4 ms·

The STASI, Securitate and KGB are all looking down upon us and smiling. We truly have reached a level where everyone is monitored minute by minute day by day. C

The STASI, Securitate and KGB are all looking down upon us and smiling. We truly have reached a level where everyone is monitored minute by minute day by day. Corporations do it and now governments too. All you need is the wrong captain at helm and the right mix of storms and all this can turn very bad very fast. In theory this sound good, but without careful oversight it can be abused.

godelski 4y ago
> All you need is the wrong captain at helm Even if you don't buy the argument of turnkey tyranny (the above concept), it is also important to remember that nothing is unhackable. So if you're the "well I trust X" or "what is X going to do with it, sell me ads?" type, you should also question "What ,,could'' my enemies do with this data?" (Foreign or domestic. State sponsored or run of the mill hacker) While governments can be the most egregious abusers of this data, they aren't the only ones that can abuse the data. We have hundreds of reports about cops stalking their (current and former) partners, hackers blackmailing high profile people (including politicians), and plenty of reports about how nation states use this data to influence your countrymen. You may be immune (you aren't) but is everyone else? I think pigeon holing this conversation to governments is wrong. There's a whole laundry list of potential problems with data collection like this and checking off any item on the list is generally enough to be against this type of policy. For example, I don't think anyone wants a national repository of children's IP addresses. That's not only valuable to nation state actors (who want to influence the next generation), but also pedophiles. With intentions to protect children you end up actually putting them in more danger. We should HIDE children's personal data rather than gather it. But the only way to do that is to hide everyone's data. Edit: I do believe in turnkey tyranny. I'm just saying that the argument isn't effective to everyone (as time has shown). I'm saying that when you run into these people don't keep talking about turnkey tyranny, shift your argument to one of the other many issues to choose from. One of them will (likely) be something they care about and use that as the baseline for your argument. If you keep arguing something that someone doesn't care about then I'm not sure how you all expect to convince anyone. Our exclusively turnkey arguments have been ineffective, let's adopt a better strategy.
- soulofmischief 4y ago
  I don't know. To me, it's like arguing that cannabis is relatively safe to consume and has health benefits. Completely sails past (and loses by default) the argument of personal autonomy. By shifting the discussion away from turnkey tyranny, we're admitting, at least for the moment, a defeat in that argument.
  - godelski 4y ago
    I think you've really missed my entire point. My point is that we should include several arguments. Pigeon holing means having a strict focus. I'm arguing that ONLY talking about turnkey tyranny is not a good argument. Let's be real, we've been having this discussion since long before Snowden. Clearly it, alone, is not effective. So I'm not arguing to abandon the turnkey tyranny discussion, but expand our discussion to include issues beyond it.
    - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
      turnkey tyrrany, as you call it, should be enough.
      - godelski 4y ago
        Should, but isn't.
        P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        should in this case means is, even if you disagree.
        godelski 4y ago
        Turnkey tyranny is a good enough argument for you, me, and many others. It isn't for a lot of others though. This is indisputable. We have decades of history of making this argument and have garnered little support through the argument. Ipso facto, it is not good enough. I understand what you meant, the problem is that you're wrong.
dane-pgp 4y ago
> The STASI, Securitate and KGB are all looking down upon us and smiling. I know you only mean that figuratively, but I think it would be more evocative to say they are looking up at us (from below).
- yrgulation 4y ago
  I see your point, but i intentionally worded it that way. In this dystopian hell we are heading towards everything is upside down. Privacy is frowned upon - because why worry if you have nothing to hide? The government and corporations know and want what’s best for you and in doing so you must reveal everything to these benevolent all loving all knowing entities. Our hell is their heaven. And although i do want a solution to the problems they claim to solve i do worry that we might achieve the opposite.

godelski 4y ago

> All you need is the wrong captain at helm Even if you don't buy the argument of turnkey tyranny (the above concept), it is also important to remember that nothing is unhackable. So if you're the "well I trust X" or "what is X going to do with it, sell me ads?" type, you should also question "What ,,could'' my enemies do with this data?" (Foreign or domestic. State sponsored or run of the mill hacker) While governments can be the most egregious abusers of this data, they aren't the only ones that can abuse the data. We have hundreds of reports about cops stalking their (current and former) partners, hackers blackmailing high profile people (including politicians), and plenty of reports about how nation states use this data to influence your countrymen. You may be immune (you aren't) but is everyone else? I think pigeon holing this conversation to governments is wrong. There's a whole laundry list of potential problems with data collection like this and checking off any item on the list is generally enough to be against this type of policy. For example, I don't think anyone wants a national repository of children's IP addresses. That's not only valuable to nation state actors (who want to influence the next generation), but also pedophiles. With intentions to protect children you end up actually putting them in more danger. We should HIDE children's personal data rather than gather it. But the only way to do that is to hide everyone's data. Edit: I do believe in turnkey tyranny. I'm just saying that the argument isn't effective to everyone (as time has shown). I'm saying that when you run into these people don't keep talking about turnkey tyranny, shift your argument to one of the other many issues to choose from. One of them will (likely) be something they care about and use that as the baseline for your argument. If you keep arguing something that someone doesn't care about then I'm not sure how you all expect to convince anyone. Our exclusively turnkey arguments have been ineffective, let's adopt a better strategy.

soulofmischief 4y ago
I don't know. To me, it's like arguing that cannabis is relatively safe to consume and has health benefits. Completely sails past (and loses by default) the argument of personal autonomy. By shifting the discussion away from turnkey tyranny, we're admitting, at least for the moment, a defeat in that argument.
- godelski 4y ago
  I think you've really missed my entire point. My point is that we should include several arguments. Pigeon holing means having a strict focus. I'm arguing that ONLY talking about turnkey tyranny is not a good argument. Let's be real, we've been having this discussion since long before Snowden. Clearly it, alone, is not effective. So I'm not arguing to abandon the turnkey tyranny discussion, but expand our discussion to include issues beyond it.
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    turnkey tyrrany, as you call it, should be enough.
    - godelski 4y ago
      Should, but isn't.
      - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        should in this case means is, even if you disagree.
        godelski 4y ago
        Turnkey tyranny is a good enough argument for you, me, and many others. It isn't for a lot of others though. This is indisputable. We have decades of history of making this argument and have garnered little support through the argument. Ipso facto, it is not good enough. I understand what you meant, the problem is that you're wrong.

dane-pgp 4y ago

> The STASI, Securitate and KGB are all looking down upon us and smiling. I know you only mean that figuratively, but I think it would be more evocative to say they are looking up at us (from below).

yrgulation 4y ago
I see your point, but i intentionally worded it that way. In this dystopian hell we are heading towards everything is upside down. Privacy is frowned upon - because why worry if you have nothing to hide? The government and corporations know and want what’s best for you and in doing so you must reveal everything to these benevolent all loving all knowing entities. Our hell is their heaven. And although i do want a solution to the problems they claim to solve i do worry that we might achieve the opposite.