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

241–250 of 264 posts

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

#241

Post by chongli »

ballenf wrote: post #125
Anderkent wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an explanation of how this is happening, not an argument that it should happen. What governments do is not some mysterious black-box that we can't influence.

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…

Honestly, I'd prefer to have a government repeatedly fail to implement its own agenda than one which whips violently to and fro like a tree in a storm. When we let the mob into the halls of power we get a lot of bloodshed and little good. The intransigence of the bureaucracy is a feature, not a bug.

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

#242

Post by 0xBA5ED »

peterwwillis wrote: post #190
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 representa…

I wouldn't call it "tinfoil hat" because the cost/benefit is extremely low. Negligible effort in exchange for piece of mind. It's a reasonable trade-off. You can never be sure what all your software is doing unless you piece together your own linux system from scratch.

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

#244

Post by westmeal »

hsdfusa wrote: post #231
voidhorse wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not him but you see this very thing now. Look at pollution and CO2 emissions for an example of how technological progress can directly threaten humanity.

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

#245

Post by westmeal »

ashark wrote: post #16
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'd go farther: I'm unsure that communication technologies past approximately the telegraph have actually improved quality of life more than they've harmed it. At least in developed countries (simply don't know enough about life in un-/under-developed countries to have an opinion).

How so?

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

#246

Post by EdSharkey »

bunderbunder wrote: post #235
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…

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 hav…

There's a curious abstract thinking process of "government can do some good in the world" that spawns the bureaucratic leviathan capable of all kinds of mischief.

I read some of ancestors' comments and wonder why they always seem willfully blind to it. Is there a still small voice in them that says, "A little waste is to be expected" or "WE are in control of it, I am certain"? Utopian dreamers and busybodies, ugh.

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

#247

Post by 482794793792894 »

pgodzin wrote: post #83

Google, for instance, has a ton of data about me. They don't sell that data directly to advertisers, because if they give up that data then it loses all value to Google because the advertisers would then be able to resell it. So instead they let advertisers target specific demographics of people, leveraging what they know about me. As long as I use an adblocker and individual information isn't sold to insurers for ex…

The data is stored on Google's server, therefore can be accessed by the NSA, FBI, CIA and by the However-Many Eyes' intelligence agencies. All of those places can be breached, can accidentally leak your data or can even change their mind about keeping your data secret. And given that they're most likely storing this data indefinitely, that chance is 100%. It's going to become public at some point. How long it takes until that happens and how accurate/harmful that data then still is to your current life is a different question. But personally, I see no reason to unnecessarily risk that.

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

#248

Post by 482794793792894 »

stephengillie wrote: post #38
1001101 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roll up the shades.

Maybe fear isn't the right reaction. We have almost no privacy, and the world isn't ending. Many of us goto work or school, just as before we were so heavily surveiled. Also, who makes money off us being afraid of not having privacy?

The already linked Panopticon shows that a lack of privacy can lead to severe mental problems.

The Stasi subdued an entire country via surveillance and that before the internet, before CCTV and before everyone voluntarily carried a microphone in their pocket.

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

#249

Post by peterwwillis »

0xBA5ED wrote: post #242
peterwwillis wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 representa…

I wouldn't call it "tinfoil hat" because the cost/benefit is extremely low. Negligible effort in exchange for piece of mind. It's a reasonable trade-off. You can never be sure what all your software is doing unless you piece together your own linux system from scratch.

That's what a tinfoil hat is. Nobody wants to watch your particular webcam, just like the government does not want to influence your particular brain. But people put on the tinfoil hat anyway because it's cheap and it gives them piece of mind.

You could also just implement strong security guarantees according to best practice for your OS, but the piece of paper is definitely much cheaper and more effective for this one purpose.

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

#250

Post by KSteffensen »

ethbro wrote: post #205
KSteffensen wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As someone who agrees with the idea, here's some arguments against it. 1) By taking the average, you are risking compounding educational decreases in the populace. Bad public education policy is enacted, chosen politicians become less educated, worse public policy is enacted, etc etc. 2) By using less experienced politians, you lessen the efficiency of the entire political process. 3) By not having the possibility of…

1) This mechanism is already present in the current electoral system and is very evident in the election of Trump.

2) This is the reason to only replace 25% if the parliament per year so that not all experience is lost. It gives more power to non-elected public officials which can be good or bad.

3) By removing reelection you also remove career politicians and reduce corruption. No need for campaign contributions or campaigning promises. Also, the drafted people would go back to their social circles to be judged by their peers after ended term of office where they would have to own their decisions.

Post reply on HN