8 ms·

I'm curious what the overall take will be on this. Normally, this action would be frowned upon if it was a private company, but I'm assuming that people may be

by jdhn 5y ago

I'm curious what the overall take will be on this. Normally, this action would be frowned upon if it was a private company, but I'm assuming that people may be more open to it being done by Treasury because it's "for the societal good".

HWR_14 5y ago
Funny, I assume the exact opposite. I'm guessing many people oppose government data collection but because they are buying data on the open market from people who "opt in", they're okay with it. I wish there was the ability to make a poll: * This is fine, privacy is dead. * This is okay because of private companies collecting and selling the data, even to the government * This is okay because the government is using this data to enforce laws I believe in, even though it rewards private data merchants. * Everyone involved is evil, the contracts should be voided and the companies dissolved.
- dr-detroit 5y ago
  If you want to politicize any issue at all it must become a zero sum prisoners dilemma where I enjoy the benefits and the dreaded "other" is annihilated.
- Cycl0ps 5y ago
  https://strawpoll.com/a584xf5re https://strawpoll.com/a584xf5re
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - derekjdanserl 5y ago
    [flagged]
    - getcrunk 5y ago
      I mean the available options kinda forces that.
      - handrous 5y ago
        I, for one, liked the options, and happily chose "Everyone involved is evil, the contracts should be voided and the companies dissolved." I think middle age is turning me into some flavor anarchist. Weird.
    - dang 5y ago
      "Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." There are two reasons why we have this guideline: (1) Supercilious putdowns of other people on the internet are among the lowest quality type of comment; and (2) Grandiose generalizations about the community are nearly always just the result of a few (or maybe just one) data points that the speaker didn't like. They're nearly all bogus, which is why people with opposite likes and dislikes express exactly the opposite general conclusions. Again, this is among the lowest quality type of comment. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22false%20feelings%20of%20generality%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20dislike%20notice&sort=byDate&type=story&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- wongarsu 5y ago
  There's also * The data collection is fine, but the government shouldn't be allowed to circumvent checks and balances by buying this data * The government using such data without warrant is fine, but it shouldn't be sold on the open market
  - fidesomnes 5y ago
    oh okay, stop it when you get a chance.
- akamaka 5y ago
  * It’s much more urgent to address how private companies use the data, since we at least have some visibility into what the government is doing with it.
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  Whether I think it's fine or not, privacy is dead.
- ncallaway 5y ago
  Can we...can we have at least one "not okay" option that doesn't brand everyone involved as evil?
  - xerox13ster 5y ago
    If it's not okay, then everyone involved made a choice to be complicit in something that is "not okay". Willingly participating in harmful activities isn't evil?
    - dylan604 5y ago
      Only if you do it while twirling a mustache.
    - ncallaway 5y ago
      The action is evil, but I don’t think that makes the person evil. People are much more complex than a single choice. Second, while I might think the action is “not okay”, they might be reasoning from different principles, or different evidence than I am. Maybe, instead of being complicit in something I view as “not okay”, they have valid reasons to think it’s “okay”. I’m just not so willing to condemn every person with such a broad brush just because I disagree on this conclusion.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  this is bad because people who opt in think either that their data is not being sold to third parties or that the third party buying data is another company, nobody when opting in assumes that their data will be used in an investigation that can then lead to criminal charges.
- quantified 5y ago
  We all committed privacy suicide when we bought smartphones. The data that we thought should be out of government hands, we put into the hands of many businesses. I agree it seems unsettling, but why can’t the government purchase information on the open market?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - nybble41 5y ago
    > … why can’t the government purchase information on the open market? The most obvious answer would be that they're spending our money in a way which is contrary to our interests. If it were their own funds, and they had no powers beyond those of any other private citizen or organization, that would be one thing. But they're supposed to be acting on our behalf, in our interests rather than their own, and to many people this does not qualify. Personally I would focus less on the fact that they've obtained this information and more on (a) the fact that this information is available on the market and (b) how they (and others) intend to use it.
    - quantified 5y ago
      That was the point I was inadequately trying to draw attention to also. Yes.
leereeves 5y ago
> but I'm assuming that people may be more open to it being done by Treasury because it's "for the societal good". Politics in America has become so hostile that people are now openly celebrating harm done to "the other side", so I don't doubt that there are people who will feel that way. But I suspect that most of them will feel quite differently when the White House is controlled by the other party.
bragr 5y ago
I don't have a problem with the government accessing the data per se. Given that the data exists and is commercially available, it would seem silly to tie their hands from accessing it. Police routinely run credit checks or just google people of interest to learn what is publicly known about them and I don't really have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is that our privacy laws and culture are so lax that detailed location information has essentially become part of the public record of a person. It seems like one way or the other, governments will find avenues to get at that data if it exists, and if you don't want the government tracking people, better to cut the data off at the source.
cma 5y ago
Imagine the government wanted to know who "deepthroat" was during Watergate: just buy the location data of the journalists and anyone nearby.
- pempem 5y ago
  And then they are violently removed from the populous like the single journalist who reported on the Panama Papers https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/16/malta-car-bomb-kills-panama-papers-journalist https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/16/malta-car-bomb...
  - SyzygistSix 5y ago
    That journalist published a lot of articles that exposed a lot of powerful people long before the Panama Papers.
SyzygistSix 5y ago
There is a reason the government is not allowed to buy this kind of data from telcos. What makes buying it from a professional surveillance group any different?

