4 ms·

That's a perfectly reasonable question, actually. One possible answer is that communicating on the internet requires the use of a physical commons, which one c

by polarix 13y ago

That's a perfectly reasonable question, actually. One possible answer is that communicating on the internet requires the use of a physical commons, which one could reasonably argue carries either innate restrictions or restrictions legitimately imposed by the owners of said infrastructure.

jasonlotito 13y ago
No, it's not. He's making an assumption. He's assuming I think privacy should be restricted to select mediums, which is not the point of my comment. It would be the same thing as me asking you or him why you want to assist child rapists or people killing other people? And yes, it might be a bit pedantic, but I'm tired of these childish games on HN.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  You could have just answered "I don't think that." Or, you know, given me the exact response you just typed.... It really was not my intention to ask you a loaded question. Instead of calling my question childish, you should consider the possibility that your comment is not nearly as clear as you seem to think.
  - jasonlotito 13y ago
    I explained exactly why wasn't going to answer your question in my response. "That's a loaded question and I'm not going to play that game" I picked the words carefully and precisely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question > you should consider the possibility that your comment is not nearly as clear as you seem to think. I realize that people might not be native english speakers. I make the assumption people will ask if they are unsure or not clear. You made no indication you were either. Another commenter was not clear, and so I clarified. If you didn't find it clear, why didn't you ask for clarification on why I thought it was a loaded question? Or, what I meant by calling it a loaded question? > It really was not my intention to ask you a loaded question. But you did. And I explained as much, and left it at that.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      I am sensing a lot of continued hostility here. I am not sure why, since we apparently do not disagree, and since I have made it clear that I did not have any malicious intent. > I make the assumption people will ask if they are unsure or not clear. You have misunderstood me. I did not find your comment to be unclear after reading it. However my take-away from your comment was incorrect. Complaining about a loaded question, instead of simply and civilly correcting me ("I don't think that"), came off very strongly as a dodge. Or, as kordless describes, "conversation killer". I hope this clears up any lingering confusion.
      - jasonlotito 13y ago
        > I am sensing a lot of continued hostility here. There is zero in my last comment. Maybe you could highlight what statement I made that was in any way hostile. I was precise, polite, and stated clearly my position. The only one being hostile is you. > I am not sure why, since we apparently do not disagree What makes you think that? > instead of simply and civilly correcting me ("I don't think that") Why do you keep making assumptions? Why do you keep trying to assert my position, despite me never saying "I don't think that." Heck, putting it in quotes is dangerous enough. > "conversation killer" Your continued attempts to put words in my mouth is a conversation killer, even if you don't intend to do it. Your problem is that from the first reply, you've been trying to read more into what I said. You've been trying to categorize me. Rather than simply take the comment I said at face value, you've been trying to see some inner motive. This is clear from your loaded question, or your belief that I'm trying to dodge a question. Even now you continue to try to pin me down into a belief that I find beside the point, would have derailed the original conversation. > I hope this clears up any lingering confusion. I'm not confused with what I've said. And, frankly, I've stated it clearly from the first comment. That you've inferred more every step of the way is simply because you are confused. I honestly don't think whatever I type here will matter though, as despite being factual, precise, and concise in my previous comments, people have found ways to ignore the facts, infer whatever they wanted, and consider the brevity to be something more. It would be far easier if we read what was written, and stopped trying to imagine more.
  - kordless 13y ago
    I agree. Talk about a conversation killer. Considering he was speaking for kelnos at the time, I think your query seems reasonable and actually expands on the concept around what types of conversations should be managed by our government. Shouting "FIRE" in a theater is, and should be, against the law. It's a clear violation of trust, poses significant risk the the recipients, and is being done in a place that is clearly owned by someone. I'm cool with the police being in charge of enforcing rules that prevent this. Assuming they are also in charge of policing the Internet effectively is another matter entirely.
jlgreco 13y ago
That is a reasonable response. I would counter by saying that I see that as a justification for why they [government, ISP, whoever] should be allowed make demands about the use of the physical commons, but isn't a reason why they should exercise this conceded right. For example: I, a hypothetical bar owner, have a right to ban silly hats in my bar. Why? Because I own it. However that's not a reason that I should ban silly hats. Just saying "I'm the owner, so I can." doesn't actually explain why I should. I do also disagree that the government specifically is entitled to restrict privacy on the internet because much of the infrastructure is owned or otherwise controlled by them. The government owns nearly all roads, yet while using that infrastructure I still enjoy certain privacies. For example, if a cop pulls me over and asks me where I am going or where I have been, I have no obligation to answer him.
- icambron 13y ago
  It's that last point that's so strong: "Yes, yes, you have the right not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure, but not if you're walking on the public sidewalk." The key here is that the government is not like a private land owner. That's why government workers have so much leeway in criticizing their employers, and why you're allowed to protest on government land, and why schools can't have daily prayers even though they want to. The government simply isn't a private actor enforcing rules over the stuff it owns; we own the commons, and the government simply administers them according to some strict rules. Unlike a private land owner, it can't say, "if you don't like the way I do things, take your business elsewhere." Otherwise you get "You can vote for whomever you want, but since we own all these voting booths, you can only use them to vote for the incumbent." If the government can pursue any arbitrary policy just by virtue of "owning" some infrastructure, the whole constitutional democracy thing gets circumvented. Edit: changed "to privacy" to "not to be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure" to avoid confusion.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Yes, I agree. A hypothetical bar owner could get away with banning silly hats. We can defend that with assertions about ownership of property and the privileges that gives somebody... that isn't particularly problematic within reason. Governments though? They need to play by a different, stricter, set of rules. "Ownership of infrastructure" should not be accepted as a defense of a government banning silly hats on their sidewalks. Governments operate in a privileged space where they are permitted to do many things that individuals and companies are not allowed to do (as a quick example, they can levying taxes against the general population). That has to come at a cost though; they aren't allowed to do things that individuals and companies are permitted to do (as a quick US-centric example, they cannot endorse and support a particular religion). For this reason, comparisons and analogies between what governments and individuals/companies can do are very frequently worthless at best. These sort of comparisons are just unavoidably apples and oranges.
kordless 13y ago
Nobody owns the Internet. If company X stops running their part of it, it will continue to exist. You point is still valid if you consider an entity needs to govern the commons and apply restrictions where it's deemed in the interest of the greater good. I'm just not 100% that's the government.
mizchief 13y ago
That is total bullshit. All you should really have to have in order to keep a conversation private is the intentions. Even if it's a plain text email, only myself and the recipient of the email address should have the privilege of it's contents. If you want you can agree to let the provider use an automated system to scan for keyword for ads or whatever, but no one other than the recipients and agreed upon thrid parties should have permission to read those messages and anyone else doing so should be punished by law. We need to add an amendment which augments the 1st to say this clearly.
- tracker1 13y ago
  I believe you're referring to the 4th amendment.

