3 ms·

What does it have to do with in reality?

by dkdbejwi383 2y ago

Gud 2y ago
Obedient workers.
- dkdbejwi383 2y ago
  Can you expand on that? I don’t follow, sorry
  - bayindirh 2y ago
    When you're frightened and live in a glass house, you stay silent and obedient to prevent any stones from inadvertently hitting your house. Since it's transparent, you can't do anything which others don't like anyway, and if you even manage, you'll be taken away silently. IOW, read 1984 and Brave New World and create a synthesis of it.
    - p0w3n3d 2y ago
      I mean I am not against the investigations at all. Also I believe that in such cases (terrorism) better way of extracting the secret key is sourcing it from the suspect him(or her)self. I.e. https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
      - bayindirh 2y ago
        We're on the same page. As one step further, I don't support "advanced interrogation techniques".
        p0w3n3d 2y ago
        I do neither, however what I wanted to highlight (in this black humour way) that the burden of de-encrypting lies on the police/govt. Also opening some encryption on ever person's device just because some government wants to check a few people is stupid. First of all: today it's let's say "good government" and tomorrow it'll be the "bad government", and secondly it can be used to fight the opposition (non-democratic behaviour)
      - pixl97 2y ago
        >I am not against the investigations at all. I mean, investigations when you're a suspect is one thing. A system setup to monitor everyone and everything that treats everyone like a suspect is another.
    - dkdbejwi383 2y ago
      I guess I am too dumb to understand. The argument that if you don’t have anything to hide makes more sense to me than nefarious secret spies are going to read your shopping list. I just don’t see what all the paranoia is about. I realise this is an unfashionable opinion to have on HN, and I’m not looking to debate or change anyone’s mind, but to understand with a substantive argument rather than one sentence replies.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - samtheprogram 2y ago
        Because while you might agree with the current regime, laws, etc, and they may not be abusing their all knowing powers, allowing government (or any corporation) such power means they can change the rules, for example in an authoritarian direction, and you have 0 recourse, power, or leverage in the situation.
      - bayindirh 2y ago
        I don't think you're dumb or trying to change anyone's mind or you have an agenda in general, and just trying to understand. Also, the "fashionability" of your PoV doesn't matter for me, because we're discussing here, and trying to learn from each other. There are two problems with this PoV. First argument is, we really don't understand how much private information we have, and how making it public is creepy. Your finances, what you own, how much you earn, your sincere chats with people you love or care are your private information. These things maybe known by limited parties, but when all of it is public to anyone, even to an algorithm reading it, and making it searchable is creepy and unsettling. I don't want a copy of asking my friend about their personal well being indexed anywhere. This brings the second argument, and the above paragraph becomes a dangerous precedent. Consider you were chatting with your friend, spouse or child. One party says something and it can be very dangerous if it's taken out of context. One person shared an anecdote about their Alexa device. They found a recording in their account, their child saying "Why daddy always beats me?". Think about it for a second, and how dangerous this can be... The context was they were playing Uno, and dad beat their children in the game. Again, take this recording or a couple more. Fine tune an AI sound engine with it. Extrapolate from there. You see where this is going... We want privacy not because we do nefarious things, but because we don't want our private matters to be publicized and not abused to harm us. This is why you put a password to your phone. Not because you hide something, but not to leave everything lying there. Lastly, in the words of Edwards Snowden: "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." More reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument
  - 542354234235 2y ago
    To add, think of the common joke “I’m not going to google that, I don’t want to end up on a list”. The fact that it is known that government agencies monitor internet activity and keep “lists” has a pervasive cooling effect on what people are willing to search for. Not all things and not all people but the effect is real.
  - cjbgkagh 2y ago
    Many government policies around multiculturalism and immigration have gotten to a stage where criticism against it can be seen as incitement to violence / disturbing the peace. Protected class communities have a hecklers veto whereby responding to even mild criticism with violence they’re able to send those who criticize them to jail, often more so than the jail term for violence. States care more about criticism than the violence. This has an effect of making criticism of government policy a heavily punished crime. A situation the government has fostered. Multiculturalism is incompatible with free speech and since multiculturalism is government policy free speech has to be sacrificed. It’s a slippery slope and it’s been going on for some time so very little can be done about it.
- tim333 2y ago
  I don't buy that. I've met uk politicians and they are not really like that. However it may be more about being able to say to the voters that we are taking action against terror and paedos than actually catching any.
  - johnisgood 2y ago
    It is definitely partly about just to be able to claim "we did something".
eesmith 2y ago
The naive belief that having more data means the organization will be more effective at carrying out its goals. Doesn't matter what data - the algorithms/AI will figure it out. Doesn't matter how messy the data - the algorithms/AI will figure it out. Post-9/11 governance is filled with the CYA view that if we collect enough data we can connect the dots before another event happens. Privacy issues aren't important, as the organization's goals are good, with strong guards against corruption. (While DOGE accesses highly personal data entrusted to the IRS.) While the world's data centers are smothered in unused data, collected because it's too hard to figure out what not to save and the Thiel and his malign ilk promise that their tools are good for us.
93po 2y ago
exerting control over powerful people who aren't as politically connected as the people who have access to this private data, in addition to finding excuses to spend money on military stuff (with kickbacks)

What does it have to do with in reality?

