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

231–240 of 264 posts

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

#231

Post by hsdfusa »

voidhorse wrote: post #99
hnaccy wrote: post #8

I'm already extremely pessimistic about these things. Computers were a mistake and represent the greatest threat to freedom in human history. The ability of those in power to mass produce perfectly obedient machines that can perform complex tasks without rest allow for a nightmare society. Additionally machine learning asymmetrically benefits those with the resources to fully leverage large amounts of data collection…

I like reading your darkly pessimistic perspective on the issue as I think a huge component to the problem is the fact that so many aren't pessimistic enough about technological development. Everyone seems to think that, prima facie, or even de facto: technological progress == good. But there is nothing that guarantees that's the case. A shiny new device or service launches and everyone is gung ho to jump on it--neve…

> We seem to follow a policy of progress by all means until we've developed our way into a future in which the continued subsistence of humanity (at least on earth) is untenable.

I just don't see how you got to this conclusion. In what way could technological progress make it untenable for humanity to continue?

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

#232

Post by SimbaOnSteroids »

lordCarbonFiber wrote: post #226
SimbaOnSteroids wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't unopen Pandora's Box, and trying to close it is a bit of a sisphyian task. Might as well enjoy the terrors of the box.

But there are better chat solutions out there. Discord is pretty awful, terrible audio quality, limited room sizes, the aforementioned privacy concerns stemming from no self hosting and lack of interoperability with other chat protocols. When technologies like Matrix [matrix.org] exist and we've had superior dedicated voip programs (mumble et al) for decades there's nothing appealing about discord is the AoL mail of…

Free, browser based, integrated well with games, widespread.

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

#233

Post by to_bpr »

hsdfusa wrote: post #230
gglitch wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Computers were a mistake and represent the greatest threat to freedom in human history. The ability of those in power to mass produce perfectly obedient machines that can perform complex tasks without rest allow for a nightmare society. I think about that a lot. It suggests to me that the real problem lies not with technology, but with something unavoidable and self-destructive about human nature.

> something unavoidable and self-destructive about human nature. What specifically? Wanting power and control?

>What specifically? Wanting power and control?

What about the fact that we're the only species to hoard way more resources than we'll ever need, to the point where we're quite literally destroying the environment and life around us in order to maintain our over-consumption of resources?

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

#235

Post by bunderbunder »

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 it quite works to try to talk about governments as if they are individual, coherent entities.

There are government agencies whose business is to collect information. The people working for these agencies will do so _to the extent that they are allowed to_, because that is what they perceive their mission to be. Other people's job is to set limits, and they will set exactly the limits they think they have a mandate to set. They get their sense of that mandate from many possible sources, but in a republic one of the most important sources is public opinion.

Which is where you get to the real kernel of the issue: In the USA, surveys indicate that most Americans remain in favor of large scale state surveillance.

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

#236

Post by nocman »

axedwool wrote: post #173
nocman wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I knew someone would come back with that -- but that's only true if you tie a very strict one-to-one meaning between every use of the verb "accept" and the adjective "acceptable". Words have subtle meanings. If you paid attention to my post, I was clearly drawing a line between the fact that people accept the fact that they really don't have a good alternative to using, say, Google. But they may not find it acce…

I don't think people in an unacceptable situation 'accept' it. With your example of unacceptable workplaces, they express their resentment in other ways. Maybe they find the minimum they can produce without being disciplined and only do that much. Maybe they spread malicious gossip at the office. Maybe they go home and abuse their spouse or children. Maybe they become alcoholics, or political extremists, or religious…

Here again is another example of the subtlety of words. The fact that someone "accepts" a situation doesn't automatically mean that they are happy about it, and it also doesn't mean that they do nothing to change it. It can just mean that they realize that is the way it is for now, and they deal with it as best they can -- often while looking for ways to change the situation.

Also, while it is true that people do often respond to unacceptable situations in extreme ways, it is most definitely not the case that people always do so. There is a such thing as patience and perseverance, and people do often accept that they are in an unacceptable situation for a time (often a very long time), while actively seeking to change the situation. People can overcome adversity.

The phrase "People trapped in situations they find unacceptable don't suffer in silence; they become pathological, dangerous people." is most definitely not universally true. It does happen yes, but many people also just press on and keep looking for a way out until they find it.

And yes, some of them do suffer in silence without becoming "pathological, dangerous people". One common example is a case where an unacceptable situation permits them to achieve something that is more important to them. For instance, people work some pretty nasty jobs (either due to jerk employers/employees, or just the necessary work conditions of the job -- some jobs are hot/smelly/hard-on-the-body, etc). But there are people who take and/or keep these kind of jobs in order to feed their families. Often they have tried to find other work, but lack the necessary skills, or there just isn't any other work available. So these people work under these conditions only because that's the only route to feeding their families. It is an admirable thing to do, and I find it sad that so many people don't respect others who make that kind of sacrifice in order to take care of others.

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

#237

Post by ethbro »

Chardok wrote: post #219
dredmorbius wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though his intent was to create employment reforms. "Iaimed for the public's heart, and ... hit it in the stomach". http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-05-21/features/06052...

That was actually a very nice read! I just finished the book and certainly remember the meat factory scenes the most, but couldn't help but feel Upton would have been disappointed from the message he was trying to ultimately convey.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I know he was disappointed with the outcome, but it was still an improvement during a fairly capital-friendly administration.

(Though Teddy Roosevelt certainly pissed off monied interests when he felt they were acting immorally)

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

#238

Post by superioritycplx »

rdtsc wrote: post #6

> Snowden’s revelations made people aware of what was happening, but little changed as a result. Things got worse and that's expected. After all these things were made public, if there was no mass outrage the perpetrators learned a valuable lesson - they can increase their activities without much fear. Pretty sure at this point NSA doesn't even have to play games with masking / unmasking filtering US citizens, they m…

The outrage was probably there, but it was skillfully smeared as tinfoil hattery, as usual.

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

#239

Post by grwthckrmstr »

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…

Case in point, just last week the Indian government was trying to fight the Supreme court of our country AGAINST privacy laws.

Supreme court (and the people) prevailed, Privacy is now a fundamental right.

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

#240

Post by grwthckrmstr »

savanaly wrote: post #153
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…

>I don't know what needs to happen for people to get outraged, but privacy needs to be a mainstream political issue. Almost totally orthogonal to discussions about how bad lack of privacy is getting, but the answer to the question posed is certainly any tangibly bad results of lack of privacy in my everyday life, ever . Which there really are none, so far. Certainly none that the average person would attribute to lac…

Availability bias. You're not able to see it around you, or immediately. It doesn't mean there's no effect.
Post reply on HN