3 ms·

When we say that privacy rights can absolutely not be touched, we are, among other things, also saying, whatever criminals get best at abusing those increasingl

When we say that privacy rights can absolutely not be touched, we are, among other things, also saying, whatever criminals get best at abusing those increasingly powerful rights (given the relatively growing space covered by encryption and stuff that happens through or over the internet) get to be more criminal and that's just the price we will have to pay for our collective freedom. This insanely childish and irresponsible way of looking at and reasoning about our world gives of strong NRA vibes. As soon as you say NO MATTER WHAT you are in deep shit. When we become so dogmatic, that we can't even think, let alone talk about a problem anymore (and a problem it is, but, of course, there's then also the subset of people that will even call that into question) it's an issue. I am not against privacy. I get glimpses of the good the bad and the ugly that are attached to it. None of these things are boundless. Reasoning about the space is hard. Pretending a concept as fragile and young as privacy is beyond reproach is just weird.

car_analogy 4y ago
Increasingly powerful privacy rights? Do you live in opposite world? Surveillance is growing rapidly, police and other entities have orders of magnitude more data on us than they could have dreamed of a few decades ago, but because there remains an extremely narrow category of data they can't collect in bulk (the content of encrypted communication, but not the metadata), you call this growing privacy? And all of this while rates of child abuse are falling: https://u.osu.edu/zagorsky.1/2014/09/18/adrainpeterson/ https://u.osu.edu/zagorsky.1/2014/09/18/adrainpeterson/
- jstummbillig 4y ago
  The power that the same old rights afford is increasing, because you don't have to leave your house to do some very nefarious stuff and encrypted communication is now a commodity. Any right to privacy meant relatively less in a world where entering a stone building and bringing guns was considered the premiere way to obtain money illegally, because (and I guess it speaks volumes about this whole thread that I feel the need to spell it out) you had to give up a good amount of your privacy by executing anything in that plan. That's often no longer the case.
encrux 4y ago
> When we say that privacy rights can absolutely not be touched, we are, among other things, also saying, whatever criminals get best at abusing those increasingly powerful rights (given the relatively growing space covered by encryption and stuff that happens through or over the internet) get to be more criminal and that's just the price we will have to pay for our collective freedom. Who is "we"? As I see it, the criticism isn't directed at the goal. I think nobody is opposed to protecting children. Sure, HN crowd is obviously a very privacy-focused crowd, though I'm convinced that civil discussion is possible if the trade-offs for such a proposal would be a little more nuanced. In this instance though, there is no nuance. There is no trade off. It's just security. Also, implementing a law that kills privacy for pretty much anyone to protect children, while ignoring the elephant in the room [0] seems disingenuous at best. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases_in_Europe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse...

car_analogy 4y ago

Increasingly powerful privacy rights? Do you live in opposite world? Surveillance is growing rapidly, police and other entities have orders of magnitude more data on us than they could have dreamed of a few decades ago, but because there remains an extremely narrow category of data they can't collect in bulk (the content of encrypted communication, but not the metadata), you call this growing privacy? And all of this while rates of child abuse are falling: https://u.osu.edu/zagorsky.1/2014/09/18/adrainpeterson/ https://u.osu.edu/zagorsky.1/2014/09/18/adrainpeterson/

jstummbillig 4y ago
The power that the same old rights afford is increasing, because you don't have to leave your house to do some very nefarious stuff and encrypted communication is now a commodity. Any right to privacy meant relatively less in a world where entering a stone building and bringing guns was considered the premiere way to obtain money illegally, because (and I guess it speaks volumes about this whole thread that I feel the need to spell it out) you had to give up a good amount of your privacy by executing anything in that plan. That's often no longer the case.

encrux 4y ago

> When we say that privacy rights can absolutely not be touched, we are, among other things, also saying, whatever criminals get best at abusing those increasingly powerful rights (given the relatively growing space covered by encryption and stuff that happens through or over the internet) get to be more criminal and that's just the price we will have to pay for our collective freedom. Who is "we"? As I see it, the criticism isn't directed at the goal. I think nobody is opposed to protecting children. Sure, HN crowd is obviously a very privacy-focused crowd, though I'm convinced that civil discussion is possible if the trade-offs for such a proposal would be a little more nuanced. In this instance though, there is no nuance. There is no trade off. It's just security. Also, implementing a law that kills privacy for pretty much anyone to protect children, while ignoring the elephant in the room [0] seems disingenuous at best. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases_in_Europe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse...