4 ms·

Nothing any company can do about that. Spying programs and laws will only worsen unless people really voice their concerns and elect the right people.

craftinator 5y ago
> Spying programs and laws will only worsen unless people really voice their concerns and elect the right people. I very much suspect that who is elected has nearly zero effect on spying programs.
- majormajor 5y ago
  I'm not sure which was intended, but I think this is much more accurate as a cynical comment on human nature than some comment on "shadow government/deep state" type stuff.
  - ATsch 5y ago
    As defines so much of society and what people claim is "human nature", there is no need for shadow governments or deep states when you have power structures and incentives. Those scale, conspiracies don't.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- singron 5y ago
  This is definitely not true. Dianne Feinstein for instance has been instrumental in almost all of these efforts. As a senator from California, she could be replaced with someone nearly politically identical that didn't support government surveillance.
  - jrootabega 5y ago
    What they're saying is that those who get elected are forced to support government surveillance.
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    who you are before you get elected and after are not the same. never forget that.
    - leesalminen 5y ago
      Remember, the intelligence community has six ways from Sunday to get back at you. - Senator Chuck Schumer
    - arminiusreturns 5y ago
      For lots of reasons. There are 100 Epsteins you dont know the name of still at large, and their main purpose is blackmail of top politicians and businessmen on behalf of whatever intel agency or mafia runs them. Trumps mentor Roy Cohn was one of these. And blackmail is only one tool in the toolbelt. Bribery comes long before that. Anybody with too much integrity is quickly removed from office or worse. Ive tried to explain to some progressives why AOC and the squad have turned their backs on them with this, but for many their schoolhouse rock propagandized brains refuse to admit its as bad as it is. It only gets worse the more we aquiesce to increases in censorship and surveillance (which I like to remind people is in the hands of the executive branch, further eroding the checks and balances system).
- mLuby 5y ago
  From what I've read, Senator Ron Wyden is a relatively vocal opponent of surveillance. Hopefully he's not an outlier forever.
pangolinplayer 5y ago
Yes of course. Democracy will save you. Grow up.
skoskie 5y ago
Except Apple is making a direct attempt at solving the issue as it relates to CSAM (and easily expanded to other data) and facing a huge backlash. I wonder if there’s no solution because we’re (myself included) are just stubbornly unwilling to consider any solution that isn’t absolute privacy. I’m not willing to sacrifice my privacy to a nosy government, but willing to consider solutions that might allow the government to pursue its goals. Apple seems to think it’s possible that we can have the best of both worlds, even if they clearly haven’t figured it out just yet.
- jrockway 5y ago
  Has Apple announced that they're making iCloud end-to-end encrypted? It seems like people see the on-device scanning as a road to an "obvious" next step, but I'm not sure that Apple has announced that that's the next step. They might scan your device locally, and mine everything in the cloud for advertising purposes. They haven't said anything to the contrary, and their current terms of service allows it. I could be missing something, but I did a quick search and all I see is news about them scrapping their once-encrypted backups at the request of the FBI.
- nolok 5y ago
  Apple is not a solution, it's a stop gap. They will still want a copy of the messages after it, and all your other data. And the reason for the huge backlack, is that this stop gap will actually make it easier for them to request more afterwards, because the infrastructure, the proof of concept, will already be there and running. And it will cross to other providers: "see Apple does it, so clearly it's Signal that's being protective of criminals, we should impose them to do the same thing Apple did with no issue".
- nonbirithm 5y ago
  Agreed. The general sentiment I perceived from HN at the time was that almost nobody was willing to accept Apple's CSAM scanning, even though CSAM had been confronted as an issue before the internet was widely available. I perceived a lot less room for opinions in favor of sacrificing a limited amount of privacy for greater public good, or similar. After the media finished its reporting on the subject, it seemed like there wasn't much more discussion about it, and Apple now seems poised to go forward with releasing its implementation of the scanning anyway at some unknown future date. The arguments about slippery slopes and potential surveillance weren't as interesting to me as the opposing argument: that a very high level of privacy (not even an absolute level) carries consequences for a specific segment of society by the intrinsic nature of what is kept private, and in the name of protecting that segment of society, the tradeoff is not worth it. There is also the idea that data on a hard drive can be as damaging to human livelihood as physical contraband, to the point that the vast majority of the world's legal systems, not just those of the U.S., have decided that the data should not exist under any circumstances. CSAM is one of the few classes of digital data that compels the creation of scanning systems for such data on a scale that isn't driven by political ideology, propaganda or similar. It's difficult to imagine how Apple would be obliged and driven enough to implement such a system out in the open and in the name of the public good if the publicly announced reasoning was to scan any other class of data (assuming that Apple can be trusted, at least).
tehjoker 5y ago
It's pretty crazy that people still think elections do anything and aren't just a sham while the rulers plug in the choices from above.
- ospray 5y ago
  Don't let people tell you not to vote, because it won't make a difference. Not voting is a sure way not to have a voice.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    The thing is, your voice can also add to the din of noise that drowns out the signal. Not every vote adds signal. Here the problem is when you go down the ballot and reach the judges, schoolboard, and other offices where most people have no idea who the candidates are and many just vote randomly. In Arizona there was a campaign that unseated an incumbent schoolboard member by a rival candidate whose last name, if some letters were transposed, was a famous local figure. The funny last name guy won. So go ahead and vote, but please leave blank or skip over any of the candidates that you haven't researched. Don't vote randomly - some people are trying to have a real election.
    - cheschire 5y ago
      I'm pretty sure many voters are voting based on colors. They researched which team they like the most and now they vote for that team each time. And likely true for more than just the USA.
      - tomrod 5y ago
        Indeed, as closest coalition is most likely to result in closest policies desired. It leads to abominations of platform planks, but in our race to the bottom as least you get close to what you think you want.
  - tehjoker 5y ago
    I advocate joining a revolutionary political party instead. If you have a big enough constituency that can cause problems, they will eventually have to acquiesce to demands as opposed to simply controlling the choices or ignoring the results of a vote (which I would point out happens routinely, even in presidential elections such as the 2000 election theft or the attempted theft and coup of 2020).
DeathArrow 5y ago
I think general public doesn't have anything against being spied. They are already convinced that it is for their own good and for catching the bad guys. They are sure they have nothing to fear.

