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

When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests

news.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 264 posts

Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests

#181

Post by ryanmarsh »

kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #101
Gys wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comparison that Bruce Schneider makes is not correct. Governments are likely to control food pathogens and airline risks because they need living, productive, happy voters. But governments have also a fundamental distrust for all individuals and therefore want as much surveillance as possible. By allowing big companies to collect that, they have access as well. Therefore I think governments are not motivated to i…

People downvoting you are probably taking your statement as normative, whereas it's purely positive. It's not about what the govt should do. It is what it does. For example, the police, the IRS, DHS etc etc. (and hence the state) WILL be helped in their jobs by increasing surveillance, and so will always be trying to increase its scope. Whether it's _worth_ the loss of privacy is of course a valid debate.

People downvoting you are probably taking your statement as normative

A bit meta but I wish more up/downvoters on HN could tell the difference between normative and descriptive speech.

Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests

#182

Post by eeZah7Ux »

zanny wrote: post #70
eeZah7Ux wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spot on. The test at https://www.politicalcompass.org/ works reasonably well.

That test was accurate in pinning what I do believe my political leanings are, but the questions were awful and loaded. In the surrounding exposition and in the questions themselves the authors demonstrate what I believe to be a staunch leftist / progressive leaning. A lot of questions I read thinking "just because of how they worded this I have to say X because they are making an absolutionist statement on something…

> That test was accurate

> the authors demonstrate what I believe to be a staunch leftist

Sounds like somebody is biased here.

> "just because of how they worded this I have to say X because they are making an absolutionist statement on something I'm not absolutionist about".

That's how and why the test works. It need to extract the user's leaning by choosing between extremes.

Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests

#183

Post by drngdds »

vbuwivbiu wrote: post #51
grondilu wrote: post #39

Can someone explain to me why this so-called "privacy" is such a big deal on internet? Can't internet, or at least a major part of it, be considered a public place? I mean, when I walk in the street, I do not wear a mask (I suspect that'd be illegal in my country), yet I do not worry about someone using surveillance cameras to track all my activities. Sure, it could technically be done but I'm not that important : no…

ok go ahead and publish all your email, chat messages and bank account details here now

I don't think this is a good argument. Posting personal information on a public forum is completely different from letting it sit in some database that no human is likely to look at. The latter can be a reasonable trade-off to use a free service.

Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests

#184

Post by barrkel »

Gys wrote: post #89
Chardok wrote: post #60

"Opting out doesn’t work. It’s nonsense to tell people not to carry a credit card or not to have an email address. And “buyer beware” is putting too much onus on the individual. People don’t test their food for pathogens or their airlines for safety." This is a brilliant line and it works so well because he is absolutely right: it should not be on the burden of the consumer to make sure their products are safe, be it…

The comparison that Bruce Schneider makes is not correct. Governments are likely to control food pathogens and airline risks because they need living, productive, happy voters. But governments have also a fundamental distrust for all individuals and therefore want as much surveillance as possible. By allowing big companies to collect that, they have access as well. Therefore I think governments are not motivated to i…

Governments care about food pathogens because ultimately they are held accountable by the people. They are not a malignant force, parasitic on society. Governments solve collective action problems by getting everybody to play by one set of rules and punishing people who don't.

I know what you say is popular in certain political circles, but it's a false idea about government. Worse, it's a cynical meme that corrupts people into making government less effective, by both stopping people from trying to hold government to account, and not trying to change the rules that governments enforce.

The best way to make your idea of government true is to stand idly by and do nothing.

Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests

#185

Post by walterbell »

KSteffensen wrote: post #178
ballenf wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we've all seen the story over and over: populist politician gets in power and forgets everything. They start to sacrifice principles in return for staying in power in order to ostensibly do the right thing later. But later never comes. So, maybe theoretically we can influence, but understanding the nature of what a self-interested, pragmatic government beaurocrat values is incredibly important. I think the pa…

Elect the parliament by lottery. 4 years of service if you get drafted, replace 25% of seats per year. Would be far more representative of the people than current way and less susceptible to populism. People often think I'm joking when I propose this but I haven't heard a good argument against it yet.