by polarix 13y ago

jasonlotito 13y ago

No, it's not. He's making an assumption. He's assuming I think privacy should be restricted to select mediums, which is not the point of my comment. It would be the same thing as me asking you or him why you want to assist child rapists or people killing other people? And yes, it might be a bit pedantic, but I'm tired of these childish games on HN.

jlgreco 13y ago
You could have just answered "I don't think that." Or, you know, given me the exact response you just typed.... It really was not my intention to ask you a loaded question. Instead of calling my question childish, you should consider the possibility that your comment is not nearly as clear as you seem to think.
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  I explained exactly why wasn't going to answer your question in my response. "That's a loaded question and I'm not going to play that game" I picked the words carefully and precisely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question > you should consider the possibility that your comment is not nearly as clear as you seem to think. I realize that people might not be native english speakers. I make the assumption people will ask if they are unsure or not clear. You made no indication you were either. Another commenter was not clear, and so I clarified. If you didn't find it clear, why didn't you ask for clarification on why I thought it was a loaded question? Or, what I meant by calling it a loaded question? > It really was not my intention to ask you a loaded question. But you did. And I explained as much, and left it at that.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    I am sensing a lot of continued hostility here. I am not sure why, since we apparently do not disagree, and since I have made it clear that I did not have any malicious intent. > I make the assumption people will ask if they are unsure or not clear. You have misunderstood me. I did not find your comment to be unclear after reading it. However my take-away from your comment was incorrect. Complaining about a loaded question, instead of simply and civilly correcting me ("I don't think that"), came off very strongly as a dodge. Or, as kordless describes, "conversation killer". I hope this clears up any lingering confusion.
    - jasonlotito 13y ago
      > I am sensing a lot of continued hostility here. There is zero in my last comment. Maybe you could highlight what statement I made that was in any way hostile. I was precise, polite, and stated clearly my position. The only one being hostile is you. > I am not sure why, since we apparently do not disagree What makes you think that? > instead of simply and civilly correcting me ("I don't think that") Why do you keep making assumptions? Why do you keep trying to assert my position, despite me never saying "I don't think that." Heck, putting it in quotes is dangerous enough. > "conversation killer" Your continued attempts to put words in my mouth is a conversation killer, even if you don't intend to do it. Your problem is that from the first reply, you've been trying to read more into what I said. You've been trying to categorize me. Rather than simply take the comment I said at face value, you've been trying to see some inner motive. This is clear from your loaded question, or your belief that I'm trying to dodge a question. Even now you continue to try to pin me down into a belief that I find beside the point, would have derailed the original conversation. > I hope this clears up any lingering confusion. I'm not confused with what I've said. And, frankly, I've stated it clearly from the first comment. That you've inferred more every step of the way is simply because you are confused. I honestly don't think whatever I type here will matter though, as despite being factual, precise, and concise in my previous comments, people have found ways to ignore the facts, infer whatever they wanted, and consider the brevity to be something more. It would be far easier if we read what was written, and stopped trying to imagine more.
- kordless 13y ago
  I agree. Talk about a conversation killer. Considering he was speaking for kelnos at the time, I think your query seems reasonable and actually expands on the concept around what types of conversations should be managed by our government. Shouting "FIRE" in a theater is, and should be, against the law. It's a clear violation of trust, poses significant risk the the recipients, and is being done in a place that is clearly owned by someone. I'm cool with the police being in charge of enforcing rules that prevent this. Assuming they are also in charge of policing the Internet effectively is another matter entirely.

