5 ms·

First, your "Take Action" link doesn't work. Second, I don't really care if "NSA's Supercomputers" are scanning my emails, text messages and even my phone calls

by cbc0201 14y ago

First, your "Take Action" link doesn't work. Second, I don't really care if "NSA's Supercomputers" are scanning my emails, text messages and even my phone calls. They're not really interested in my activities. Third, I'll let you in on a little secret, Its not just overseas communication! If it keeps safe, what do I care!

SnowWhiteWinter 14y ago
What a paradox... The Theater of security & the futile attempt to maintain the illusion of control. The sacrifice of pseudo-freedoms for spoon-feed ignorance. We as a species, have already passed the point of no-return. Rouge A.I. threats will be the only true distraction to the current state of global surveillance, and only because the allocation of resources will so chaotic to attempt to deal with them. If YOU don't care about YOUR communications being intercepted, you have just fucked-over all of the next-generation off-spring/relatives. YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY TREE, FOR THEIR ENTIRE LIVES, just for your lack of "care"... This is humanity @ its lowest.
mtgx 14y ago
New account and first comment here, just to post that NSA can look at your e-mails if they want? I wonder if you're just someone working at NSA and FBI, and who's pushing for these laws. We know that they use "persona management" software to be part of the public conversation.
- jeremyarussell 14y ago
  I find myself agreeing with you, this guy is too much. (Also did you notice how he think's we are all liberals?)
  - crusso 14y ago
    Don't see that in the near-illegible text. Was it edited out?
delinka 14y ago
You should care because it'll lead to removing your own personal freedom sooner than you think. It's been said that he who would give up his privacy to gain security deserves neither privacy nor security. And it's true. When you hand over your privacy, you hand over power to someone else to turn you into a "person with questionable character" or a criminal even if you never were either. Read Mr. Schneier here: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/security_vs_pri.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/security_vs_pr... - his gist is that these all-encompassing activities don't buy us improved security. If they don't get us improved security, they're nothing more than a risk to individuals.
nathan_long 14y ago
Suppose that someday you run for office, or lobby for a cause, or run a prominent company. Suppose that you OR someone you love has something in their past they wouldn't want shared, OR which could be misconstrued in the press. Suddenly, you learn that unless you drop out of the race, or stop lobbying, or withdraw from a business venture, you or someone you love will be publicly shamed, fairly or not. Or worse than shamed: framed and locked up. We already threw out due process in cases related to terrorism, right? Not plausible? Not with thousands of intelligence workers and officials, with information on everyone retained for decades, with the NSA working hard to break old encryption so that archived conversations can be made searchable in their databases? Not plausible for this administration or any future one? That's a huge bet. I'm with the Founding Fathers and the 4th Amendment: the government has to be limited in its searches to specific cases with specific justification.
- rprospero 14y ago
  Here's the thing I've never understood about the "framed and locked-up" argument. If the government was going to go to frame me for being a terrorist, why would they need the giant wiretapping facility? All they need to do is hire a couple of interns to write a whole bunch of "Death to America!" emails and just tell the courts that I wrote them. They'd declare national security issues on why my lawyers can't see the network traces that "prove" that these emails came from my computer. I guess I'm just saying that the government has been able to frame me a lock me up for over a hundred years. I don't see what this changes about that?
  - mhurron 14y ago
    It's more palatable to the people if they can hang you with your own words. No one is going to care if they can 'prove' they saved the people from a danger. On top of that, the people will be more willing to accept any 'proof' they intercepted when they know the government is intercepting everything.
  - nathan_long 14y ago
    A lie is much more convincing if it's constructed on a kernel of truth.
Alaskan005 14y ago
"If it keeps safe, what do I care!" I feel bad for you. Really do. I know it's a not a constructive comment but with him it seems like a lost cause.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  You shouldn't dismiss him/her out of hand. This is the way the vast majority of people feel. Until we overcome that, those of us who do care will never succeed in changing anything.
  - cbc0201 14y ago
    First, to all you liberal's, its not a person but computers scanning our communications and NO, I still don't care! Are you oblivious to the secret code in Microsoft and Intel's software? What do you think that code is doing and who put it there? Its been there for years tracking us! God knows what we have in our Smart phone's, but its there.
    - ascendant 14y ago
      Lay off the "all you liberals" crap. If I want zealotry mixed with stereotyping I can go read the comments on any CNN or FOX news article. Leave that crap off of HN please.
jalanco 14y ago
I don't mean to pile on, but this comment reminds me of Eric Schmidt's comment that "if you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to fear". There are at least a couple of things wrong with this sentiment: (1) if you really believe that, then you would have no problem with a group of strangers searching your house, your bank records, safety deposit boxes, all your digital assets, etc. And by "etc" I mean also strip searching your family members or loved ones if "necessary". Did I go too far there? If so why? Because after all, "if you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to fear". Who gets to decide how far is too far? (2) And you might respond, "but these aren't strangers searching my stuff and family, these are duly authorized government officials." Well, duly authorized government officials are flawed human beings like all of us, and the ones doing the searching are most likely not elected by anyone. And also, these people in power at the moment, whose motives you trust, will most definitely not be in power forever. One day, there will be authorities in power whose motives you don't trust at all, maybe for very good reasons. What then? That's why the erosion of privacy rights is worth fighting.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  <post type="devils-advocate"> >if you really believe that, then you would have no problem with a group of strangers searching your house etc etc Your point made here is nothing but a pure combination of reduction to the absurd and the slippery slope fallacy...
  - jalanco 14y ago
    Ouch! Please feel free to elaborate because I'm not sure exactly what you are disagreeing with. I mean, are you saying that you believe that the people given the authority to invade your privacy always have good intentions? Because I don't believe that. In the real world, these authorities are often driven by pressure to "find something", or to "make a quota", or to "prove our worth". And the results often harm innocent people.
    - Karunamon 14y ago
      Well, okay. >(1) if you really believe that, then you would have no problem with a group of strangers searching your house, your bank records, safety deposit boxes, all your digital assets, etc. No, actually I wouldn't, because there's an entire freakin' universe of difference between cops searching your house, destroying things, having your neighbors wonder WTF is going on and having an open profile on a social network (which is what that oft-maligned quote was talking about) Someone digging through your possessions (and strip searching your family, feckin' seriously?) is kind of not even similar to an email being picked up by an automated computer system.
darkarmani 14y ago
> If it keeps safe, what do I care! Ah! This is the crux. What if these efforts make you LESS safe? The more people knowing where you are, how much money you have, etc, the easier it is to commit crime against you. You do have private information that keeps you safe. This is why kids aren's supposed to tell strangers on the phone that they are home alone. Which is more likely? You are injured in a terrorist attack or your information is leaked?
capnrefsmmat 14y ago
Other people have already responded to you, but I think they've fallen into the common trap of assuming that privacy is about having something to hide. Yes, the data collected might be leaked by poor security, and yes, you might not want your neighbors installing cameras in your shower, but that's not the point. This is an excellent paper on the problem: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 In short: privacy is not about hiding things. It's about an exchange of power. A government with more information about your life is one with more power to make decisions about you. There are many reasons to oppose this: * Chilling effects. People may be more afraid to conduct legal activities for fear they will be misconstrued and used against them by the government. ("Sorry, you can't fly anymore.") * People are powerless to fight decisions the government makes on their behalf, because they do not know what data the government has collected, and all of it is secret. It's not Orwellian; it's Kafkaesque. * Small bits of information gathered through surveillance can turn into much more interesting information about a person combined. You might not mind revealing each individual tidbit, but what about the picture they paint when combined? There's more the the argument, which you can read in the article linked. Privacy is not just about secrecy.

