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

Oppose the Earn IT Act

foundation.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 570 posts

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#361

Post by lovelyviking »

apeace wrote: post #233
newfeatureok wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not really sure this is a good argument at all. In your scenario, if the two people have nothing to hide why would they care? You're better of appealing to things that they normally might want to hide, like an embarrassing act or things that are said that are questionable out of context, etc. A person who truly has nothing to hide, by definition, would not care about privacy. The entire point of privacy is that t…

People tend to feel attacked when you argue that they do, in fact, have something to hide. Even when you come from the perspective that everyone has something to hide, mostly small things. I've had the best success with the argument I posted. It helps people understand that privacy isn't "hiding", it's normal. What's not normal is guaranteeing your government can see everything you do all the time, and we should thin…

Actually it reveals a twist in those in favour of surveillance . What they do they falsely accuse you of 'hiding' while you simply naturally expected not to be invaded.

They invade you and then they they kind of ask you what is the problem? you have something to hide? And some people say : Oh, we have nothing to hide. But the problem is the fact of invasion, not wether they have to hide something or not.

It's like someone invades your territory or takes your stuff and you say, oh, i don't really need those. It's not the problem wether you need those or not. The problem is that you can't decide about it anymore, you right to decide was taken away. In case of property you loose right to private property. In case of free speech you loose your right for free speech. In case of privacy you loose your right choose not to be watched. You loose ability to decide to be private if you wish. That is the problem.

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#362

Post by wmeredith »

ypcx wrote: post #52
blintz wrote: post #3

I cannot believe that the one thing we have bipartisan consensus on is destroying strong encryption. I guess I’m biased since this is essentially my whole livelihood, but this is crazy, right?

It is worse than just crazy. Government is made of people, and people are corruptible. If the encryption backdoor key leaks from the government to a bad actor, it will create a "national security" issue of magnitude never seen before. If this line of reasoning is correct, then proposing an encryption backdoor is akin to committing an act of treason in itself, because it is purposely weakening the technological infras…

It's not if it leaks, but when. And despite what you think about who's in charge now (whether it's your "team" or not) it won't always be that way.

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#363

Post by lovelyviking »

mindfulhack wrote: post #344
apeace wrote: post #208

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…

Humans need privacy because of the selfishness of our survival biology. There simply are bad people in the world, and I wish it were different, but it's not. 'Just trust us' are words often told to us by people who only want power - at our expense. The best sentiment I've ever heard about privacy is from Shoshana Zuboff, and it's now influenced my thoughts. It's at the end of her amazing 2018 book 'Surveillance Capit…

>I'm able to see the insanity of my own age. And I will guard privacy with my life on the street, if I have to.

I think what we may not realise yet is that we are possibly under new attack of 'modern communism'. They changed clothes and they do not call themselves communists, but their actions and principles they protect are revealing who they are and we know how many people died in 20 century because of this ideology.

>It is an insult to anyone who is different from the norm

And now they attack the basic principles of a free society.

>Privacy is a core freedom to protect human diversity. It must not be shamed. It must be loved. Cherished. Treasured.

I would also add it's a core freedom to protect a free society respecting human rights.

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#365

Post by vpzom »

kulahan wrote: post #270
apeace wrote: post #208

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…

The best argument I ever heard was: "Would you give up your right to free speech just because you have nothing important to say? No? Then why would you give up your right to privacy just because you have nothing to hide?"

Though plenty of people don't believe in the right to free speech

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#366

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

apeace wrote: post #208

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…

> 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.

If we are doing imaginary situations, the proponents of this bill can also do something like this:

Imagine there is a bar, where the police are unable to go inside. Every day, people go into the bar to plan terror attacks or to spread hate and racism. They can have whoever from across the world join them in the private bar without the police being able to find out. Sometimes they also bring young children into the bar to sexually exploit them. Other times, they bring vulnerable young men and indoctrinate them with their racist hate. The owner of the bar knows that those kinds of things are happening, but they say, a lot of people just come into the bar to talk with friends, so we never allow the police to come. In addition, before serving drinks, the owner puts on a blindfold and stuffs their ears with cotton so they won't be able to see or hear what is going on. They live by the principle: See no evil, hear no evil. The owner of the bar is making a lot of money from the people using the bar.

