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

Canada’s federal court rules intelligence service bulk data collection illegal

theglobeandmail.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 56 posts

Re: Canada’s federal court rules intelligence service bulk data collection illegal

#31

Post by closeparen »

MrLeap wrote: post #26
chongli wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trust open technologies you understand, not politicians. How many people really understand these technologies? For anyone who lacks either the time or the know-how to audit the source code: what do you suggest? If it's not "find the time and educate yourself" then does your statement not revert to: "Trust these technology experts instead of these politicians." ? To which I'd respond: Why? Why is a technology expert m…

Well, a technology expert is - in aggregate - more trustworthy than a politician because their incentives align with yours. This isn't to say that every technology expert can be trusted. The hope is that many eyes looking at the problem helps move the needle. Politics might as well be the science of deception. My pithy opinion is that nearly everyone is more trustworthy than a politician.

A technology expert is - in aggregate - working for a company that derives its revenue from user data in some way.

Re: Canada’s federal court rules intelligence service bulk data collection illegal

#32

Post by AlexandrB »

skybrian wrote: post #23
appleiigs wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd extend it to: you'd be a fool to trust anyone with your data and privacy. At least law enforcement is working under the premise of the good of society (albeit, implemented poorly), compared to Google and Facebook which is working to monetize you.

They are working to monetize you by (ideally) showing you ads for things you actually want to buy. Connecting willing buyers and sellers is generally considered good in a capitalist society. Of course we're all familiar with the ways consumers can gamed and all the ways adtech makes the Internet suck, but the argument about good intentions works at least as well as it does for law enforcement. (Maybe better because i…

> They are working to monetize you by (ideally) showing you ads for things you actually want to buy. Connecting willing buyers and sellers is generally considered good in a capitalist society.

Advertising doesn't just "connect buyers and sellers" but can also generate demand for products that are worthless otherwise. The diamond industry is the obvious example. You might say that this stimulates the economy but I would argue it's an example of the broken window fallacy.

Re: Canada’s federal court rules intelligence service bulk data collection illegal

#33

Post by hbt »

chongli wrote: post #25
hbt wrote: post #18

You'd have to be a fool to trust lawmakers or law enforcement with your data and privacy by this point. They will always find some loophole in the language. Illegal to collect but not illegal to access what has been collected by allies (aka the Five Eyes). Just encrypt everything, use VPNs and whatever you push in plain/text may as well be public. Trust open technologies you understand, not politicians.

Trust open technologies you understand, not politicians. How many people really understand these technologies? For anyone who lacks either the time or the know-how to audit the source code: what do you suggest? If it's not "find the time and educate yourself" then does your statement not revert to: "Trust these technology experts instead of these politicians." ? To which I'd respond: Why? Why is a technology expert m…

Here are your choices:

* educate yourself and grow your self reliance to understand & use these technologies and look for your interests

* delegate the work to experts, trust authorities and hope they have your best interest

* isolate yourself from technology and pay the economic/social price.

Your Freedom takes work. You can't delegate it. There will always be a conflict between individual freedom and social safety.

Re: Canada’s federal court rules intelligence service bulk data collection illegal

#34

Post by thaumasiotes »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #29
MichaelBurge wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as you can convince the prosecutor or jury you're not guilty, you can shoot someone on the street in plain sight with video evidence and get off free or without charges. It's up to the prosecutor whether he'll be persuaded by your elaborate scheme. I'm sure he's heard worse.

> As long as you can convince the prosecutor or jury you're not guilty, you can shoot someone on the street in plain sight with video evidence and get off free or without charges. For those who don't know, this is called jury nullification.

For the jury it is. For the prosecutor it's called prosecutorial discretion.

Being formally acquitted means you can't be charged later; this is not true of just not being prosecuted in the first place.

Re: Canada’s federal court rules intelligence service bulk data collection illegal

#35

Post by lern_too_spel »

appleiigs wrote: post #20
hbt wrote: post #18

You'd have to be a fool to trust lawmakers or law enforcement with your data and privacy by this point. They will always find some loophole in the language. Illegal to collect but not illegal to access what has been collected by allies (aka the Five Eyes). Just encrypt everything, use VPNs and whatever you push in plain/text may as well be public. Trust open technologies you understand, not politicians.

I'd extend it to: you'd be a fool to trust anyone with your data and privacy. At least law enforcement is working under the premise of the good of society (albeit, implemented poorly), compared to Google and Facebook which is working to monetize you.

