4 ms·

This seems like an extension of "“Nothing to hide, nothing to fear” (NTHNTF) fallacy [1][2][3] [1] https://www.computerweekly.com/blog/Identity-Privacy-and-Tru

by syshum 6y ago

This seems like an extension of "“Nothing to hide, nothing to fear” (NTHNTF) fallacy [1][2][3] [1] https://www.computerweekly.com/blog/Identity-Privacy-and-Trust/Debunking-a-myth-If-you-have-nothing-to-hide-you-have-nothing-to-fear https://www.computerweekly.com/blog/Identity-Privacy-and-Tru... [2] https://www.wired.com/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-the-wrong-way-to-think-about-surveillance/ https://www.wired.com/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-... [3] https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/secrecy/you-may-have-nothing-hide-you-still-have-something-fear https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/secrecy/you-may-...

breck 6y ago
Not a big deal. Good engineering demands logged pings. Not doing that would be bad engineering. Could it be abused? Sure. But that's why we need to continue to engineer a better democracy as well. We can do both.
- syshum 6y ago
  No we cant, the US was never to be a democracy, and you can not engineer a better one We are a constitutional republic with a LIMITED government, we as a society has lost respect for those constitutional limits and instead of taking principled stands to restrict government we have taken unprincipled stands based on the outcome we desire for society Attempting to "engineer" a better society is the exact problem we have. That is Authoritarianism not liberty Liberty is not attempting to engineer a better society or democracy, Liberty is allowing people to live their lives unmolested by government laws and regulations
  - throwaway3699 6y ago
    This is a losing battle long term I fear. Far too many people see government as the way to push their ideology onto society as a whole.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > the US was never to be a democracy, and you can not engineer a better one If it wasn't designed to be democracy, it should be trivial to design a better one, just like it's trivial to build a better automobile than a tricycle, which wasn't designed to be an auto. > We are a constitutional republic with a LIMITED government That's not incompatible with democracy, and suggesting that they are exclusive alternatives just means you don't understand at least one of “democracy”, “constitutional republic”, or “limited governmemt”. (And more fully, you want to say “federal republic with constitutionally-limited government and both the federal and state levels, and reserved powers for the states”, but that still isn't exclusive with “democracy”.) > we as a society has lost respect for those constitutional limits I don't see any evidence that respect for Constitutional limits has declined, which seems to be a result of combining a cynical view of the present with a rosy view of the past (the First Amendment is a beautiful set of Constitutional limits, but the Alien and Sedition Acts were adopted when the ink on it was barely dry.) > and instead of taking principled stands to restrict government we have taken unprincipled stands based on the outcome we desire for society Stands made on different sets of principles than you prefer do not thereby become “unprincipled”.
    - syshum 6y ago
      >>That's not incompatible with democracy Actually it is, democracy is 2 wolves and an a lamb voting on what is for dinner. Democracy is incompatible with limited governance, and individual liberty as the majority (or even a vocal but powerful minority that controls the media) will always use the power of democracy to oppress those that do not have said power Constitutionally limited governance that is immune to the will of the majority is the only way to ensure individual liberty, the founders understood this. This is why the ONLY democratic part of the US government at its founding was the House of Representatives. Over time we have made more and more parts of the federal government "democratic" like the Senate, and most recently the push to change the election of the President to be pure democratic as well. This has been a DISASTER for individual liberty
  - JohnBooty 6y ago
    Liberty is allowing people to live their lives unmolested by government laws and regulations You live in a society. Presumably you would like some legal remedy if somebody tries to harm you, or poison your drinking water upstream, or violates a written contract, sexually assaults your loved ones, or so forth. A life "unmolested by laws and regulations" is the most naive kind of fantasy imaginable. If history has taught us anything via failed states, lassiez-faire governments, and the like it's that power consolidates. Soon people would band together, form factions/tribes, and you'd be subject to their power. Democracy kind of sucks in all of the obvious ways, but at least it's actually possible and sort of works. This can't be said for the delusional notion of living in your own little self-sufficient kingdom (in a world of over seven billion people, lol) where somehow you magically don't have anybody exerting influence on you, ever.
    - syshum 6y ago
      >>A life "unmolested by laws and regulations" is the most naive kind of fantasy imaginable. Not really, the fundemntal foundation of a libertarian law would be best highlighted from Frederic Bastiat's The Law "The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. " The problem with modern society today is the law goes far far far beyond what individuals have the ethical right to do, namely self defense. Today the law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.
      - JohnBooty 6y ago
        Your post is thoughtful and well-written. I upvoted your post even though I disagree. I dislike the HN tradition of "dislike = downvote." We need more posts like yours, not less. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; Progressives/liberals/etc wouldn't disagree much with this premise, but we'd differ mightily on what this premise means in practical terms. - The FDA is far from perfect, but it generally does a good job of protecting my person from snake oil medicine and adulterated foods. - A federal healthcare mandate/provider protects my person against dying of curable diseases because if I have no job/insurance at the moment - Taxpayer-funded education gives me the liberty to become literate and obtain a basic level of education so that I may become employable and so forth even if my parents are unwilling or unable to educate me And so on. There are a lot of ways for your person, properties, and liberties to be threatened, most of which are indirect. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder Sounds like unfettered capitalism to me. I would strongly argue history tells us this is precisely what happens when government has too little influence and corporations therefore become centers of power. We would agree, at least, that equally bad things happen when governments have too much power. We would disagree on what "too much" means, obviously.

