271–280 of 494 posts
They need to pass a 'public official' bill that ties any and all public official records to whatever is expected of the general population, no exceptions. This is the only true way to stop these type of bills.
Not just public records. Public officials should be on Medicare. Their retirement should be Social Security. Their staff should be subject to the same employment rules that apply to everyone else. And so on.
A reminder that "you have nothing to hide" argument is a fallacy because people abuse their power: Some first hits as reminders of places where their powers are abused [1]: "NSA staff used spy tools on spouses, ex-lovers: watchdog" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog... [2]: https://reason.com/2022/07/26/police-can-access-your-ring-ca... [3]: https://reason.com/2021/04/26/warrantless-border-s…
Many seem to not realize that privacy is not about having something to hide (I guess that would be secrecy), but about the right to keep things to yourself. Those are two different concepts.
-- excerpt from A Cypherpunk's Manifesto, Eric Hughes, March 9, 1993
A reminder that "you have nothing to hide" argument is a fallacy because people abuse their power: Some first hits as reminders of places where their powers are abused [1]: "NSA staff used spy tools on spouses, ex-lovers: watchdog" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog... [2]: https://reason.com/2022/07/26/police-can-access-your-ring-ca... [3]: https://reason.com/2021/04/26/warrantless-border-s…
Many seem to not realize that privacy is not about having something to hide (I guess that would be secrecy), but about the right to keep things to yourself. Those are two different concepts.
4th amendment text: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Let’s name names, the senators who introduced this are Mr. GRAHAM…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do these people continue to be re-elected at all? Surely there's some other (D) that could have replaced Feinstein a decade ago - but California keeps re-electing her? There's near unanimous agreement she "lost it" long ago - yet here she still is. A mandatory retirement age is great and all... but maybe we need to figure out why people vote for someone nearly nobody wants in the first place. Just the "safe" vote…
Only 24% of registered voters in California are Republican, so the election hinges on the Democratic primary. You don't get to a position in a political party where you can realistically run for and potentially win a US Senate seat by making a habit of attacking people in your own party. Those that do get ostracized long before they have that kind of juice, and the people who could potentially do it are not likely to…
A reminder that "you have nothing to hide" argument is a fallacy because people abuse their power: Some first hits as reminders of places where their powers are abused [1]: "NSA staff used spy tools on spouses, ex-lovers: watchdog" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog... [2]: https://reason.com/2022/07/26/police-can-access-your-ring-ca... [3]: https://reason.com/2021/04/26/warrantless-border-s…
Many seem to not realize that privacy is not about having something to hide (I guess that would be secrecy), but about the right to keep things to yourself. Those are two different concepts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That he’s not a free speech absolutist? big deal, nobody is no platform is, thats the expected default behavior everywhere you go and there is zero reason why HN would be different. I’m not even going to go into how this is a private platform with clearly stated rules for you because it doesn't even matter, just take the L
dang is welcome to enforce rules as he pleases, it's his platform (or rather publishing space). But restricting speech concerning those in power imply things that I would presume he would not want to imply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many seem to not realize that privacy is not about having something to hide (I guess that would be secrecy), but about the right to keep things to yourself. Those are two different concepts.
Exactly! The best way someone put it - right to choose what to share and who to share it with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That he’s not a free speech absolutist? big deal, nobody is no platform is, thats the expected default behavior everywhere you go and there is zero reason why HN would be different. I’m not even going to go into how this is a private platform with clearly stated rules for you because it doesn't even matter, just take the L
This attitude isn't a good look for the owners of this private platform and I don't think they'd agree with your perspective nor do most of the users. Food for thought.
The owner’s actions speak louder than their words and the moderations actions in their properties are not a mystery or unexpected