What difference does it make under your argument whether they are trying to monetize the data or not? As long as they have your data, it's at risk. It's the same for Apple and Microsoft as it is for Google and Facebook. That Tim Cook pretends not to understand it doesn't mean we have to buy his misguided marketing speak.

Re: Canada’s federal court rules intelligence service bulk data collection illegal

#36

Post by eikenberry »

chongli wrote: post #25
hbt wrote: post #18

You'd have to be a fool to trust lawmakers or law enforcement with your data and privacy by this point. They will always find some loophole in the language. Illegal to collect but not illegal to access what has been collected by allies (aka the Five Eyes). Just encrypt everything, use VPNs and whatever you push in plain/text may as well be public. Trust open technologies you understand, not politicians.

Trust open technologies you understand, not politicians. How many people really understand these technologies? For anyone who lacks either the time or the know-how to audit the source code: what do you suggest? If it's not "find the time and educate yourself" then does your statement not revert to: "Trust these technology experts instead of these politicians." ? To which I'd respond: Why? Why is a technology expert m…

> To which I'd respond: Why? Why is a technology expert more trustworthy than a politician?

Is that a rhetorical question?

Re: Canada’s federal court rules intelligence service bulk data collection illegal

#37

Post by anonbanker »

hbt wrote: post #18

You'd have to be a fool to trust lawmakers or law enforcement with your data and privacy by this point. They will always find some loophole in the language. Illegal to collect but not illegal to access what has been collected by allies (aka the Five Eyes). Just encrypt everything, use VPNs and whatever you push in plain/text may as well be public. Trust open technologies you understand, not politicians.

On top of encrypting everything/using VPNs, you'd have to be a fool to trust your data to a Five Eyes country in $current_year. Put that encrypted data/email on a server in Iceland or Seychelles, completely out of reach of the panopticon.

You'd be almost as large a fool incorporating in a Five Eyes country for the same reasons. Bermuda and Nevis are beautiful countries for more than just the scenery.

Take your assets, and even your liabilities out of the country who doesn't respect your privacy. This is how you truly vote with your wallet in the 21st century.

Re: Canada’s federal court rules intelligence service bulk data collection illegal

#38

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

eikenberry wrote: post #36
chongli wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trust open technologies you understand, not politicians. How many people really understand these technologies? For anyone who lacks either the time or the know-how to audit the source code: what do you suggest? If it's not "find the time and educate yourself" then does your statement not revert to: "Trust these technology experts instead of these politicians." ? To which I'd respond: Why? Why is a technology expert m…

> To which I'd respond: Why? Why is a technology expert more trustworthy than a politician? Is that a rhetorical question?

What is this supposed to mean?

The term "technology expert" also encompasses all the Black Hats Hackers and criminals - both opportunistic criminals and organised crime. The people who write ransomware are technology experts.

Re: Canada’s federal court rules intelligence service bulk data collection illegal

#39

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

MrLeap wrote: post #26
chongli wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trust open technologies you understand, not politicians. How many people really understand these technologies? For anyone who lacks either the time or the know-how to audit the source code: what do you suggest? If it's not "find the time and educate yourself" then does your statement not revert to: "Trust these technology experts instead of these politicians." ? To which I'd respond: Why? Why is a technology expert m…

Well, a technology expert is - in aggregate - more trustworthy than a politician because their incentives align with yours. This isn't to say that every technology expert can be trusted. The hope is that many eyes looking at the problem helps move the needle. Politics might as well be the science of deception. My pithy opinion is that nearly everyone is more trustworthy than a politician.

Well, a technology expert is - in aggregate - more trustworthy than a politician because their incentives align with yours.

This is ... myopic. Do you think ransomeware is written by politicians?

All malicious software is written by technology experts.

Is not that I trust politicians, far from it: we know they're all lying crooked thieves.

But you think "technology experts are more trustworthy."

Re: Canada’s federal court rules intelligence service bulk data collection illegal

#40

Post by cloudjacker »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #38
eikenberry wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To which I'd respond: Why? Why is a technology expert more trustworthy than a politician? Is that a rhetorical question?

What is this supposed to mean? The term "technology expert" also encompasses all the Black Hats Hackers and criminals - both opportunistic criminals and organised crime . The people who write ransomware are technology experts.

> The people who write ransomware are technology experts.

protip: the white hat and black hat programmers are the same people.

Post reply on HN