Live data from Hacker News

25 years of mass surveillance is enough

schneier.com

281–290 of 385 posts

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#281
post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the kind of sarcasm on HN that will draw a ton of comments. Good job on really nailing the psyche of the HN community.

I may have issues detecting sarcasm. I hope to god this is sarcasm… because these kinds of takes are rampant on this site.

> Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture which says that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#282

I suspect that Mass Surveillance is here for good, and the real project is to regain control of who gains the power and benefits. There are dozens if not 100s of ways that mass surveillance can improve human life. There are also as many where it can be abused to create suffering. I think the real issue is we're trending to the latter. In order to safely continue down this path we (USA) need: 1. EU style governmental…

1. Cameras don’t prevent porch pirates. They give you a video after the fact of a masked person taking your package. Small theft is prevented by more equality in society, and a stronger safety net. (Source: the lower crime rate in other countries) 2. Lost pets are not being found by drone and camera surveillance. They could, but the system doesn’t give a shit about your dog. Children, maybe. I guess i’m ok with deplo…

Porch pirates are not stealing because they're hungry. They're antisocial asshole criminals.

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the comment above wasn't about an explicit conspiracy, with billionaires meeting in dark rooms colluding. It was about implicit, uncoordinated conspiracy, where objectives align. My comment is defending the latter

Exactly, there is no conspiracy, there’s just multiple actors moving predictably in the same direction, and sometimes coordinating weakly. I don’t know how my comments could have been read otherwise.

Except there are also explicit conspiracies like Jobs calling around to stop "poaching" or Zuck leaning over to Trump and asking how much.

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#284

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.

I disagree. I would define confidently that Anti-American is aligned with Anti-Constitutional. By definition, it is this nation's founding document and treatise. An the Supreme Court's ultimate role is to affirm or deny nebulous case law as aligned with the Constitution.

For you that might be a confident definition, for others it might not mean "anti-constitutional" but "against the declaration of independence", for even others it might not create any clear association at all.

That's because something being "American"/"anti-American" is not sufficiently defined in this context. It triggers a highly subjective assumption of what it means, allowing people to evoke "us vs. them" solidarity without actually taking a position.

Example: I can (probably) break your assumed association by stating "women owning credit-cards is anti-American". It (probably) doesn't fit your mental model of what being "anti-American" means, but women were in fact not allowed to own credit cards in US until 1974. So my definition might be more in-line with the era of the constitution than yours.

That's a blunt example. Now imagine I use "anti-American" in a context of "law and order" and then keep talking. People instinctively glance over it because they create the meaning by taking their personal association of being "American" and invert it. You may feel like agreeing but I might actually say the complete opposite of what you think.

That's why IMO the phrase should be rejected from people in a public role.

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any adult who has been paying attention has no doubt that enough of the elite do collude to call the duck a duck.

In the real world it's hard enough to get 5 people on the same page about anything. The idea that dozens/hundreds of people with billions of dollars who are in business against each other in many cases are secretly colluding with any effectiveness is a joke. If they were, zuckerberg, larry and sergey would have been squashed in the 90's/00's by the elite of the time. Sam Altman would have been crushed years ago. Obam…

How many billionaires attended Biden's inauguration or donated to Biden's projects? How many for Trump 2?

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to contradict itself. You first claim that there's no organization but then you claim billionaires have no power because of the more powerful above them. Hierarchy is organization, so which is it

No, nothing above them. No power. That's the point. In a couple years Trump will be gone and he'll be kowtowing to others and so on. There is no group in charge. No one is in charge.

If there's no power then why did so many line up to bring gifts and kiss the ring of a certain vindictive, convicted felon turned President?

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#287
post #23

At this stage I'd settle for echelon era surveillance and consider it a win... Ad tech/tiktok has proven its possible to deduce what people are think at scale from subtle signals, now sifting info at scale is possible thanks to LLMs and a large portion of everyone's online history is likely to become vulnerable to store now decrypt later attacks. Get rid of cash, force identity verification for every online service,…

No need to decrypt https, the other end of your connection does that and hands the info over to governments

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I don't know what this conversation is about. This is not about a "concept", it is about the label itself. When the term "anti-American" is used, it is a placeholder for "against my values" . Noone is ever anti-American himself, it is only a label applied upon others. That's why IMO it should be rejected when used by people in a public role, see original comment. You are free to think otherwise, which I may th…

"Trump is misusing a term, better roll over and let him do it!" Gross.

Which is not what I'm saying, I'm saying to NOT let him use this term.

How can you miss this fundamental aspect of what I'm repeatedly stating?

"Sad."

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hold on. Panama papers. Epstein files. CointelPro -> NSPM-7. There absolutely, without a reasonable doubt, is a conspiracy of the elite -- the billionaire class.

The idea that all billionaires work together is hilarious. No real adult could possibly believe such nonsense.

Nobody said anything about ALL billionaires. You are the only person suggesting that.

The idea that an aggressive handful of them can't, won't or don't work together is even more preposterous than your strawman that all of them do.

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#290
post #13

> It says that the government “will prioritize the rapid identification and neutralization of violent secular political groups whose ideology is anti-American, radically pro-transgender and anarchist” and “will use all the tools constitutionally available to us to map them at home, identify their membership, map their ties to international organizations like Antifa.” So, Democratic candidates who are looking like the…

You read a passage talking about groups of people who provably commit real violence and advocate for more of it, establish "autonomous zones" in cities as part of protest actions, attempt en masse to impede physically the lawful actions of legitimate federal LEO, and explicitly promote agendas that include the destruction of fundamental state institutions; and you imagine that this will be applied to establishment candidates with good chances of winning in a democratic process. This appears to be based on nothing more than your personal impression of the POTUS. I find that to be completely and utterly unreasonable.

Benjamin Song should be all the evidence you need to illustrate that the phrase "domestic terrorism" is completely appropriate to describe things that are actually happening. But there is so, so much more of it.

Post reply on HN