash with so many ideas of all kinds, hard-fought and won by people who didn't just idly speculate that their ideas were too brilliant for others to understand, it's a poor excuse to offer this up as an explanation. I can say this about anything. It doesn't change or reveal anything except some cherry picked numbers that vaguely imply the dog ate your homework without convincing anyone else that you did your homework in the first place (and I mean "your homework" in the general sense, not targeted at you or implying that the homework was your duty). [1] although you should be more skeptical of its conclusions https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/rethinking-one-of-psychologys-most-infamous-experiments/384913/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/rethinkin...
- deytempo 7y ago
  Most people don’t WANT to understand. If you try explaining it to them they just plain don’t want to hear it; it’s not that they are too stupid. Sure there are those people also; most just want to bury their heads in the sand.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
4ntonius8lock 7y ago
I think you aren't considering the fact that in the Milgram experiments, 65% of people will apply a deadly shock to someone who is agonizing just because an authority told them so. So I think it's safe to say that given we are herd animals, 65% just want to go along and get along. If this subset of the population don't care about people literally agonizing and killed without reason, what chance does privacy stand?
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  That would imply there has never been progress on social and government overreach issues ever. That is clearly false.
  - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
    To me, I'm not sure how 65% followers vs 35% free-er thinkers means progress can't be made. It's just acknowledging the reality in the difficulty of change. I could be missing something though.
- shakna 7y ago
  You might want to consider not relying on Milgram to make your point, what with the replication crisis taking out about 2/3rds of psychological research as deeply flawed, and Milgram and the various replications, have not escaped criticism.
  - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
    I only quote it because some people can't use observation data to understand the world. They rely on the authority of science to prove it to them. Way before Milgram it was known: jails, concentration camps, humanity is rife with stories of atrocities. And of a significant percentage of the population participating.
idlewords 7y ago
Government collection (especially under this program) is a tiny drop in the ocean compared to commercial data collection by tech companies. And the government programs, unlike the private sector ones, operate within a framework of laws, regulations, and ultimate accountability. I agree with your sentiment, but the US government is a bit player here compared to private industry.
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  Tech companies didn't murder 100+ million of their own customers in the last century alone. It took governments to do that. And as for "accountabilty," I think we've seen how far that goes over the last year or so.
- ibeckermayer 7y ago
  The unaccountable government is going to hold these coporate monstrosities accountable? Dream on... what we need beyond the necessary political reform are companies with products that make bulk data collection impossible. In essence, “the cloud” needs to be rolled back and R&D should be invested in making it simple for Grandma to own and control her digital destiny

50656E6973 7y ago

>As long as most people don't really understand the technology, and it's implications, the government will continue to accrue mass troves of data, then lose the data in breaches. Why are you only concerned about the government accruing mass troves of data, then losing them in breaches? >In terms of risk / benefit, this is a no-brainer. We couldn't possibly ever gain enough to outweigh the risks associated with having such a massive collection of intimate data. While I'm inclined to agree, there are many people who happily give up the most intimate details of their lives for extremely small conveniences.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
4ntonius8lock 7y ago
I think it's biological. Herding creatures have to have the majority of the population be highly maleable to the influence of the pack leader(s). This means that with the majority of the population, reason, thinking and ideas just don't penetrate well. It's all about going along and getting along. Ideas can only be considered if group think is rejected.
- themacguffinman 7y ago
  How ridiculously patronizing. Could it be that privacy arguments flogged to death on HN don't connect to the reality of the majority of people? Or that the arguments are not being expressed in an relatable or understandable way? Or that they share different values than you? No, it's the children who are wrong. I'm sure it's just group-think that blinds them to your brilliant ideas.
  - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
    Not my ideas. Ideas in general. I have noted that most people don't like ideas and aren't capable of dealing with them without getting really emotional. But my personal observation is backed by data. In the Milgram experiments, 65% of people will apply a deadly shock to someone who is agonizing just because an authority told them so. So I think it's safe to say that given we are herd animals, 65% just want to go along and get along. If this subset of the population don't care about people literally agonizing and killed without reason, what chance does privacy stand? I'm hardly a bastion of uniqueness by being part of the 35% who isn't semi-drone-ish in following authority. Interesting that the idea I brought wasn't addressed, though you did take the time to try and attack my character. Oh, and put words in my mouth by implying it is MY ideas that should be considered, when I never mentioned such a thing. Anyway, even if your cartoonish depiction of my perspective were true, maybe you could be so kind as to inform this horrible patronizing person why his though process is wrong?
    - themacguffinman 7y ago
      I didn't mean to imply the ideas are specifically yours (I can't edit my comment unfortunately), but I'm not really sure how that would be an attack on your character anyway. This response misses the point though. I don't need to dispute the Milgram experiment[1] or vague claims that "65% of people just want to go along" to attack this "biological" explanation as patronizing, lazy and self serving. In this world and age awash with so many ideas of all kinds, hard-fought and won by people who didn't just idly speculate that their ideas were too brilliant for others to understand, it's a poor excuse to offer this up as an explanation. I can say this about anything. It doesn't change or reveal anything except some cherry picked numbers that vaguely imply the dog ate your homework without convincing anyone else that you did your homework in the first place (and I mean "your homework" in the general sense, not targeted at you or implying that the homework was your duty). [1] although you should be more skeptical of its conclusions https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/rethinking-one-of-psychologys-most-infamous-experiments/384913/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/rethinkin...
deytempo 7y ago
Most people don’t WANT to understand. If you try explaining it to them they just plain don’t want to hear it; it’s not that they are too stupid. Sure there are those people also; most just want to bury their heads in the sand.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

4ntonius8lock 7y ago

I think you aren't considering the fact that in the Milgram experiments, 65% of people will apply a deadly shock to someone who is agonizing just because an authority told them so. So I think it's safe to say that given we are herd animals, 65% just want to go along and get along. If this subset of the population don't care about people literally agonizing and killed without reason, what chance does privacy stand?

throwaway2048 7y ago
That would imply there has never been progress on social and government overreach issues ever. That is clearly false.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  To me, I'm not sure how 65% followers vs 35% free-er thinkers means progress can't be made. It's just acknowledging the reality in the difficulty of change. I could be missing something though.
shakna 7y ago
You might want to consider not relying on Milgram to make your point, what with the replication crisis taking out about 2/3rds of psychological research as deeply flawed, and Milgram and the various replications, have not escaped criticism.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  I only quote it because some people can't use observation data to understand the world. They rely on the authority of science to prove it to them. Way before Milgram it was known: jails, concentration camps, humanity is rife with stories of atrocities. And of a significant percentage of the population participating.

idlewords 7y ago

Government collection (especially under this program) is a tiny drop in the ocean compared to commercial data collection by tech companies. And the government programs, unlike the private sector ones, operate within a framework of laws, regulations, and ultimate accountability. I agree with your sentiment, but the US government is a bit player here compared to private industry.

CamperBob2 7y ago
Tech companies didn't murder 100+ million of their own customers in the last century alone. It took governments to do that. And as for "accountabilty," I think we've seen how far that goes over the last year or so.
ibeckermayer 7y ago
The unaccountable government is going to hold these coporate monstrosities accountable? Dream on... what we need beyond the necessary political reform are companies with products that make bulk data collection impossible. In essence, “the cloud” needs to be rolled back and R&D should be invested in making it simple for Grandma to own and control her digital destiny