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

25 years of mass surveillance is enough

schneier.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 384 posts

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#271

Post by saltcured »

flir wrote: post #174
rickdeckard wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I understand the intention of what you're saying, you're still attempting a definition of the term "anti-American", which needs no definition as the term should be rejected as a whole.

Is it exists, something must be antithetical to it. (Truth is its just rhetoric and it doesn't mean much of anything. That's why its main use is as a cudgel).

Clearly, the southern Indian Ocean and a tiny slice of the Antarctic coast are the most anti-(US of) American.

It only involves a swathe of South-East Asia and China once you are inclusive of South America... ;-)

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#272

Post by Rover222 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #242
Rover222 wrote: post #101

I find it ironic that in the US, there's this social movement against Flock cameras - which have shown real results in tracking down criminals - while everyone walks around all the time with a personal tracking device in the form of a smart phone. That's wayyyy more invasive than cameras along roads.

Stop posting this bullshit argument. the people arguing against Flock are the same people who argue for privacy rights around cellular phone data, availability of encrypted messaging etc. It's thanks to them that the government still needs to get a warrant instead of just doing a search. Anyone making this argument of yours is also smart enough to be aware of the privacy efforts. Pretending not to know about them is…

Or uh yeah they're just cameras on public roads, and provide a net benefit to society. I'm sure you weren't triggered by these cameras a few years ago, when it wasn't part of the current "thing to be mad about".

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#273

Post by Rover222 »

iamnothere wrote: post #253
Rover222 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your phone in your pocket is a much more powerful surveillance device. That's my point, it's just pure hivemind to freak out about traffic cameras. I find it pretty dystopian that CVS has to lock up cheap products because society has failed to punish criminals.

I don’t carry a phone most of the time, it stays at home, and I don’t have a Google/Apple duopoly device either. I don’t drive a modern car with built in cell tracking. I don’t use “smart devices” in my home. I’m opposed to mass surveillance in all forms.

* slowly backs away *

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#274

Post by Rover222 »

lowbloodsugar wrote: post #246
Rover222 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your phone in your pocket is a much more powerful surveillance device. That's my point, it's just pure hivemind to freak out about traffic cameras. I find it pretty dystopian that CVS has to lock up cheap products because society has failed to punish criminals.

CVS has to lock up products because society has failed to reward hard working people with a living wage. Claiming a society exists while at the same time claiming "fuck you, i got mine", isn't so much a society as "every person for themselves", which, ironically is what you're actually complaining about.

Okay comrade. It's society's fault when people start committing petty thefts even though unemployment is low.

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#275

Post by Rover222 »

wat10000 wrote: post #164
Rover222 wrote: post #101

I find it ironic that in the US, there's this social movement against Flock cameras - which have shown real results in tracking down criminals - while everyone walks around all the time with a personal tracking device in the form of a smart phone. That's wayyyy more invasive than cameras along roads.

Phone data requires some actual process to access. It should be more restrictive than it is, but I don’t believe the information is made available to random police officers who can search for whatever they want with no real justification. The problem with Flock isn’t the cameras, it’s the system built on them that gives panopticon powers to any random law enforcement officer.

No argument with that, agreed.

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#276

Post by overfeed »

user3939382 wrote: post #225
asaddhamani wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a trans woman, enough is enough! I’m tired of us being made into the scapegoat while literal pedophiles and sexual criminals not only walk free but gain ever greater power and idiots keep blaming us for their problems as they close their ears and stomp their feet’s on the ground

You're not a scapegoat you're fodder for a social warfare diversion to enable the treasury to be looted by both parties while the economy collapses. DC's puppeteers don't give a shit about anything unless it starts with $

What in the enlightened centrism?! All 3 branches of government are controlled by conservatives, as is the fourth estate.

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#277

Post by rickdeckard »

parineum wrote: post #146
rickdeckard wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what I'm trying to explain is, that this paper doesn't matter if it is represented by someone who doesn't uphold its content. Germany had the Paulskirche-, the Bismarck- and the Weymar-Constitution, all of them before that certain Leader elected into power. He got to define who is worthy/unworthy, decide how to read the document his party represents and change the definition of "un-German"

The words on the paper represent the ideas of what it means to be American. Trump has nothing to do with that. His actions, when the do not align with that paper, can be described as "anti-American". The US has had a total of _one_ government and what it means to be American is in the founding document of that government. To be German is to lay claim to a history and cultural lineage that is filled with many differen…

What I read is "what it means to be American" is more clear in ideology and values as "what it means to be German", and I can only wholeheartedly disagree with that.

As someone who is neither born American nor German, I can tell you that both terms describe a subjective feeling and not objective facts. Moreover, they are terms to create unity/solidarity among those who identify with them and exclude those who don't.

Unlike of course someone born Italian telling you that it's clear for everyone what it means to be anti-Italian: ...don't know, doesn't eat pasta or sthg...? /s

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#278

Post by abustamam »

nonethewiser wrote: post #270
abustamam wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm Muslim. Born in the US. I've seen politicians and right wing public figures call my entire faith anti-American. One of them just had a nice memorial for their one-year since their death. The term may have had an agreed upon meaning at some point, but not anymore. Edit: it seems like most right-wing people conflate "non-Christian" with "anti-American". i don't know what's worse; the fact that these people say and…

It doesn’t have to have an agreed upon meaning. My point is its not inherently bad to think something is anti-American. In fact, treating the very idea of judging something as “anti-American” as inherently illegitimate is quite literally anti-American. Its saying Americans shouldn’t be allowed to have opinions about what their country stands for.

Fundamentally I agree. But my point is that while it isnt inherently bad to think of something as anti-American, it is bad when politicians use that terminology to create divides and further their agendas. My statement about Islam being anti-American is just one example.

Honestly I think because there is no agreed upon meaning, the term "anti-American" is meaningless and means whatever the speaker/listener wants it to mean, and is just used to score political points.

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#280

Post by overfeed »

pstuart wrote: post #109
32oqa9 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Dem candidates are safe. The culture wars benefit both parties and their billionaire owners.

The culture wars are explicitly a tool of the right to provoke fear, anger, and hate against others. The left gets trapped in it because every single culture war issue (LGBQT+, racism, feminism, reproductive rights, freedom from religion, etc) are responses to the rights reactionary drive to claw back rights from everybody who is not a white male christian.

> The left gets trapped...

Nevermind the wedge driven when moderates who think of themselves as being on the left agree with the idea that past weak attempts to nudge things leftward "went too far", or that there actually is an issue with "government waste". Sir/Ma'am - you are complicit in moving the Overton window to the right.

Post reply on HN