jlgreco 13y ago

That is a reasonable response. I would counter by saying that I see that as a justification for why they [government, ISP, whoever] should be allowed make demands about the use of the physical commons, but isn't a reason why they should exercise this conceded right. For example: I, a hypothetical bar owner, have a right to ban silly hats in my bar. Why? Because I own it. However that's not a reason that I should ban silly hats. Just saying "I'm the owner, so I can." doesn't actually explain why I should. I do also disagree that the government specifically is entitled to restrict privacy on the internet because much of the infrastructure is owned or otherwise controlled by them. The government owns nearly all roads, yet while using that infrastructure I still enjoy certain privacies. For example, if a cop pulls me over and asks me where I am going or where I have been, I have no obligation to answer him.

icambron 13y ago
It's that last point that's so strong: "Yes, yes, you have the right not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure, but not if you're walking on the public sidewalk." The key here is that the government is not like a private land owner. That's why government workers have so much leeway in criticizing their employers, and why you're allowed to protest on government land, and why schools can't have daily prayers even though they want to. The government simply isn't a private actor enforcing rules over the stuff it owns; we own the commons, and the government simply administers them according to some strict rules. Unlike a private land owner, it can't say, "if you don't like the way I do things, take your business elsewhere." Otherwise you get "You can vote for whomever you want, but since we own all these voting booths, you can only use them to vote for the incumbent." If the government can pursue any arbitrary policy just by virtue of "owning" some infrastructure, the whole constitutional democracy thing gets circumvented. Edit: changed "to privacy" to "not to be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure" to avoid confusion.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Yes, I agree. A hypothetical bar owner could get away with banning silly hats. We can defend that with assertions about ownership of property and the privileges that gives somebody... that isn't particularly problematic within reason. Governments though? They need to play by a different, stricter, set of rules. "Ownership of infrastructure" should not be accepted as a defense of a government banning silly hats on their sidewalks. Governments operate in a privileged space where they are permitted to do many things that individuals and companies are not allowed to do (as a quick example, they can levying taxes against the general population). That has to come at a cost though; they aren't allowed to do things that individuals and companies are permitted to do (as a quick US-centric example, they cannot endorse and support a particular religion). For this reason, comparisons and analogies between what governments and individuals/companies can do are very frequently worthless at best. These sort of comparisons are just unavoidably apples and oranges.

kordless 13y ago

Nobody owns the Internet. If company X stops running their part of it, it will continue to exist. You point is still valid if you consider an entity needs to govern the commons and apply restrictions where it's deemed in the interest of the greater good. I'm just not 100% that's the government.

mizchief 13y ago

That is total bullshit. All you should really have to have in order to keep a conversation private is the intentions. Even if it's a plain text email, only myself and the recipient of the email address should have the privilege of it's contents. If you want you can agree to let the provider use an automated system to scan for keyword for ads or whatever, but no one other than the recipients and agreed upon thrid parties should have permission to read those messages and anyone else doing so should be punished by law. We need to add an amendment which augments the 1st to say this clearly.

tracker1 13y ago
I believe you're referring to the 4th amendment.