6 ms·

> Stop fantasizing that the government cares about the shit you buy. This is not about you. It’s never about you, until it is. You should assume the government

> Stop fantasizing that the government cares about the shit you buy. This is not about you. It’s never about you, until it is. You should assume the government will do the maximum amount of evil given the power they are granted. This is the classic anti-privacy argument: this isn’t about you, you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide, etc. Sure, there’s a pretty good chance that a random person, e.g. you, isn’t the target of these policies. However, when applied to an entire population, these sorts of policies result in privacy violations on a broad scale.

tehjoker 5y ago
It's not that you're wrong, it's that the balance of power in the financial system is weighted strongly to the very rich, who own most of the money supply not held by banks and the treasury. Private transactions offer them incredible opportunities to screw the rest of us over.
- bigyikes 5y ago
  Fair enough. I see this as a price worth paying for privacy.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Well that, crime, money laundering, terrorist financing and evasion of international sanctions allowing hermit kingdoms to finance nuclear warheads. But half dozen of one, I guess.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      So if I give up just this little bit of privacy, all of those concerns melt away to nothingness? Or is it more likely that I give that away and nothing else really improves?
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        If you give up some privacy (subject to release with a judge's approval) then we can attempt to reign in bad actors. Deciding that we shouldn't attempt to reign in bad actors is, IMO, a bad call - and one I don't think enjoys broad-based support. Yes, I think it's worse if North Korea gets a nuke than if the FBI gets a peek at my Amazon purchases pursuant to a judge's order.
        krageon 5y ago
        I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but given that NK already has nukes (and so do tons of other bad actors) I'm not sure what you think you're proving here. We already know this whole "give up your privacy for safety!" thing is nonsense, because the privacy has gone way down over the past years and safety has not changed at all. It's theater, a puppet show put up in order to rob you of your essential freedom for the gratification and enrichment of another.
        arcticbull 5y ago
        > I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but given that NK already has nukes (and so do tons of other bad actors) I'm not sure what you think you're proving here. North Korea has leveraged cryptocurrency to evade sanctions to the tune of billions of dollars. [1] This has a material negative impact on global security. > We already know this whole "give up your privacy for safety!" thing is nonsense, because the privacy has gone way down over the past years and safety has not changed at all. We are roughly at one of the safest, most peaceful points in history. [2] This is in no small part due to our careful and measured efforts to balance privacy and the public good. Generally you have a right to privacy unless someone can show a good reason why you should lose that right - at least at a state level. I think this is the right balance. I think most people do too. > It's theater, a puppet show put up in order to rob you of your essential freedom for the gratification and enrichment of another. Citation needed. And I don't mean that glibly, if you have some data I'll happily read it. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/09/north-korean-hackers-accused-of-biggest-cryptocurrency-theft-of-2020-their-heists-are-now-worth-175-billion/?sh=15704a925b0b https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/09/north... [2] https://towardsdatascience.com/has-global-violence-declined-a-look-at-the-data-5af708f47fba https://towardsdatascience.com/has-global-violence-declined-...
- OtomotO 5y ago
  And now the rich and powerful allow the politicians they own to limit their power by shedding light to their practices? I kinda doubt the filthy rich will be affected
- int_19h 5y ago
  The very rich also have the tools to dodge all those transparency regulations; and the political power to ensure that the ones they can't dodge, don't get adopted. By and large, all laws and regulations are for the proles.
atq2119 5y ago
> It’s never about you, until it is. You should assume the government will do the maximum amount of evil given the power they are granted. Add to that: don't only think about what the current government will use those powers for, think about what future governments will use them for. If you're not okay with those powers existing when the party you don't like is in power, you should also be advocating against those powers when your own preferred party is in power. (That is, of course, unless you're a fascist and counting on your preferred party to perform a full 1933 Weimar Germany-style takeover that abolishes democracy.)
kasperni 5y ago
> You should assume the government will do the maximum amount of evil given the power they are granted. Why? Shouldn't you then assume that all people will do the maximum amount of evil given the power they are granted. And what exactly makes government different then other places where power is concentrated? For example, crypto miners.
- caskstrength 5y ago
  > Shouldn't you then assume that all people will do the maximum amount of evil given the power they are granted. Not OP, but you definitely should! > And what exactly makes government different then other places where power is concentrated? For example, crypto miners. One of them can send people-with-guns to your home to arrest you and take away your stuff. Note that I'm not some crypto-anarchist absolutist, but IMO being weary and critical of governments grabbing more power is the right reaction.