Gud 2y ago

Obedient workers.

dkdbejwi383 2y ago
Can you expand on that? I don’t follow, sorry
- bayindirh 2y ago
  When you're frightened and live in a glass house, you stay silent and obedient to prevent any stones from inadvertently hitting your house. Since it's transparent, you can't do anything which others don't like anyway, and if you even manage, you'll be taken away silently. IOW, read 1984 and Brave New World and create a synthesis of it.
  - p0w3n3d 2y ago
    I mean I am not against the investigations at all. Also I believe that in such cases (terrorism) better way of extracting the secret key is sourcing it from the suspect him(or her)self. I.e. https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
    - bayindirh 2y ago
      We're on the same page. As one step further, I don't support "advanced interrogation techniques".
      - p0w3n3d 2y ago
        I do neither, however what I wanted to highlight (in this black humour way) that the burden of de-encrypting lies on the police/govt. Also opening some encryption on ever person's device just because some government wants to check a few people is stupid. First of all: today it's let's say "good government" and tomorrow it'll be the "bad government", and secondly it can be used to fight the opposition (non-democratic behaviour)
    - pixl97 2y ago
      >I am not against the investigations at all. I mean, investigations when you're a suspect is one thing. A system setup to monitor everyone and everything that treats everyone like a suspect is another.
  - dkdbejwi383 2y ago
    I guess I am too dumb to understand. The argument that if you don’t have anything to hide makes more sense to me than nefarious secret spies are going to read your shopping list. I just don’t see what all the paranoia is about. I realise this is an unfashionable opinion to have on HN, and I’m not looking to debate or change anyone’s mind, but to understand with a substantive argument rather than one sentence replies.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - samtheprogram 2y ago
      Because while you might agree with the current regime, laws, etc, and they may not be abusing their all knowing powers, allowing government (or any corporation) such power means they can change the rules, for example in an authoritarian direction, and you have 0 recourse, power, or leverage in the situation.
    - bayindirh 2y ago
      I don't think you're dumb or trying to change anyone's mind or you have an agenda in general, and just trying to understand. Also, the "fashionability" of your PoV doesn't matter for me, because we're discussing here, and trying to learn from each other. There are two problems with this PoV. First argument is, we really don't understand how much private information we have, and how making it public is creepy. Your finances, what you own, how much you earn, your sincere chats with people you love or care are your private information. These things maybe known by limited parties, but when all of it is public to anyone, even to an algorithm reading it, and making it searchable is creepy and unsettling. I don't want a copy of asking my friend about their personal well being indexed anywhere. This brings the second argument, and the above paragraph becomes a dangerous precedent. Consider you were chatting with your friend, spouse or child. One party says something and it can be very dangerous if it's taken out of context. One person shared an anecdote about their Alexa device. They found a recording in their account, their child saying "Why daddy always beats me?". Think about it for a second, and how dangerous this can be... The context was they were playing Uno, and dad beat their children in the game. Again, take this recording or a couple more. Fine tune an AI sound engine with it. Extrapolate from there. You see where this is going... We want privacy not because we do nefarious things, but because we don't want our private matters to be publicized and not abused to harm us. This is why you put a password to your phone. Not because you hide something, but not to leave everything lying there. Lastly, in the words of Edwards Snowden: "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." More reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument
- 542354234235 2y ago
  To add, think of the common joke “I’m not going to google that, I don’t want to end up on a list”. The fact that it is known that government agencies monitor internet activity and keep “lists” has a pervasive cooling effect on what people are willing to search for. Not all things and not all people but the effect is real.
- cjbgkagh 2y ago
  Many government policies around multiculturalism and immigration have gotten to a stage where criticism against it can be seen as incitement to violence / disturbing the peace. Protected class communities have a hecklers veto whereby responding to even mild criticism with violence they’re able to send those who criticize them to jail, often more so than the jail term for violence. States care more about criticism than the violence. This has an effect of making criticism of government policy a heavily punished crime. A situation the government has fostered. Multiculturalism is incompatible with free speech and since multiculturalism is government policy free speech has to be sacrificed. It’s a slippery slope and it’s been going on for some time so very little can be done about it.
tim333 2y ago
I don't buy that. I've met uk politicians and they are not really like that. However it may be more about being able to say to the voters that we are taking action against terror and paedos than actually catching any.
- johnisgood 2y ago
  It is definitely partly about just to be able to claim "we did something".

eesmith 2y ago

The naive belief that having more data means the organization will be more effective at carrying out its goals. Doesn't matter what data - the algorithms/AI will figure it out. Doesn't matter how messy the data - the algorithms/AI will figure it out. Post-9/11 governance is filled with the CYA view that if we collect enough data we can connect the dots before another event happens. Privacy issues aren't important, as the organization's goals are good, with strong guards against corruption. (While DOGE accesses highly personal data entrusted to the IRS.) While the world's data centers are smothered in unused data, collected because it's too hard to figure out what not to save and the Thiel and his malign ilk promise that their tools are good for us.

93po 2y ago

exerting control over powerful people who aren't as politically connected as the people who have access to this private data, in addition to finding excuses to spend money on military stuff (with kickbacks)