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

The EARN IT bill is back, seeking to scan our messages and photos

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 494 posts

Re: The EARN IT bill is back, seeking to scan our messages and photos

#281

Post by govolckurself »

hanniabu wrote: post #276
MikeDelta wrote: post #230

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.

Reminder that the same applies to use of crypto. Just because it's use for some illegal activity (it's actually less % than fiat), doesn't mean it should be made illegal as I've seen some comments here advocating for in the past.

If you mean cryptocurrency, then that's wrong, because its primary purpose is to facilitate illegal activity, or grifting. It isn't even good as money, and I still can't buy groceries with Bitcoin, which is like... one of the things money needs to do (buy food).

Re: The EARN IT bill is back, seeking to scan our messages and photos

#283

Post by bippihippi1 »

what can we do?

this is already happening in a lot of cases, we need to make sure this legal grey zone is closed and ruled in favor of privacy. as government powers are derived from the people, and I don't have any right to walk into your house and ask for your mail, the government has no right to invade our privacy. there are better ways to keep us safe. lots of private software does this already and has lots of problems. I see no reason to assume the government would be any better. I could maybe get behind less privacy for government programs interfacing with the American public and for corporations

Re: The EARN IT bill is back, seeking to scan our messages and photos

#284

Post by colinsane »

sgjohnson wrote: post #19
maerF0x0 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of it is that we buy into it, literally. If you want to stop it, stop buying into companies that are compliant and sell you out in their technology choices.

And 3 steps after that you’ll have to go live off grid in a cabin in the woods. As romantic as it sounds, the one single purpose for for-profit companies is to produce shareholder value, and very few of them see shareholder value in keeping a legal department specifically designed for fighting constant and endless attacks on our privacy. Much more profitable to do anything else instead.

born too late for homesteading to be a skill exercised and shared by a meaningful portion of society; born too early for homesteading to be made accessible via better technology.

but a hundred years from now i do think “have to go live in a cabin in the woods” will be more like “get to”. because if that was something everyone could easily manage, i have no doubt i’d find myself in some cabin-in-the-woods community full of all the other wackos like me.

Re: The EARN IT bill is back, seeking to scan our messages and photos

#285

Post by abvdasker »

To me what's so maddening about these attacks on Internet privacy is that they're extremely unpopular with actual voters across the political spectrum (it's just that awareness of these measures is very low). No politician would ever dare to campaign on a policy like this because nobody wants it. These persistent attempts to pass anti-privacy measures really highlight the corruption of American "democracy" given that there is zero popular mandate to do this but politicians keep trying anyway.

Re: The EARN IT bill is back, seeking to scan our messages and photos

#287

Post by colinsane »

pksebben wrote: post #110
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #22

Here’s the link to send an email to your local representative. It’s a pre-filled form and takes less than 60 seconds to complete: https://act.eff.org/action/the-earn-it-act-is-back-seeking-t...

everyone with an opinion in this thread ought to do this. It really doesn't take any time at all.

some countries have a public policy of “don’t negotiate with terrorists”. it’s so tempting for me to adopt the same policy in my own life. if a burglar showed up at my door demanding entry, i wouldn’t debate them about why it’s morally preferable that they don’t enter against my will. but when it’s some politician demanding entry, suddenly everyone thinks i ought to engage in that debate.

no. better to dispel the myth: those who rule without consent are illegitimate rulers. the problem isn’t us failing to persuade such rulers. it’s us failing to reject such rulers.

Re: The EARN IT bill is back, seeking to scan our messages and photos

#288

Post by JumpCrisscross »

GalenErso wrote: post #234
motohagiography wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you're just part of the third of people that one third can depend on to do nothing while they try to destroy the reamining third. Discouraging others is just a bonus.

I'll admit I would rather this bill doesn't pass but don't care if it does to do anything about it.

> don't care if it does to do anything about it

This is most people. Which, frankly, makes governing possible. I understand the civic detachment. (I don’t care about most fights enough to get involved.) What I suppose I don’t is still wanting to comment on it.

Re: The EARN IT bill is back, seeking to scan our messages and photos

#289

Post by sporkl »

sixstringtheory wrote: post #278
StingyJelly wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly! The best way someone put it - right to choose what to share and who to share it with.

The best analogy for this I've seen is this: it's no secret that everybody poops. But that doesn't mean everyone likes having other people watch while they do it (privacy).

I've tried using this in an argument and gotten a response along the lines of "I don't mind if people watch me poop."

Re: The EARN IT bill is back, seeking to scan our messages and photos

#290

Post by treis »

kahrl wrote: post #270
treis wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You're literally denouncing the 4th amendment. You're saying that all of us must submit to warrantless and broad searches because the statistics says that at least some crime must be occurring. Absurd. Or is it that there is an intermediary involved? Are you saying that banks that offer safety deposit boxes are responsible for their contents? Also absurd.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN