Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

jonathanmh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 337 posts

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#231

Post by thom »

Grishnakh wrote: post #213
thom wrote: post #88

We're going to fight hard so our grandchildren have really secure email in a world where everything they do and every word they say is uploaded to the internet, transcribed and annotated in realtime by swarms of drones controlled by other kids that, only 50 years earlier, would have been at home doxxing people on Twitter. Privacy will die, not because it's undesirable or a bad idea, it'll die like copyright and DRM -…

>Privacy will die, not because it's undesirable or a bad idea, it'll die like copyright and DRM - because it's technically and economically easy to defeat, and people will be motivated to do so. >[Please refute - I genuinely have nightmares about this future] Um, this is pretty easy to refute: we've been complaining about copyright and DRM for ages now, and not only are they not waning, they're at least as strong now…

I don't really recognise any of what you're describing here - it's trivial to download almost any copyrighted work in seconds, for free, and basically nobody suffers any consequences for doing so.

Even so, it was just an analogy. There's very little stopping people just following you round recording you on their smartphone as it is. When it's semi-autonomous flying robots the size of a grain of rice, I don't believe you are going to have much legal recourse.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#232

Post by Aleman360 »

andrewfromx wrote: post #15
ecma wrote: post #9

This is incredibly naive bordering on puerile. To suggest that POTUS' view on this is without nuance is to miss his point. POTUS went on to cite existing warrant mechanisms and their underlying principle: "And we agree on that, because we recognize that just like all of our other rights ... that there are going to be some constraints we impose so we are safe, secure and can live in a civilized society." I'm not sugge…

but there is no "balance" when somethig is binary. You either have encryption or you don't.

What about disabling the bricking mechanism that would have allowed the FBI to brute-force the PIN?

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#233

Post by Estragon »

eru wrote: post #162
jonesb6 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have hundreds of bookmarks in chrome. I have so many bookmarks that I've essentially stopped making new ones because the back log is simply too large. That speech I bookmarked. Despite the terrible formatting that speech is a work of art applicable to every human being who holds power, whether it's POTUS or the office manager.

Try Pocket. That's easier to organize.

Classic HN response.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#234

Post by eggy »

jordanb wrote: post #86
tomlongson wrote: post #42

A key promise of Obama's campaign for the presidency was to run the “most transparent” government- however the only person to really deliver on that promise was a whistleblower. Secret courts, secret domestic spying, and now calls for weakening of the digital equivalent of the safe shows that he either was not honest about transparency, or has radically changed his opinion since becoming POTUS. Maybe it's that he dec…

I think Washington has changed Obama more than Obama changed Washington. He's spent seven years in the craziest bubble in America surrounded by people being paid millions to distort his worldview one way or another. A while back he advised some kids in College to never type anything into a computer if they want it to remain private. For him, it probably seems completely reasonable. I doubt he's touched a keyboard sin…

I think Obama had that in his character years before he even ran for President, so I think it is an easy out to say he was corrupted by the system in Washington. Basic character doesn't just do a 180. Granted, your ideals may be softened by coming up against those who oppose them, but they do not reverse and hide under the covers. All politicians promise many beautiful things, but they have their agendas. Under Obama drone strikes have multiplied in several nations we are not even at war with, and stayed out of the news for the most part, and he has not been made accountable in the slightest. Through his representatives it has been made clear that he wants Snowden to return and face espionage charges. Even if that is the way to face the government, he did not offer any of his take on it to say otherwise. I am very untrusting of most, if not all, politicians, since I see it is a game for people to gain and feel powerful. I do not idealize candidates in the slightest. Trump polarizes people, and I do not like him in the slightest; I know where he stands though. With Obama his rhetoric and his actions are not in sync.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#235

Post by ap22213 »

tomlongson wrote: post #42

A key promise of Obama's campaign for the presidency was to run the “most transparent” government- however the only person to really deliver on that promise was a whistleblower. Secret courts, secret domestic spying, and now calls for weakening of the digital equivalent of the safe shows that he either was not honest about transparency, or has radically changed his opinion since becoming POTUS. Maybe it's that he dec…

Disclosure: I liked Obama as candidate, and I've liked him as president.

I haven't always been happy with some of his decisions and policies. But, my guess is that he's constantly being whispered the worst case scenarios.

A president probably feels responsibility for the well being of hundreds of millions of people. And, all that it takes are a few highly polished ex-lobbiest communicators whispering, 'if you won't strengthen this program, Mr. President, then a terrorist will unleash a dirty bomb on the east coast and injure tens of millions.' Who would want to be responsible for that? 'Oh, just wiretap citizens? I guess that doesn't seem too bad if it's an either-or-decision.'

Unfortunately, I don't see a way out of this mess. Bin Laden won when he turned the US into a 24-7 terror watch. Now, we live by fear and over-protection against an enemy that we can't see.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#236

Post by studentrob »

kailuowang wrote: post #6

Would like to see more detailed logic in the original post. For e.g. why specifically the parallel between physical world and digital is flawed.

Sam Harris posted a video trying to draw such parallels between digital and physical worlds [1]. After reading responses to his first video, he then changed his mind [2]. In particular, one email from a Google engineer he found particularly compelling. I can summarize.