See the Ekklesia (Ancient Greece) for pro/con:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9817173

Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests

#186

Post by barrkel »

kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #101
Gys wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comparison that Bruce Schneider makes is not correct. Governments are likely to control food pathogens and airline risks because they need living, productive, happy voters. But governments have also a fundamental distrust for all individuals and therefore want as much surveillance as possible. By allowing big companies to collect that, they have access as well. Therefore I think governments are not motivated to i…

People downvoting you are probably taking your statement as normative, whereas it's purely positive. It's not about what the govt should do. It is what it does. For example, the police, the IRS, DHS etc etc. (and hence the state) WILL be helped in their jobs by increasing surveillance, and so will always be trying to increase its scope. Whether it's _worth_ the loss of privacy is of course a valid debate.

It is not a positive statement. It sounds like one, by it's actually a judgement about how effective government is. I'm quite certain that it is false.

Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests

#187

Post by peterwwillis »

> In the 1970s, Congress passed a law to make a particular form of subliminal advertising illegal because it was believed to be morally wrong. That advertising technique is child’s play compared to the kind of personalized manipulation that companies do today. The legal question is whether this kind of cyber-manipulation is an unfair and deceptive business practice, and, if so, can the Federal Trade Commission step in and prohibit a lot of these practices.

Three things here:

1. Nobody has ever proved subliminal messaging can actually subvert a person's will, which was reflected in court cases. Even a modern experiment set up by the BBC (apparently the only such study since the 50's) showed no effect.

2. The FTC has never said anything about subliminal messaging, so it's unlikely they would now.

3. Subliminal messaging never helped pay for users' free services.

Let's face it - we live in a different world. The old ideas of privacy, whatever they were, are erased when there's a carrot attached to it, and no stick. Schneider is doing a great deed in trying to drum up support for increased privacy regulations, but this is a stupid argument toward that end.

Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests

#188

Post by kerkeslager »

Nelkins wrote: post #176
kerkeslager wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm not willing to give my personal information to Tinder, why would I post it on HN?

Your personal website with an "About" page is in your HN profile...

My website contains a very limited picture of my life.

Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests

#189

Post by SilasX »

Gys wrote: post #89
Chardok wrote: post #60

"Opting out doesn’t work. It’s nonsense to tell people not to carry a credit card or not to have an email address. And “buyer beware” is putting too much onus on the individual. People don’t test their food for pathogens or their airlines for safety." This is a brilliant line and it works so well because he is absolutely right: it should not be on the burden of the consumer to make sure their products are safe, be it…

The comparison that Bruce Schneider makes is not correct. Governments are likely to control food pathogens and airline risks because they need living, productive, happy voters. But governments have also a fundamental distrust for all individuals and therefore want as much surveillance as possible. By allowing big companies to collect that, they have access as well. Therefore I think governments are not motivated to i…

I don't think that's true, even under your model of a malicious government. Officials don't want their private conversations monitored, so they ensured that it would be a crime to secretly record conversations.

Likewise, once these tools are used to compromise their privacy, they will demand better safeguards.

Re: When it comes to internet privacy, be afraid, analyst suggests

#190

Post by peterwwillis »

septarol wrote: post #91

When I place a sticker over my laptop's camera, people think I am freak or acting like a hacker. In fact, I just want to protect my freedom. However, society doesn't care freedom. They care just their popularity and don't want to be alienated. I think this is where problems come from.

I could wear a tinfoil hat and claim I was protecting my freedom. That doesn't make it a great idea.

Of course nobody wants to be alienated. We do a lot of stupid shit to fit into society. But with the range of potential attacks on your freedom, putting a post-it note on your webcam is right up there with tinfoil hats.

There are real actions you could be taking to defend your freedom - like contacting your representatives in government, or donating to organizations that fight for your rights, or telling your friends and family why they should care. You can vote with your dollars, and vote with your actual vote, and your feedback.

After all that's done, fine, put up the post-it note. But you can at least write "remember to get milk" on it so people don't assume it's a tinfoil hat.

Post reply on HN