craftinator 5y ago

> Spying programs and laws will only worsen unless people really voice their concerns and elect the right people. I very much suspect that who is elected has nearly zero effect on spying programs.

majormajor 5y ago
I'm not sure which was intended, but I think this is much more accurate as a cynical comment on human nature than some comment on "shadow government/deep state" type stuff.
- ATsch 5y ago
  As defines so much of society and what people claim is "human nature", there is no need for shadow governments or deep states when you have power structures and incentives. Those scale, conspiracies don't.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
singron 5y ago
This is definitely not true. Dianne Feinstein for instance has been instrumental in almost all of these efforts. As a senator from California, she could be replaced with someone nearly politically identical that didn't support government surveillance.
- jrootabega 5y ago
  What they're saying is that those who get elected are forced to support government surveillance.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  who you are before you get elected and after are not the same. never forget that.
  - leesalminen 5y ago
    Remember, the intelligence community has six ways from Sunday to get back at you. - Senator Chuck Schumer
  - arminiusreturns 5y ago
    For lots of reasons. There are 100 Epsteins you dont know the name of still at large, and their main purpose is blackmail of top politicians and businessmen on behalf of whatever intel agency or mafia runs them. Trumps mentor Roy Cohn was one of these. And blackmail is only one tool in the toolbelt. Bribery comes long before that. Anybody with too much integrity is quickly removed from office or worse. Ive tried to explain to some progressives why AOC and the squad have turned their backs on them with this, but for many their schoolhouse rock propagandized brains refuse to admit its as bad as it is. It only gets worse the more we aquiesce to increases in censorship and surveillance (which I like to remind people is in the hands of the executive branch, further eroding the checks and balances system).
mLuby 5y ago
From what I've read, Senator Ron Wyden is a relatively vocal opponent of surveillance. Hopefully he's not an outlier forever.

pangolinplayer 5y ago

Yes of course. Democracy will save you. Grow up.