by syshum 6y ago

breck 6y ago

Not a big deal. Good engineering demands logged pings. Not doing that would be bad engineering. Could it be abused? Sure. But that's why we need to continue to engineer a better democracy as well. We can do both.

syshum 6y ago
No we cant, the US was never to be a democracy, and you can not engineer a better one We are a constitutional republic with a LIMITED government, we as a society has lost respect for those constitutional limits and instead of taking principled stands to restrict government we have taken unprincipled stands based on the outcome we desire for society Attempting to "engineer" a better society is the exact problem we have. That is Authoritarianism not liberty Liberty is not attempting to engineer a better society or democracy, Liberty is allowing people to live their lives unmolested by government laws and regulations
- throwaway3699 6y ago
  This is a losing battle long term I fear. Far too many people see government as the way to push their ideology onto society as a whole.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > the US was never to be a democracy, and you can not engineer a better one If it wasn't designed to be democracy, it should be trivial to design a better one, just like it's trivial to build a better automobile than a tricycle, which wasn't designed to be an auto. > We are a constitutional republic with a LIMITED government That's not incompatible with democracy, and suggesting that they are exclusive alternatives just means you don't understand at least one of “democracy”, “constitutional republic”, or “limited governmemt”. (And more fully, you want to say “federal republic with constitutionally-limited government and both the federal and state levels, and reserved powers for the states”, but that still isn't exclusive with “democracy”.) > we as a society has lost respect for those constitutional limits I don't see any evidence that respect for Constitutional limits has declined, which seems to be a result of combining a cynical view of the present with a rosy view of the past (the First Amendment is a beautiful set of Constitutional limits, but the Alien and Sedition Acts were adopted when the ink on it was barely dry.) > and instead of taking principled stands to restrict government we have taken unprincipled stands based on the outcome we desire for society Stands made on different sets of principles than you prefer do not thereby become “unprincipled”.
  - syshum 6y ago
    >>That's not incompatible with democracy Actually it is, democracy is 2 wolves and an a lamb voting on what is for dinner. Democracy is incompatible with limited governance, and individual liberty as the majority (or even a vocal but powerful minority that controls the media) will always use the power of democracy to oppress those that do not have said power Constitutionally limited governance that is immune to the will of the majority is the only way to ensure individual liberty, the founders understood this. This is why the ONLY democratic part of the US government at its founding was the House of Representatives. Over time we have made more and more parts of the federal government "democratic" like the Senate, and most recently the push to change the election of the President to be pure democratic as well. This has been a DISASTER for individual liberty
- JohnBooty 6y ago
  Liberty is allowing people to live their lives unmolested by government laws and regulations You live in a society. Presumably you would like some legal remedy if somebody tries to harm you, or poison your drinking water upstream, or violates a written contract, sexually assaults your loved ones, or so forth. A life "unmolested by laws and regulations" is the most naive kind of fantasy imaginable. If history has taught us anything via failed states, lassiez-faire governments, and the like it's that power consolidates. Soon people would band together, form factions/tribes, and you'd be subject to their power. Democracy kind of sucks in all of the obvious ways, but at least it's actually possible and sort of works. This can't be said for the delusional notion of living in your own little self-sufficient kingdom (in a world of over seven billion people, lol) where somehow you magically don't have anybody exerting influence on you, ever.
  - syshum 6y ago
    >>A life "unmolested by laws and regulations" is the most naive kind of fantasy imaginable. Not really, the fundemntal foundation of a libertarian law would be best highlighted from Frederic Bastiat's The Law "The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. " The problem with modern society today is the law goes far far far beyond what individuals have the ethical right to do, namely self defense. Today the law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.
    - JohnBooty 6y ago
      Your post is thoughtful and well-written. I upvoted your post even though I disagree. I dislike the HN tradition of "dislike = downvote." We need more posts like yours, not less. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; Progressives/liberals/etc wouldn't disagree much with this premise, but we'd differ mightily on what this premise means in practical terms. - The FDA is far from perfect, but it generally does a good job of protecting my person from snake oil medicine and adulterated foods. - A federal healthcare mandate/provider protects my person against dying of curable diseases because if I have no job/insurance at the moment - Taxpayer-funded education gives me the liberty to become literate and obtain a basic level of education so that I may become employable and so forth even if my parents are unwilling or unable to educate me And so on. There are a lot of ways for your person, properties, and liberties to be threatened, most of which are indirect. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder Sounds like unfettered capitalism to me. I would strongly argue history tells us this is precisely what happens when government has too little influence and corporations therefore become centers of power. We would agree, at least, that equally bad things happen when governments have too much power. We would disagree on what "too much" means, obviously.