251–260 of 570 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>here's how I like to get past the "nothing to hide" argument. Personally I like to just remind people if we had nothing to hide, nobody would wear clothing, own curtains, or care about peeping toms.
>Personally I like to just remind people if we had nothing to hide, nobody would wear clothing, you must live in a nice climate.
If you want to convince your friends they should support encryption, here's how I like to get past the "nothing to hide" argument. Imagine we're sitting at a bar, chatting. None of us have anything to hide. Then the government passes a law that all conversations must be streamed on Youtube Live, so an agent comes in, sets up a camera at our table, and starts streaming. We still don't "have anything to hide". We're ju…
I like the speeding analogy. "I have nothing to hide" "Have you ever sped on the highway?" "Well, yes" "Imagine if the government reveals it's been tracking everyone's speed, and has decided to write everyone tickets for speeding." "That's insane, the government can't do that!" "Exactly"
To Californians, Dianne Feinstein is one of the cosponsors of the bill in the Senate. It really grinds my gears seeing our senior leadership from California take actions that directly harm our interests, both towards our peoples' freedom and our businesses. I feel vindicated for voting against her in 2018, because I thought she'd be out of touch with our interests as a state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This doesn't address my question though I did address it, though the answer is disappointing: Only Google (or someone with Google's private business data) could give you that number. But it's absolutely much higher than they'd like you to believe. I just can't tell you if it's 30%, 60%, or 90% of their revenue, the public doesn't have access to that information. I'm confident that how ever much you believe it is, i…
> I did address it, though the answer is disappointing: Only Google (or someone with Google's private business data) could give you that number. But it's absolutely much higher than they'd like you to believe. Well, that's pretty much wishful thinking. > Broadcast companies are already held to all of the laws and risks that Section 230 is protecting Google and Facebook from. Are they now. Let's put it this way: secti…
Under what law? Section 230 is a special exemption for tech companies. Without it, Google is indeed subject to the same laws as Fox News. Now, it's possible those laws aren't strong enough... but they'd be equally not strong enough upon both Google and Fox News.
Currently, Fox News is held accountable poorly, and Google is not held accountable at all whatsoever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Feinstein is easily the worst Democratic Senator. It's absolutely bonkers to me that a state where tech is as important as it is keeps re-electing her. Surely there's someone out there who wants to primary her?
CA has a blanket primary, which means that all candidates from all parties take part in the primary and then the top 2 compete in the general election, regardless of party affiliation. Feinstein wiped the floor with everyone in the primary in 2018. She took 44% of the vote, and the next leading candidate (Kevin de Leon) took 12%. When they ran against each other, de Leon lost by a fairly large margin but turnout kind…
Obviously there are other externalities to consider (Feinstein is very senior), etc... But I don't know why anyone is so upset that she's the "worst democrat". She'd be the "worst republican" too.
You want consensus-building nonpartisan elections, you get candidates that reflect social consensus and not your particular party's priorities.
If you want to convince your friends they should support encryption, here's how I like to get past the "nothing to hide" argument. Imagine we're sitting at a bar, chatting. None of us have anything to hide. Then the government passes a law that all conversations must be streamed on Youtube Live, so an agent comes in, sets up a camera at our table, and starts streaming. We still don't "have anything to hide". We're ju…
Or if you can do it with a straight face “when was the last time you masturbated?” :)
If you want to convince your friends they should support encryption, here's how I like to get past the "nothing to hide" argument. Imagine we're sitting at a bar, chatting. None of us have anything to hide. Then the government passes a law that all conversations must be streamed on Youtube Live, so an agent comes in, sets up a camera at our table, and starts streaming. We still don't "have anything to hide". We're ju…
I mean, the government already legally demands that all the large corporations make them a copy of all of your communications that pass through them. So why should it be legal for you to encrypt any of it without them being able to decrypt it? How are they supposed to spy on you effectively with just the meta-data, you know?
If you want to convince your friends they should support encryption, here's how I like to get past the "nothing to hide" argument. Imagine we're sitting at a bar, chatting. None of us have anything to hide. Then the government passes a law that all conversations must be streamed on Youtube Live, so an agent comes in, sets up a camera at our table, and starts streaming. We still don't "have anything to hide". We're ju…
I think the key here isn't broadcasting, it's storage. In the future (?) we might think we can detect Parkinson's or MS very early through voice/video/typing characteristics. Your conversations were recorded, the data leaked to or purchased by a fly by night company hired by your bank, and now suddenly despite your excellent credit history you can't get a 30 year mortgage, you try to find a new job but companies are…
We probably won't.