4 ms·
> This is trading imagined harm for a real harm. You trade off a loss of privacy that has zero practical implications currently for almost everyone (a few terro
by fhd2 13y ago
> This is trading imagined harm for a real harm. You trade off a loss of privacy that has zero practical implications currently for almost everyone (a few terrorist suspects might have to worry) against lost time due to inferior search result quality.
So you argue that slightly inferior search results are "real harm" and mass surveillance is "imagined harm"? I'm afraid we don't agree on the definition of the word "harm".
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, eh?
- superuser2 13y agoMass surveillance is watching everything and fishing for illegal activity. That is not the same as filing subpoenas for data on persons of interest. If you think everything that generates records the government can eventually access is "real harm," what exactly are you doing on HN?
- fhd2 13y ago> Mass surveillance is watching everything and fishing for illegal activity. That is not the same as filing subpoenas for data on persons of interest. There are several cases of exactly that, fishing people's online movement profiles for illegal activity, e.g.: http://www.digitaltrends.com/lifestyle/googling-how-to-murder/ http://www.digitaltrends.com/lifestyle/googling-how-to-murde... > If you think everything that generates records the government can eventually access is "real harm," what exactly are you doing on HN? I post my comments knowing full well that anyone can read them. I do not think my web browsing and searching behaviour is quite the same thing. I cannot decide what to share and what not. To come up with a stupid analogy, it's like saying: "If you don't like being watched, why do you go to the supermarket?" It's not the same as being watched in my bedroom.