by jdhn 5y ago

HWR_14 5y ago

Funny, I assume the exact opposite. I'm guessing many people oppose government data collection but because they are buying data on the open market from people who "opt in", they're okay with it. I wish there was the ability to make a poll: * This is fine, privacy is dead. * This is okay because of private companies collecting and selling the data, even to the government * This is okay because the government is using this data to enforce laws I believe in, even though it rewards private data merchants. * Everyone involved is evil, the contracts should be voided and the companies dissolved.

dr-detroit 5y ago
If you want to politicize any issue at all it must become a zero sum prisoners dilemma where I enjoy the benefits and the dreaded "other" is annihilated.
Cycl0ps 5y ago
https://strawpoll.com/a584xf5re https://strawpoll.com/a584xf5re
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- derekjdanserl 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - getcrunk 5y ago
    I mean the available options kinda forces that.
    - handrous 5y ago
      I, for one, liked the options, and happily chose "Everyone involved is evil, the contracts should be voided and the companies dissolved." I think middle age is turning me into some flavor anarchist. Weird.
  - dang 5y ago
    "Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." There are two reasons why we have this guideline: (1) Supercilious putdowns of other people on the internet are among the lowest quality type of comment; and (2) Grandiose generalizations about the community are nearly always just the result of a few (or maybe just one) data points that the speaker didn't like. They're nearly all bogus, which is why people with opposite likes and dislikes express exactly the opposite general conclusions. Again, this is among the lowest quality type of comment. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22false%20feelings%20of%20generality%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20dislike%20notice&sort=byDate&type=story&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
wongarsu 5y ago
There's also * The data collection is fine, but the government shouldn't be allowed to circumvent checks and balances by buying this data * The government using such data without warrant is fine, but it shouldn't be sold on the open market
- fidesomnes 5y ago
  oh okay, stop it when you get a chance.
akamaka 5y ago
* It’s much more urgent to address how private companies use the data, since we at least have some visibility into what the government is doing with it.
BurningFrog 5y ago
Whether I think it's fine or not, privacy is dead.
ncallaway 5y ago
Can we...can we have at least one "not okay" option that doesn't brand everyone involved as evil?
- xerox13ster 5y ago
  If it's not okay, then everyone involved made a choice to be complicit in something that is "not okay". Willingly participating in harmful activities isn't evil?
  - dylan604 5y ago
    Only if you do it while twirling a mustache.
  - ncallaway 5y ago
    The action is evil, but I don’t think that makes the person evil. People are much more complex than a single choice. Second, while I might think the action is “not okay”, they might be reasoning from different principles, or different evidence than I am. Maybe, instead of being complicit in something I view as “not okay”, they have valid reasons to think it’s “okay”. I’m just not so willing to condemn every person with such a broad brush just because I disagree on this conclusion.
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
this is bad because people who opt in think either that their data is not being sold to third parties or that the third party buying data is another company, nobody when opting in assumes that their data will be used in an investigation that can then lead to criminal charges.
quantified 5y ago
We all committed privacy suicide when we bought smartphones. The data that we thought should be out of government hands, we put into the hands of many businesses. I agree it seems unsettling, but why can’t the government purchase information on the open market?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nybble41 5y ago
  > … why can’t the government purchase information on the open market? The most obvious answer would be that they're spending our money in a way which is contrary to our interests. If it were their own funds, and they had no powers beyond those of any other private citizen or organization, that would be one thing. But they're supposed to be acting on our behalf, in our interests rather than their own, and to many people this does not qualify. Personally I would focus less on the fact that they've obtained this information and more on (a) the fact that this information is available on the market and (b) how they (and others) intend to use it.
  - quantified 5y ago
    That was the point I was inadequately trying to draw attention to also. Yes.

leereeves 5y ago

> but I'm assuming that people may be more open to it being done by Treasury because it's "for the societal good". Politics in America has become so hostile that people are now openly celebrating harm done to "the other side", so I don't doubt that there are people who will feel that way. But I suspect that most of them will feel quite differently when the White House is controlled by the other party.

bragr 5y ago

I don't have a problem with the government accessing the data per se. Given that the data exists and is commercially available, it would seem silly to tie their hands from accessing it. Police routinely run credit checks or just google people of interest to learn what is publicly known about them and I don't really have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is that our privacy laws and culture are so lax that detailed location information has essentially become part of the public record of a person. It seems like one way or the other, governments will find avenues to get at that data if it exists, and if you don't want the government tracking people, better to cut the data off at the source.

cma 5y ago

Imagine the government wanted to know who "deepthroat" was during Watergate: just buy the location data of the journalists and anyone nearby.

pempem 5y ago
And then they are violently removed from the populous like the single journalist who reported on the Panama Papers https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/16/malta-car-bomb-kills-panama-papers-journalist https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/16/malta-car-bomb...
- SyzygistSix 5y ago
  That journalist published a lot of articles that exposed a lot of powerful people long before the Panama Papers.

SyzygistSix 5y ago

There is a reason the government is not allowed to buy this kind of data from telcos. What makes buying it from a professional surveillance group any different?