tehjoker 5y ago

It's not that you're wrong, it's that the balance of power in the financial system is weighted strongly to the very rich, who own most of the money supply not held by banks and the treasury. Private transactions offer them incredible opportunities to screw the rest of us over.

bigyikes 5y ago
Fair enough. I see this as a price worth paying for privacy.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Well that, crime, money laundering, terrorist financing and evasion of international sanctions allowing hermit kingdoms to finance nuclear warheads. But half dozen of one, I guess.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    So if I give up just this little bit of privacy, all of those concerns melt away to nothingness? Or is it more likely that I give that away and nothing else really improves?
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      If you give up some privacy (subject to release with a judge's approval) then we can attempt to reign in bad actors. Deciding that we shouldn't attempt to reign in bad actors is, IMO, a bad call - and one I don't think enjoys broad-based support. Yes, I think it's worse if North Korea gets a nuke than if the FBI gets a peek at my Amazon purchases pursuant to a judge's order.
      - krageon 5y ago
        I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but given that NK already has nukes (and so do tons of other bad actors) I'm not sure what you think you're proving here. We already know this whole "give up your privacy for safety!" thing is nonsense, because the privacy has gone way down over the past years and safety has not changed at all. It's theater, a puppet show put up in order to rob you of your essential freedom for the gratification and enrichment of another.
        arcticbull 5y ago
        > I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but given that NK already has nukes (and so do tons of other bad actors) I'm not sure what you think you're proving here. North Korea has leveraged cryptocurrency to evade sanctions to the tune of billions of dollars. [1] This has a material negative impact on global security. > We already know this whole "give up your privacy for safety!" thing is nonsense, because the privacy has gone way down over the past years and safety has not changed at all. We are roughly at one of the safest, most peaceful points in history. [2] This is in no small part due to our careful and measured efforts to balance privacy and the public good. Generally you have a right to privacy unless someone can show a good reason why you should lose that right - at least at a state level. I think this is the right balance. I think most people do too. > It's theater, a puppet show put up in order to rob you of your essential freedom for the gratification and enrichment of another. Citation needed. And I don't mean that glibly, if you have some data I'll happily read it. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/09/north-korean-hackers-accused-of-biggest-cryptocurrency-theft-of-2020-their-heists-are-now-worth-175-billion/?sh=15704a925b0b https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/09/north... [2] https://towardsdatascience.com/has-global-violence-declined-a-look-at-the-data-5af708f47fba https://towardsdatascience.com/has-global-violence-declined-...
OtomotO 5y ago
And now the rich and powerful allow the politicians they own to limit their power by shedding light to their practices? I kinda doubt the filthy rich will be affected
int_19h 5y ago
The very rich also have the tools to dodge all those transparency regulations; and the political power to ensure that the ones they can't dodge, don't get adopted. By and large, all laws and regulations are for the proles.

atq2119 5y ago

> It’s never about you, until it is. You should assume the government will do the maximum amount of evil given the power they are granted. Add to that: don't only think about what the current government will use those powers for, think about what future governments will use them for. If you're not okay with those powers existing when the party you don't like is in power, you should also be advocating against those powers when your own preferred party is in power. (That is, of course, unless you're a fascist and counting on your preferred party to perform a full 1933 Weimar Germany-style takeover that abolishes democracy.)

kasperni 5y ago

> You should assume the government will do the maximum amount of evil given the power they are granted. Why? Shouldn't you then assume that all people will do the maximum amount of evil given the power they are granted. And what exactly makes government different then other places where power is concentrated? For example, crypto miners.

caskstrength 5y ago
> Shouldn't you then assume that all people will do the maximum amount of evil given the power they are granted. Not OP, but you definitely should! > And what exactly makes government different then other places where power is concentrated? For example, crypto miners. One of them can send people-with-guns to your home to arrest you and take away your stuff. Note that I'm not some crypto-anarchist absolutist, but IMO being weary and critical of governments grabbing more power is the right reaction.