Don't you think we should keep the terrorists, and neo-Nazis, and child molesters from having a bar that they can go to to do and plan their evil stuff that police cannot get to? Don't you think that the bar owners, instead of stuffing their ears and covering their eyes so they are unable to see the bad stuff, should make sure that bad people aren't using their bar for evil stuff. Sure, just like in the real world, you will have your privacy just like you have in your home or at the local bar. But, you would want a real life bar owner to not close their eyes to people using their bar as a planning ground for terrorism, or who are bringing young kids with fake id's to the bar to exploit them, or who are filling young men's minds with hateful, racist lies? Also, just like the police can get a search warrant for a bad person's home or a bar where a lot of bad people are congregating and planning and doing bad things, we think they should also be allowed to do that in the online world.

Now tell me, to the average non-tech voter, which will pull the most emotional strings?

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#367

Post by drak0n1c »

pphysch wrote: post #113
snarf21 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fear-mongering is strong. Look at all the freedoms we lost after 9/11. Pedophiles and terrorists and porn are always the scapegoats. It is also a very electable sound bite. Everyone is against the "bad people". Re-election at any cost is the goal. We have government of the people and by the people but we stopped being for the people long long ago.

Don't forget the communists, the OG once-and-future scapegoats.

The fearmongering list has also been expanded to Russia and the far-right. As the list of perceived threats grows more varied, so does bipartisan support for undermining encryption.

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#369

Post by antoncohen »

newacct583 wrote: post #304
mindslight wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a person who broadly supports existing social structures. So yes, they're going to support law enforcement over privacy, the media industry over public access concerns We already have a word for this - conservative . And I do agree that conservatives have consistent and valid points, even if I do not agree. I don't know what other word to use besides "authoritarian" as in the two-dimensional political space with re…

Again, you're playing semantic games. That's not what "conservative" means in modern political discourse, at all. And I'm sure you know this. In fact when journalists want to use the sense you cited they generally have to call it out explicitly (c.f. "small-c conservative", by reference to the Conservative parties in commonwealth nations). > I don't know what other word to use besides "authoritarian" And for the same…

Misusing terms like that makes it harder to have a meaningful conversation about political beliefs. Someone might say "I'm not conservative, I'm liberal". But that is nonsensical. Liberal and conservative are on different spectrums. It would be like saying "I don't like white things, I like sweet things". The color/light spectrum is different from the taste spectrum, and vanilla ice cream is both white and sweet. Someone can be liberal and conservative.

The three political spectrums are:

- Progressive Conservative

- Liberal Fascist (Authoritarian)

- Left-wing Right-wing

Progressive is someone who pushes are for change, major change, and rapid change. Conservative is someone who likes things how they are, wants to make changes slowly and carefully. People can be progressive on some topics (like pushing for civil rights), and conservative on others (like being careful about changing fiscal policy). But lots of people will default to one or the other.

Liberal is to allow, a true liberal would allow things they disagree with. A fascist (authoritarian) forces everyone to be like them, and passes laws to force everyone to do as they believe.

Left-wing and right-wing is less a spectrum and more clustering of ideologies.

Left-wing ideologies generally favor the community as a whole over the individual, and support those with less power or who are less well off. That results in things like pro environment, minority rights, and social welfare. Internationally left-wing could include going to war overseas to protect people from oppression and powerful aggressors.

Right-wing ideologies tend to favor the individual and those in power, more everyone for themselves. This could mean freedom to make individual choices that hurt the environment, pro big business, lack of social services. In the extreme it can be racism against minorities. Internationally it could result in isolationist policies.

I think if people actually understand the terms, and they are well defined, people can thinks about how they as an individual feel. And maybe that can help us break away from the two-party fighting we have now.

I think if people actually analyze there beliefs, they may come to better understand themselves, and people can better understand each other. For example I think some people that call themselves "Progressive Liberals" will find out they they are "Progressive Left-wing Fascist", and some people who call themselves "Conservative" will find that they are "Conservative Left-wing Liberals".

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#370

Post by snicky »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #306
shay_ker wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

This is not a good analogy because if you speed on the highway you are putting other peoples lives at risk, and doing it in public. I think we probably should have a satellite tracking every car and issuing a ticket as soon as a car speeds.

Oh yeah? And what if there are no other cars on the highway?
Post reply on HN