skoskie 5y ago

Except Apple is making a direct attempt at solving the issue as it relates to CSAM (and easily expanded to other data) and facing a huge backlash. I wonder if there’s no solution because we’re (myself included) are just stubbornly unwilling to consider any solution that isn’t absolute privacy. I’m not willing to sacrifice my privacy to a nosy government, but willing to consider solutions that might allow the government to pursue its goals. Apple seems to think it’s possible that we can have the best of both worlds, even if they clearly haven’t figured it out just yet.

jrockway 5y ago
Has Apple announced that they're making iCloud end-to-end encrypted? It seems like people see the on-device scanning as a road to an "obvious" next step, but I'm not sure that Apple has announced that that's the next step. They might scan your device locally, and mine everything in the cloud for advertising purposes. They haven't said anything to the contrary, and their current terms of service allows it. I could be missing something, but I did a quick search and all I see is news about them scrapping their once-encrypted backups at the request of the FBI.
nolok 5y ago
Apple is not a solution, it's a stop gap. They will still want a copy of the messages after it, and all your other data. And the reason for the huge backlack, is that this stop gap will actually make it easier for them to request more afterwards, because the infrastructure, the proof of concept, will already be there and running. And it will cross to other providers: "see Apple does it, so clearly it's Signal that's being protective of criminals, we should impose them to do the same thing Apple did with no issue".
nonbirithm 5y ago
Agreed. The general sentiment I perceived from HN at the time was that almost nobody was willing to accept Apple's CSAM scanning, even though CSAM had been confronted as an issue before the internet was widely available. I perceived a lot less room for opinions in favor of sacrificing a limited amount of privacy for greater public good, or similar. After the media finished its reporting on the subject, it seemed like there wasn't much more discussion about it, and Apple now seems poised to go forward with releasing its implementation of the scanning anyway at some unknown future date. The arguments about slippery slopes and potential surveillance weren't as interesting to me as the opposing argument: that a very high level of privacy (not even an absolute level) carries consequences for a specific segment of society by the intrinsic nature of what is kept private, and in the name of protecting that segment of society, the tradeoff is not worth it. There is also the idea that data on a hard drive can be as damaging to human livelihood as physical contraband, to the point that the vast majority of the world's legal systems, not just those of the U.S., have decided that the data should not exist under any circumstances. CSAM is one of the few classes of digital data that compels the creation of scanning systems for such data on a scale that isn't driven by political ideology, propaganda or similar. It's difficult to imagine how Apple would be obliged and driven enough to implement such a system out in the open and in the name of the public good if the publicly announced reasoning was to scan any other class of data (assuming that Apple can be trusted, at least).

tehjoker 5y ago

It's pretty crazy that people still think elections do anything and aren't just a sham while the rulers plug in the choices from above.

ospray 5y ago
Don't let people tell you not to vote, because it won't make a difference. Not voting is a sure way not to have a voice.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  The thing is, your voice can also add to the din of noise that drowns out the signal. Not every vote adds signal. Here the problem is when you go down the ballot and reach the judges, schoolboard, and other offices where most people have no idea who the candidates are and many just vote randomly. In Arizona there was a campaign that unseated an incumbent schoolboard member by a rival candidate whose last name, if some letters were transposed, was a famous local figure. The funny last name guy won. So go ahead and vote, but please leave blank or skip over any of the candidates that you haven't researched. Don't vote randomly - some people are trying to have a real election.
  - cheschire 5y ago
    I'm pretty sure many voters are voting based on colors. They researched which team they like the most and now they vote for that team each time. And likely true for more than just the USA.
    - tomrod 5y ago
      Indeed, as closest coalition is most likely to result in closest policies desired. It leads to abominations of platform planks, but in our race to the bottom as least you get close to what you think you want.
- tehjoker 5y ago
  I advocate joining a revolutionary political party instead. If you have a big enough constituency that can cause problems, they will eventually have to acquiesce to demands as opposed to simply controlling the choices or ignoring the results of a vote (which I would point out happens routinely, even in presidential elections such as the 2000 election theft or the attempted theft and coup of 2020).

DeathArrow 5y ago

I think general public doesn't have anything against being spied. They are already convinced that it is for their own good and for catching the bad guys. They are sure they have nothing to fear.