3 ms·

What we knew already, if you were aware of conversations amongst datacenter employees et al, just got official names like Prism It's akin to how we seem to be

What we knew already, if you were aware of conversations amongst datacenter employees et al, just got official names like Prism It's akin to how we seem to be getting more and more info about UFOs lately. When it's finally confirmed, we can't just act like we knew nothing about UFOs existing, we had a clue for a long while - just no official confirmations.

dylan604 3y ago
> What we knew already, if you were aware of conversations amongst datacenter employees et al, just got official names like Prism right, and for the 99.999% of the population that is NOT, we learned all about it. what a weird caveat you've added that assumes "we" are only HN readers that could have possibly have learned anything.
- conductr 3y ago
  It was widely reported as well (I remember a video of some govt agency installing a device in an AT&T datacenter siphoning a huge amount of internet traffic, it should have incited outrage and gone viral), just not much interest without a smoking gun. The laypeople you speak of weren't interested, they were blissfully ignorant. I honestly still believe with a smoking gun and 10 years later many people just don't have much interest, they tend to abide by the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" views of privacy (in US at least)
  - dylan604 3y ago
    I think it is more of a Douglas Adams type of SEP. These are things that are too complex for the average person to understand, and they might actually know deep down that if they were to allow themselves to understand it that they might actually have to do something about it which would disrupt their lifestyles. So their brains make the situation out as Someone Else's Problem which allows them to stick their head back into the sand. It's much more nuanced than "nothing to hide, nothing to fear", as it's just wrong. Everyone does something that is against regulations every day. It's just a matter of time before that is truly enforced using this "nothing to hide" data, and then people will be "I guess I did need to hide that".
    - conductr 3y ago
      I tend to think people do know or have some clues into these type of things, they just think their probability assigned to "just a matter of time before that is truly enforced" is so low, they don't want to waste energy on it. They also view the consequences as low, hence the erroneous "nothing to fear" part. A current thought experiment on this is, if Trump won 2024, it wouldn't be a surprise to anyone if he went off the rails and tried to punish anyone that spoke poorly of him. Citizens included. Meanwhile, half the country has been posting openly on social media about hating the guy for the past 8 years. Some of us, thinking we did so anonymously behind a @non account. We collectively just don't fathom the risk of that type of institutional upheaval. But, it's bound to happen at some point, in some way. An example with less consequences (perhaps?), everyone knows that something is listening to them even when they don't know what. We all have stories of something unusual coming up in conversation, then immediately you notice you're being targeted for those ads. Even though you never search for it, etc. it just came up at the watercooler in conversation with Bob in accounting or something. Everyone knows it's happenings, for years now, but nobody is really too concerned or asking for real answers about how this occurs. It might be a complex of an answer for the average joe, but he's not even asking the question because the consequences are perceived to be low.

dylan604 3y ago

> What we knew already, if you were aware of conversations amongst datacenter employees et al, just got official names like Prism right, and for the 99.999% of the population that is NOT, we learned all about it. what a weird caveat you've added that assumes "we" are only HN readers that could have possibly have learned anything.

conductr 3y ago
It was widely reported as well (I remember a video of some govt agency installing a device in an AT&T datacenter siphoning a huge amount of internet traffic, it should have incited outrage and gone viral), just not much interest without a smoking gun. The laypeople you speak of weren't interested, they were blissfully ignorant. I honestly still believe with a smoking gun and 10 years later many people just don't have much interest, they tend to abide by the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" views of privacy (in US at least)
- dylan604 3y ago
  I think it is more of a Douglas Adams type of SEP. These are things that are too complex for the average person to understand, and they might actually know deep down that if they were to allow themselves to understand it that they might actually have to do something about it which would disrupt their lifestyles. So their brains make the situation out as Someone Else's Problem which allows them to stick their head back into the sand. It's much more nuanced than "nothing to hide, nothing to fear", as it's just wrong. Everyone does something that is against regulations every day. It's just a matter of time before that is truly enforced using this "nothing to hide" data, and then people will be "I guess I did need to hide that".
  - conductr 3y ago
    I tend to think people do know or have some clues into these type of things, they just think their probability assigned to "just a matter of time before that is truly enforced" is so low, they don't want to waste energy on it. They also view the consequences as low, hence the erroneous "nothing to fear" part. A current thought experiment on this is, if Trump won 2024, it wouldn't be a surprise to anyone if he went off the rails and tried to punish anyone that spoke poorly of him. Citizens included. Meanwhile, half the country has been posting openly on social media about hating the guy for the past 8 years. Some of us, thinking we did so anonymously behind a @non account. We collectively just don't fathom the risk of that type of institutional upheaval. But, it's bound to happen at some point, in some way. An example with less consequences (perhaps?), everyone knows that something is listening to them even when they don't know what. We all have stories of something unusual coming up in conversation, then immediately you notice you're being targeted for those ads. Even though you never search for it, etc. it just came up at the watercooler in conversation with Bob in accounting or something. Everyone knows it's happenings, for years now, but nobody is really too concerned or asking for real answers about how this occurs. It might be a complex of an answer for the average joe, but he's not even asking the question because the consequences are perceived to be low.