5 ms·

It's sobering to think about this in tandem with the fact that people in the IQ bracket for “engineer” tend to get away with crimes. Honestly, though, at least

by spedru 7y ago

It's sobering to think about this in tandem with the fact that people in the IQ bracket for “engineer” tend to get away with crimes. Honestly, though, at least this can be turned into a concrete example to shoot down “if you don't have anything to hide...” and the like. The banal, lascivious panopticon elicits a real disgust response that might be moving, as opposed to the “shut up you alex jones weirdo” that sticks to talk of the NSA no matter how many Snowdens happen.

duxup 7y ago
Just for the sake of feedback, I found your post confusing. It's not really clear to me what you are saying exactly.
- Nzen 7y ago
  Presumably, this person is airing frustration with common responses to privacy oriented discussions he or she has experienced as participant and/or vicariously. He or she has characterized them ending in ad homenims, whereby the privacy minded individual is construed as politically or intellectually unmoored, similar to Alex Jones. Spedru posits the covert and exposed deviants within companies, that we've exchanged our data with, are another style of entity (besides state actors) that we ought to strive to deprive of access to that data. At least, that's as charitably as I can characterize the comment.
  - spedru 7y ago
    Yes. This is exactly what I meant. Didn't mean to come off as obscure, sorry, I'm a little out of it and English isn't my best language on a good day. I meant to tack a “distributed” onto that “panopticon”. A bunch of perverts scattered around tech companies might make for a convincing “actor” to bring up to ordinary people who think talking about government agencies is too crazy-sounding. As for the intelligence bit, I mean to say, “engineers are typically high-IQ, high-IQ people get away with crimes, imagine how many creeps have gotten away with this sort of thing and we'll never know”.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    > At least, that's as charitably as I can characterize the comment. That implies there's an uncharitable characterization. What would that be?
- james_s_tayler 7y ago
  I think it's just an AI produced troll comment.
- jimmaswell 7y ago
  That how smart people can get away with these things and employees can see your images could be a wake up call for taking privacy concerns seriously I think
smt88 7y ago
Let me try to rephrase this in a simpler way: This is even more troubling because smart people are less likely to be caught. At least, like Snowden's leaks, this is proof that privacy extremists aren't conspiracy nuts, and hopefully it will open a few eyes to the real danger of giving up privacy. Other comments are right: stop using big words and write plain sentences.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  You removed some of the most important parts. The word "engineer" is critical to the first sentence, and your version has no translation of "banal, lascivious panopticon". The roundabout structure of the sentences is much more relevant than the use of a big word or two.
  - smt88 7y ago
    You got me. It wasn't a 100% faithful translation. I removed "engineer" because it's not necessary to the broader premise that more highly skilled people tend to be both more trusted in our society and more likely to know how to get away with a crime. I didn't translate "banal, lascivious panopticon" because it was it's one of those faux-profound images that adds very little. It's hardly revelatory to tell HN readers that people are troublingly comfortable with constant tracking by corporations and governments.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      > because it was it's one of those faux-profound images that adds very little That's a very strange interpretation to me. It doesn't look at all profound or faux-profound to me, it's just imagery.
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  "Some rando engineer stealing private images elicits a real disgust response that might be moving, as opposed to talk of the NSA" Such a simple point, and look over how many heads it went.

by spedru 7y ago

duxup 7y ago

Just for the sake of feedback, I found your post confusing. It's not really clear to me what you are saying exactly.

Nzen 7y ago
Presumably, this person is airing frustration with common responses to privacy oriented discussions he or she has experienced as participant and/or vicariously. He or she has characterized them ending in ad homenims, whereby the privacy minded individual is construed as politically or intellectually unmoored, similar to Alex Jones. Spedru posits the covert and exposed deviants within companies, that we've exchanged our data with, are another style of entity (besides state actors) that we ought to strive to deprive of access to that data. At least, that's as charitably as I can characterize the comment.
- spedru 7y ago
  Yes. This is exactly what I meant. Didn't mean to come off as obscure, sorry, I'm a little out of it and English isn't my best language on a good day. I meant to tack a “distributed” onto that “panopticon”. A bunch of perverts scattered around tech companies might make for a convincing “actor” to bring up to ordinary people who think talking about government agencies is too crazy-sounding. As for the intelligence bit, I mean to say, “engineers are typically high-IQ, high-IQ people get away with crimes, imagine how many creeps have gotten away with this sort of thing and we'll never know”.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  > At least, that's as charitably as I can characterize the comment. That implies there's an uncharitable characterization. What would that be?
james_s_tayler 7y ago
I think it's just an AI produced troll comment.
jimmaswell 7y ago
That how smart people can get away with these things and employees can see your images could be a wake up call for taking privacy concerns seriously I think

smt88 7y ago

Let me try to rephrase this in a simpler way: This is even more troubling because smart people are less likely to be caught. At least, like Snowden's leaks, this is proof that privacy extremists aren't conspiracy nuts, and hopefully it will open a few eyes to the real danger of giving up privacy. Other comments are right: stop using big words and write plain sentences.

Dylan16807 7y ago
You removed some of the most important parts. The word "engineer" is critical to the first sentence, and your version has no translation of "banal, lascivious panopticon". The roundabout structure of the sentences is much more relevant than the use of a big word or two.
- smt88 7y ago
  You got me. It wasn't a 100% faithful translation. I removed "engineer" because it's not necessary to the broader premise that more highly skilled people tend to be both more trusted in our society and more likely to know how to get away with a crime. I didn't translate "banal, lascivious panopticon" because it was it's one of those faux-profound images that adds very little. It's hardly revelatory to tell HN readers that people are troublingly comfortable with constant tracking by corporations and governments.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    > because it was it's one of those faux-profound images that adds very little That's a very strange interpretation to me. It doesn't look at all profound or faux-profound to me, it's just imagery.
PavlovsCat 7y ago
"Some rando engineer stealing private images elicits a real disgust response that might be moving, as opposed to talk of the NSA" Such a simple point, and look over how many heads it went.