6 ms·

> Privacy zealots act like perfect anonymity is a human right and we should always work towards at any cost Why have an original take when you can argue agains

> Privacy zealots act like perfect anonymity is a human right and we should always work towards at any cost Why have an original take when you can argue against a ridiculous straw man?

umvi 6y ago
I have yet to meet a privacy advocate on HN that doesn't want police detectives to have an impossible job. If you disagree, please share how you believe detective work is compatible with strong privacy. And if you are about to say "as long as they have a warrant..." keep in mind that the warrant is likely to access privacy-violating information that should not have been collected in the first place (according to privacy advocates).
- awinder 6y ago
  They asked you to comment more substantially, not build more strawmen.
  - umvi 6y ago
    The first part of my top level comment comment was the substantial bit. Feel free to respond about problems I raised about cash. The second half is a complaint against the pro-privacy fear-mongering that pops up so often on this site ("Pass this act or the evil police are going to snoop on us!")
- jonnytran 6y ago
  For one, I think they should investigate actual suspects, not do blanket surveillance on everyone, only to leak that personal data later. Using cash is an example of sort of "opting out" of mass surveillance. Other comments in this thread have pointed out that there's a cost to businesses to accept cash. There's also a cost to consumers to pay with cash. But some choose to do it for privacy benefits. I think it's nice to be able to have that choice. A person may sometimes want to sell their information to the credit card companies and get "points". Other times they may not. > If you disagree, please share how you believe detective work is compatible with strong privacy. Detective work seemed to happen just fine before digital money when there was only cash. Blanket surveillance didn't happen because it was impossible or too costly to do. I'm not saying anything about this theoretical "strong privacy". > Cash has its own problems though - it's much easier to use it to avoid taxes, launder money, etc. when using cash. Why should law abiding citizens have their rights taken away because some people abuse it? We have the second amendment protecting rights that are arguably much more dangerous, despite how they're abused by criminals. In my opinion, privacy advocates are asking for something much less, and with much less potential for violence -- the ability to make a purchase when they're perfectly law abiding, without some rando recording that, and having it leaked on the Internet for god knows what to happen with it.
- everfree 6y ago
  Most cases are still solved by good old fashioned detective work, not digital surveillance. Cops wanting access to people's private data is just lazy. They already have access to my cell location records, financial records, surveillance cameras, the testimony of any business that I've visited, and all my public social media. If they want to arrest me for something, they have all the info they need from public channels, they don't also need to intercept my boyfriend's butt pics. What really makes an investigator's job impossible is when two people meet in the same place and have a private conversation. Are we saying that the digital equivalent of that shouldn't be allowed?
mas3god 6y ago
Then they can just not do business at places which dont accept cash. Nobody should be forced to accommodate for someone elses privacy concerns

> Privacy zealots act like perfect anonymity is a human right and we should always work towards at any cost Why have an original take when you can argue against a ridiculous straw man?

umvi 6y ago

I have yet to meet a privacy advocate on HN that doesn't want police detectives to have an impossible job. If you disagree, please share how you believe detective work is compatible with strong privacy. And if you are about to say "as long as they have a warrant..." keep in mind that the warrant is likely to access privacy-violating information that should not have been collected in the first place (according to privacy advocates).

awinder 6y ago
They asked you to comment more substantially, not build more strawmen.
- umvi 6y ago
  The first part of my top level comment comment was the substantial bit. Feel free to respond about problems I raised about cash. The second half is a complaint against the pro-privacy fear-mongering that pops up so often on this site ("Pass this act or the evil police are going to snoop on us!")
jonnytran 6y ago
For one, I think they should investigate actual suspects, not do blanket surveillance on everyone, only to leak that personal data later. Using cash is an example of sort of "opting out" of mass surveillance. Other comments in this thread have pointed out that there's a cost to businesses to accept cash. There's also a cost to consumers to pay with cash. But some choose to do it for privacy benefits. I think it's nice to be able to have that choice. A person may sometimes want to sell their information to the credit card companies and get "points". Other times they may not. > If you disagree, please share how you believe detective work is compatible with strong privacy. Detective work seemed to happen just fine before digital money when there was only cash. Blanket surveillance didn't happen because it was impossible or too costly to do. I'm not saying anything about this theoretical "strong privacy". > Cash has its own problems though - it's much easier to use it to avoid taxes, launder money, etc. when using cash. Why should law abiding citizens have their rights taken away because some people abuse it? We have the second amendment protecting rights that are arguably much more dangerous, despite how they're abused by criminals. In my opinion, privacy advocates are asking for something much less, and with much less potential for violence -- the ability to make a purchase when they're perfectly law abiding, without some rando recording that, and having it leaked on the Internet for god knows what to happen with it.
everfree 6y ago
Most cases are still solved by good old fashioned detective work, not digital surveillance. Cops wanting access to people's private data is just lazy. They already have access to my cell location records, financial records, surveillance cameras, the testimony of any business that I've visited, and all my public social media. If they want to arrest me for something, they have all the info they need from public channels, they don't also need to intercept my boyfriend's butt pics. What really makes an investigator's job impossible is when two people meet in the same place and have a private conversation. Are we saying that the digital equivalent of that shouldn't be allowed?

mas3god 6y ago

Then they can just not do business at places which dont accept cash. Nobody should be forced to accommodate for someone elses privacy concerns