by cbc0201 14y ago

SnowWhiteWinter 14y ago

What a paradox... The Theater of security & the futile attempt to maintain the illusion of control. The sacrifice of pseudo-freedoms for spoon-feed ignorance. We as a species, have already passed the point of no-return. Rouge A.I. threats will be the only true distraction to the current state of global surveillance, and only because the allocation of resources will so chaotic to attempt to deal with them. If YOU don't care about YOUR communications being intercepted, you have just fucked-over all of the next-generation off-spring/relatives. YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY TREE, FOR THEIR ENTIRE LIVES, just for your lack of "care"... This is humanity @ its lowest.

mtgx 14y ago

New account and first comment here, just to post that NSA can look at your e-mails if they want? I wonder if you're just someone working at NSA and FBI, and who's pushing for these laws. We know that they use "persona management" software to be part of the public conversation.

jeremyarussell 14y ago
I find myself agreeing with you, this guy is too much. (Also did you notice how he think's we are all liberals?)
- crusso 14y ago
  Don't see that in the near-illegible text. Was it edited out?

delinka 14y ago

You should care because it'll lead to removing your own personal freedom sooner than you think. It's been said that he who would give up his privacy to gain security deserves neither privacy nor security. And it's true. When you hand over your privacy, you hand over power to someone else to turn you into a "person with questionable character" or a criminal even if you never were either. Read Mr. Schneier here: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/security_vs_pri.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/security_vs_pr... - his gist is that these all-encompassing activities don't buy us improved security. If they don't get us improved security, they're nothing more than a risk to individuals.

nathan_long 14y ago

Suppose that someday you run for office, or lobby for a cause, or run a prominent company. Suppose that you OR someone you love has something in their past they wouldn't want shared, OR which could be misconstrued in the press. Suddenly, you learn that unless you drop out of the race, or stop lobbying, or withdraw from a business venture, you or someone you love will be publicly shamed, fairly or not. Or worse than shamed: framed and locked up. We already threw out due process in cases related to terrorism, right? Not plausible? Not with thousands of intelligence workers and officials, with information on everyone retained for decades, with the NSA working hard to break old encryption so that archived conversations can be made searchable in their databases? Not plausible for this administration or any future one? That's a huge bet. I'm with the Founding Fathers and the 4th Amendment: the government has to be limited in its searches to specific cases with specific justification.

rprospero 14y ago
Here's the thing I've never understood about the "framed and locked-up" argument. If the government was going to go to frame me for being a terrorist, why would they need the giant wiretapping facility? All they need to do is hire a couple of interns to write a whole bunch of "Death to America!" emails and just tell the courts that I wrote them. They'd declare national security issues on why my lawyers can't see the network traces that "prove" that these emails came from my computer. I guess I'm just saying that the government has been able to frame me a lock me up for over a hundred years. I don't see what this changes about that?
- mhurron 14y ago
  It's more palatable to the people if they can hang you with your own words. No one is going to care if they can 'prove' they saved the people from a danger. On top of that, the people will be more willing to accept any 'proof' they intercepted when they know the government is intercepting everything.
- nathan_long 14y ago
  A lie is much more convincing if it's constructed on a kernel of truth.

Alaskan005 14y ago

"If it keeps safe, what do I care!" I feel bad for you. Really do. I know it's a not a constructive comment but with him it seems like a lost cause.

SoftwareMaven 14y ago
You shouldn't dismiss him/her out of hand. This is the way the vast majority of people feel. Until we overcome that, those of us who do care will never succeed in changing anything.
- cbc0201 14y ago
  First, to all you liberal's, its not a person but computers scanning our communications and NO, I still don't care! Are you oblivious to the secret code in Microsoft and Intel's software? What do you think that code is doing and who put it there? Its been there for years tracking us! God knows what we have in our Smart phone's, but its there.
  - ascendant 14y ago
    Lay off the "all you liberals" crap. If I want zealotry mixed with stereotyping I can go read the comments on any CNN or FOX news article. Leave that crap off of HN please.

jalanco 14y ago

I don't mean to pile on, but this comment reminds me of Eric Schmidt's comment that "if you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to fear". There are at least a couple of things wrong with this sentiment: (1) if you really believe that, then you would have no problem with a group of strangers searching your house, your bank records, safety deposit boxes, all your digital assets, etc. And by "etc" I mean also strip searching your family members or loved ones if "necessary". Did I go too far there? If so why? Because after all, "if you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to fear". Who gets to decide how far is too far? (2) And you might respond, "but these aren't strangers searching my stuff and family, these are duly authorized government officials." Well, duly authorized government officials are flawed human beings like all of us, and the ones doing the searching are most likely not elected by anyone. And also, these people in power at the moment, whose motives you trust, will most definitely not be in power forever. One day, there will be authorities in power whose motives you don't trust at all, maybe for very good reasons. What then? That's why the erosion of privacy rights is worth fighting.

Karunamon 14y ago
<post type="devils-advocate"> >if you really believe that, then you would have no problem with a group of strangers searching your house etc etc Your point made here is nothing but a pure combination of reduction to the absurd and the slippery slope fallacy...
- jalanco 14y ago
  Ouch! Please feel free to elaborate because I'm not sure exactly what you are disagreeing with. I mean, are you saying that you believe that the people given the authority to invade your privacy always have good intentions? Because I don't believe that. In the real world, these authorities are often driven by pressure to "find something", or to "make a quota", or to "prove our worth". And the results often harm innocent people.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    Well, okay. >(1) if you really believe that, then you would have no problem with a group of strangers searching your house, your bank records, safety deposit boxes, all your digital assets, etc. No, actually I wouldn't, because there's an entire freakin' universe of difference between cops searching your house, destroying things, having your neighbors wonder WTF is going on and having an open profile on a social network (which is what that oft-maligned quote was talking about) Someone digging through your possessions (and strip searching your family, feckin' seriously?) is kind of not even similar to an email being picked up by an automated computer system.

darkarmani 14y ago

> If it keeps safe, what do I care! Ah! This is the crux. What if these efforts make you LESS safe? The more people knowing where you are, how much money you have, etc, the easier it is to commit crime against you. You do have private information that keeps you safe. This is why kids aren's supposed to tell strangers on the phone that they are home alone. Which is more likely? You are injured in a terrorist attack or your information is leaked?

capnrefsmmat 14y ago

Other people have already responded to you, but I think they've fallen into the common trap of assuming that privacy is about having something to hide. Yes, the data collected might be leaked by poor security, and yes, you might not want your neighbors installing cameras in your shower, but that's not the point. This is an excellent paper on the problem: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 In short: privacy is not about hiding things. It's about an exchange of power. A government with more information about your life is one with more power to make decisions about you. There are many reasons to oppose this: * Chilling effects. People may be more afraid to conduct legal activities for fear they will be misconstrued and used against them by the government. ("Sorry, you can't fly anymore.") * People are powerless to fight decisions the government makes on their behalf, because they do not know what data the government has collected, and all of it is secret. It's not Orwellian; it's Kafkaesque. * Small bits of information gathered through surveillance can turn into much more interesting information about a person combined. You might not mind revealing each individual tidbit, but what about the picture they paint when combined? There's more the the argument, which you can read in the article linked. Privacy is not just about secrecy.