5 ms·
Careful in speaking for 'everybody' - because I would imagine in many cases, 'most people' (though probably not 'most HN-ers') are fine with the rules in places
by jariel 6y ago
Careful in speaking for 'everybody' - because I would imagine in many cases, 'most people' (though probably not 'most HN-ers') are fine with the rules in places so long as they are civic and actually followed, i.e. oversight, Judicial warrants, proportionality etc..
There are absolutely issues of legitimate natural security for many things, then it becomes a matter of how we balance privacy vs. the functional needs of the community.
If the FBI legitimately discovers some crazies trying to make a nuclear bomb, I can imagine a Judge authorizing some kinds of searches which would not otherwise be allowed, and that 'most people' would find that justified.
Of course, widespread surveillance, especially of the arbitrary kind (i.e. catch-alls) and information gathering relegated to local-yocal Police Forces, probably are going to be problematic in the view of 'most people'.
And of course, there is the big hypocritical fact that bothers me a lot about this: that Google, who has absolutely no interest other that 'profit' seems to get a free pass on a lot of things while a national security apparatus, who's objectives are entirely in the realm of 'public service' - even when we don't always agree what those objectives are - are somehow more cynically scrutinized.
So the question is: how much of a threat is Guccifer, and what are reasonable means that we can use to go after him? Which will probably always be a hard question to answer.
- Aerroon 6y agoI think the reason most people are fine is because they don't see the danger or don't feel that it's real. It's the "it won't happen to me" attitude. But when someone innocent gets caught up in it, then it's too late and there's no remedy.
- pbhjpbhj 6y agoLike, what if someone finds out they support BLM, drink cola, shop online, and watch movies over the internet, ... oh the horror! My impression is half of HN are into some sort of espionage or something. 50% of people's darkest secret is they sniff their hand after scratching their arse; and they do that in front of everyone without batting an eyelid. "But what if they get caught up in something", like what, the scandal over who ate the last snack in the break room?
- joshuamorton 6y agoThere are places in the US where one can face significant discrimination (and danger) for being gay or trans, or for questioning their religion. While I'm not as extreme as many on HN about the issue, there are real privacy concerns for many people.
- pbhjpbhj 6y agoI'm not doubting some people have secrets that they genuinely need to keep, some people are honest-to-goodness terrorists, for example. Just the narrative that suggests all people should be worried about secrecy; I'll warrant most people's secrets wouldn't cause enough of a stir to dissolve a sugar lump in a hot cup of tea.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- giantDinosaur 6y agoYou're warranting that, but since you don't know people's secrets, how can you possibly make that determination? With some creativity I can think of many wonderful ways to find out and construct monsters of relatively minor things - the conversations people are willing to have in private are massively different from what they'll go on record saying. How can you not have encountered this difference? Can you really not imagine how even the most innocent of statements or criticisms can be construed by a paranoid power in the worst possible light?
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago>since you don't know people's secrets, how can you possibly make that determination? // It's a conversation. You can tell me everyone you know has secretly murdered at least one person and progress things somewhat (I'm being flippant, of course). Saying things in public is not "being on record" though. Someone has to make the effort to look up about you, and we all wore a stupid costume, got drunk and made a pass at someone, dropped some litter, swore, or whatever ... in a Western Democracy are you going to shame me for normal behaviours, I think you'll struggle. >Can you really not imagine how even the most innocent of statements or criticisms can be construed by a paranoid power in the worst possible light? // Yes, what's the motivation? Fascist takeover? We're all in the same boat aren't we: OMG my neighbor looked at porn, let's burn him at the stake??
- jariel 6y agoThe reason people are 'fine' with it, is because it's a rational response to a real concern. Guccifer was hacking into people's accounts, revealing information of a national interest. So there is some proportional reaction by law enforcement. "But when someone innocent gets caught up in it, then it's too late and there's no remedy." Who are these innocents 'caught up in it', for which there 'no remedy'? It's possible investigators make mistakes while matching DNA just as well, but we don't deny them the right, because it seems the 'science' supports DNA as evidence. So we use it. I think that is a real but smaller concern - bigger concerns are large dragnets (arbitrary data collection), lack of oversight (no warrants), lack of proportionality (i.e. local Police getting access to all your searches because someone made a 'noise complaint'), and politicization (i.e. Trump getting search records on political enemies etc.).
- eanzenberg 6y agoThere are no innocents caught up in any of this, for decades. Its the boogeyman for powering through criminal rights.
- XMPPwocky 6y agoAha! Criminals don't deserve rights, that makes sense. Only law-abiding citizens do. Now, how do we tell the two apart? Well, we'll just watch everybody to see if they're a criminal or if they're not. But how do we know if we can watch somebody (and infringe on their right to privacy, if they're a law-abiding citizen) if we don't know whether they're a criminal or not? Hmmm....
- shajznnckfke 6y agoPersonally, I don’t care about what a computer system does with my data (to me, that’s no more bothersome than my underwear seeing my genitalia), but I do care if humans get to look at it. So overall I’m fine with what Google does, but bothered by government spooks looking through my data. I’m okay with humans looking if there’s a process with oversight limiting the search only to what is necessary. From this perspective, I don’t think Google harms my privacy much. I think the biggest privacy risk to me personally is probably from breaches/leaks (eg. if I gave my emails or messages to some dodgy service, and they end up on pastebin). To protect against that risk, I want entities that hold my data to have strong controls, and I think Google clears that bar.
- fuvkthisguy 6y agoPersonally, the fears around privacy are about harm being done to myself or others with my data. Google would be fine, except that big tech companies like Google sell your data to advertisers, who then use that data to coerce you into buying products and services that you might never have purchased if left to your own devices. That crosses into 'harm' territory. For a more clear demonstration of harm, think about Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, and the very real and tangible effects that scandal had.
- shajznnckfke 6y agoI block ads, and Google doesn’t actually give your data to advertisers, so they don’t get anything from me. Just another case like my underwear seeing my genitalia, to my mind. Computers taking to themselves while I go on living my life. Cambridge Analytica was a serious problem, although I thought Facebook had cracked down on that kind of thing, and Google did much further in the past.
- alentist 6y ago> who then use that data to coerce you into buying products and services that you might never have purchased if left to your own devices. That’s not what coercion means. coerce: persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats Don’t cheapen the word by misusing it.
- hippich 6y agoRe google vs state scrutiny specifically - the big difference between the two - one has an exclusive right to use physical force against individuals, another one - does not.