321–330 of 494 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
implies what? I took a guess but you keep talking in riddles, use your words
I'm so tired. I wish we didn't have to keep going through constant attacks on our privacy. I know they're hoping that people will give up after a point out of weariness, and I'm afraid when it comes to many people they're right.
Remember when major websites used to blackout over TTIP and SOPA? Those were good days. Now many of the same websites (eg Reddit) are owned by large entities who don't care. Probably because they've made their money, so who needs a free Internet?
Not only do they not care, they benefit from these laws, because they have the resources to implement new requirements while smaller sites don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's one thing to demand not calling ordinary people names, but Feinstein isn't an ordinary person. If one can't call a person in power names, that implies many things you probably didn't want to imply.
I covered that point (or thought I did!) with the second sentence in my GP comment. The issue is what it does to us as a community. That's significant. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
But as far as what he owes to the community, I think he doesn't have to explain anything of his experience interacting with someone. He interacted with Feinstein, his takeaway was she is a "senile moron". I for one won't fault him for that, but you obviously have a different take and that's fine.
As an aside, the fact you flagged my comment as well implies very dark things. It is perhaps better I take my leave because I have no interest in enabling such matters. Though it does sadden me, in a deeply ironic way, that an American entity subscribes to such things. People have died to protect the right to speak ill of those in power.
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…
Completely ignoring privacy as a concept for a moment, a fair trade should be like for like, value for value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think "why do you have the right to know?" is a decent answer. "What level of trust do you think you've earned?" "What do you want to do with all this information?" "How will this make things better?' "Don't you have more important things to spend time and money on?" "Is this really the best thing the government should be working on right now?" "How does this help any of society's ills?" "Will taxes need to be incr…
"IT PROTECTS THE CHILDREN!" they'll scream, while using it to take more power away from society and concentrate it into their own hands. Surveillance isn't some harmless thing, because you can tell a million lies with a drop of the truth in them for any reason you want. Imagine you get established in life and decide to run for local politics only to have the fact that you've gone to Vegas 4 times in your life somehow…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 myt…
The problem is that this line of thinking usually turns into just doing nothing and letting them roll over us anyway because they've taken our silence as consent.
but no, i'm not saying you should let yourself be steamrolled. anyone in this thread has the knowledge to work around this particular adversarial legislation; to build systems where bad actors have less power over you. spin up a Matrix server. bridge it to Signal or Telegram or wherever else you need to stay in contact with your less nerdy friends. then when bad people try to do bad things to the people around you, point them to that escape hatch you've already prepared.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you define the terms? IMO these are all 'security' related, just personal security (which is what I define privacy as). The most accurate lines I can draw around either are abstract enough that they end up in the same bucket, but perhaps we're defining them differently
elesiuta had some great commentary I agree with, but to add my own response: > IMO these are all 'security' related, just personal security (which is what I define privacy as). I think this level of reduction becomes problematic in scenarios where security>privacy advocates talk about security in the collective sense. Playing devil's advocate to highlight where I believe this reduction of security->personal security-…
The Sokovia Accords Debate [1] from the Captain America Civil War (2016) film says it best, imho.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I covered that point (or thought I did!) with the second sentence in my GP comment. The issue is what it does to us as a community. That's significant. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Comment in question concerned what the poster personally experienced, which clearly wasn't a pleasant/positive one. If you want to demand he prove he met Feinstein in person, well, that's certainly within your power as moderator and owner of this space. But as far as what he owes to the community, I think he doesn't have to explain anything of his experience interacting with someone. He interacted with Feinstein, his…
“I met her in 2003, along with her aides at a party I was invited to (in a fluke) in Palm Springs.
She was ignorant of tech and science then, and now she's the same but more senile (as happens with age). Her aides, who ended up hanging out with me all weekend, were a perfect illustration of the classic trope of donor class kids who weren't that smart but got into ivy League schools by legacy admissions. Zero intellectual curiosity, super aware of social status, everything they said seemed preplanned and inauthentic.... Just left me feeling gross.”
I don’t think ‘dang would have had an issue with that wording. It doesn’t take much to be substantive rather than resorting to ad hominems; the latter is just easier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's fair enough. What's fresh in my memory is a few weeks back, I was at Quantico for the graduation of a family member from the FBI academy, where the convocation speech was delivered by Christopher Wray. I cannot imagine a more patriotic group of people - genuinely people who dedicate their whole lives to the betterment of the nation. It was really inspiring.
> I cannot imagine a more patriotic group of people - genuinely people who dedicate their whole lives to the betterment of the nation. The actual history of the FBI (whether the near universal perjury in fiber “analysis” cases, the repeated use of provocateurs to discredit protest, especially civil rights, movements — up through the last few years — etc.) tells of a very different culture.