Our phones contain both a) things we consider privacy-sensitive and b) security-sensitive. Family photos and bank accounts. The Googler dispels one of Sam's analogies. Digital security and insecurity is highly scalable. We lock our doors, and police can force them open if needed. Generally, there are not many burglars around. Here I will quote Sam's reading of the Googler's email,

> "The digital world is like having a house at zero distance from every burglar in existence, including the planet's top lock pickers. They have zero cost and near-zero risk attempting to break into my door. The "police" are virtually non-existent, and even if identified the bad guys are probably out of reach of prosecution. Even the amateurs have tools that allow them to probe millions of doors per second, and the pros have access to the same heavy tools that the police would use to force my door. And perhaps I live in a huge condo with a single door, so hacking that one lock will expose millions to ransacking. That's the nature of every digital device connected to the internet. Attacking them is a highly scalable task. You're not protected by your location, there's no affluent neighborhood with low crime and good police, where the wealthy can live and feel safe. Nope, the internet is a dystopian world when it comes to security. It's a Mad Max scenario where you're only safe if your front door and your entire house and your personal car is blinded like Fort Knox's safes, and armed with flame throwers."

Before I realized Sam had recanted his position, I wrote a point-by-point response to his first video [3]. I think the Googler did a better job relating to non-technologists.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQAmlVFjJ9k

[2] https://youtu.be/9HK4IBscfMQ

[3] https://pastelink.net/151k

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#237

Post by willholloway »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #206
willholloway wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's take a moment of deep appreciation for President Obama's decision to not panic after the San Bernadino shooting, reinstate color terror alert codes, spark a ground invasion of Syria, or in any other way overreact. For a brief interlude in American history, we had a president that didn't capitalize on terror attacks politically, or generally set a tone of paranoia and fear. We won't always be this lucky.

This recent debate has quite literally centered on his administration using the San Bernardino shootings as leverage to force Apple to break iPhone's encryption. It's the main reason this whole discussion has the profile level it does.

He's asking to strike a balance in a court case. The tone, the actions, are so incredibly measured. Even though I disagree with them. And let's face it, iPhone encryption is weak encryption, with a single point of failure, the Apple signing key.

In comparison, six weeks after 9/11 we got the entire PATRIOT act rammed through, and the current NSA domestic panopticon put into place illegally and in secret.

And the administration is making it's arguments openly, we are not being manipulated by the general climate and context.

We aren't being made to feel afraid in the way we were in those dark years. We are not being told to buy duct tape and plastic sheeting to seal doors and windows in case of biological or chemical attack. The administration is not making a big show of deploying missile batteries in DC, while the Terror Alert is raised another shade, all based on "chatter".

We had a Vice-President say we are going to have to "work the dark side", and he meant torture. And we did, in dark dungeons on the far side of the world.

We started to torture, and we all have to live with seeing torture a regular fixture in our entertainment. That wasn't the case in the same way before the Bush administration normalized the practice. Obama ended this inhumanity on his first day in office.

When I see how far reaching the changes to our culture were, when I see how it's percolated, when I see it in Hostel, Game of Thrones, or in the far more radical Scandal, which is actually honest about the sadistic motivations behind torture, I wince and mourn what we lost as Americans, and I curse the name of Dick Cheney.

We were, all of us, debased. Even our culture and entertainment was debased.

And the open source, lone wolf style of ISIS has a far greater potential to be exploited to cause mass hysteria. The fact that it isn't is a refreshing departure from what I fear is the norm in American politics.

The entire stance, attitude and tone from Obama makes me feel secure. Because I'm far more afraid of government overreach and repression than any terrorist group.

Watching Trump, hearing Chris Christie call this WW III, it gives me terrible flashbacks to a time I am glad is over.

"And let's assume that we were to send 50,000 troops into Syria -- what happens when there's a terrorist attack generated from Yemen? Do we then send more troops into there? Or Libya perhaps? Or if there's a terrorist network that's operating anywhere else in North Africa or in Southeast Asia?

- Barack Obama

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#238

Post by Aleman360 »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #34
mozumder wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, which is why we have Judicial review of communications monitoring, since we don't trust the executive branch (a political entity) with that power alone.

So you're suggesting that the sole legitimate check on governmental power is the government itself? And that anyone outside the government attempting to challenge abuses of power is by definition unfit for society?

The US government has three independent branches for a reason.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#239

Post by pearle »

ap22213 wrote: post #187
pearle wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people put too much importance on the role of the president with regards to domestic policy. You can't expect the president to effect change if congress opposes the president 100% of the time. Electing Bernie won't make a huge difference if the republicans still control congress.

And, the alternative of Republicans controlling all three branches of government would be good how?

I wasn't implying that republicans controlling all three branches of government would be good. In fact, it's rather horrifying considering the current state of that party.

However, even if democrats won back the majority of congress -- are there enough left leaning democrats enough to support Bernie's platform?

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#240

Post by eggy »

willholloway wrote: post #165
jordanb wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Washington has changed Obama more than Obama changed Washington. He's spent seven years in the craziest bubble in America surrounded by people being paid millions to distort his worldview one way or another. A while back he advised some kids in College to never type anything into a computer if they want it to remain private. For him, it probably seems completely reasonable. I doubt he's touched a keyboard sin…

Let's take a moment of deep appreciation for President Obama's decision to not panic after the San Bernadino shooting, reinstate color terror alert codes, spark a ground invasion of Syria, or in any other way overreact. For a brief interlude in American history, we had a president that didn't capitalize on terror attacks politically, or generally set a tone of paranoia and fear. We won't always be this lucky.

No, he just sanctions low-key drone strikes in countries we're not even at war with keeping a hushed public content. Just listen to his SXSW speech. I think you see the real Obama showing through there, and no, it is not an idealist who was corrupted by Washington. He is slick as they come in Washington.
Post reply on HN