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

Why we can't go back to business as usual post-PRISM

mailman.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 186 posts

Re: Why we can't go back to business as usual post-PRISM

#111

Post by bigiain »

jasonlotito wrote: post #100
ak39 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False dichotomy. The problem is not Democracy vs every other non-democratic system, it's in the implementation details of the current versions. We just need to refactor Democracy Version 1.0. Far from a rewrite. And where do we begin? Upholding campaign promises, that's where. They must be watertight like contracts where the voters can sue.

You'd have no more campaign promises. And truth be told, what you suggest is dangerous. In fact, it would create a situation worse than the one we have now. I'd rather our politicians tell us what they want to do. Then, when they are in power, and have the means to do those things, balance it with the knowledge they've gathered from having access to all that power. Maybe the issue is that politicians too easily make…

You're right, but why demean the word "promise"?

If they're going to manipulate us into voting for them, I'd like them to be held accountable differently for things they told us they "intend to do" compared to things they told us they "promised to do".

Re: Why we can't go back to business as usual post-PRISM

#113

Post by mitchty »

justincormack wrote: post #76
indeyets wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give this one a try: https://gpgtools.org/ It is a tool-set which integrates GNUPG into OS X

Given Apple signed up to PRISM what's the point? Do you trust OSX?

Do you trust the asics you're running on? At some point this mode of thinking becomes tautological and neurotic.

Re: Why we can't go back to business as usual post-PRISM

#114

Post by jafaku »

Nursie wrote: post #112

We can't... but we will. Never underestimate the apathy of the general public, their faith in authority, and their general willingness to write this stuff off as 'stuff that affects someone else'. Yeah I know, I'm a cynic.

How can apathy be cured?

Re: Why we can't go back to business as usual post-PRISM

#115

Post by jafaku »

wisty wrote: post #84
Spearchucker wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming for a minute, hypothetically, that the NSA can crack AES and RSA, then the way to combat that is for more people to use it more often, and to create meaningless encrypted spam. Cracking requires huge computing resources. If there's an overwhelming amount of data to crack, with little guarantee of any useful yield, then we can reasonably expect it that negates the ability to crack it.

4Chan is https. So there is a fair amount of meaningless encrypted spam out there already.

They don't need to crack 4chan, it's in the US.

Re: Why we can't go back to business as usual post-PRISM

#116

Post by jasonlotito »

bigiain wrote: post #111
jasonlotito wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd have no more campaign promises. And truth be told, what you suggest is dangerous. In fact, it would create a situation worse than the one we have now. I'd rather our politicians tell us what they want to do. Then, when they are in power, and have the means to do those things, balance it with the knowledge they've gathered from having access to all that power. Maybe the issue is that politicians too easily make…

You're right, but why demean the word "promise"? If they're going to manipulate us into voting for them, I'd like them to be held accountable differently for things they told us they "intend to do" compared to things they told us they "promised to do".

Well, there is a problem with that. In searching for a "Promise" quote, I kept seeing this:

"Under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and "wiretaps without warrants,"

No mention of a promise. On top of that, warrants were issued. You can argue the merits of the warrants themselves, but it wasn't warrantless.

Now, if I missed a quote, please share. =) But, going by what little research I did, he never used the word promise, and did make sure to have warrants.

That what he did and what we wanted him to do diverged is surely an issue. But we aren't anywhere better.

I don't like any of this, but I also don't think it's as black and white as some make it out. How do you balance what you want to do with what is best for the country? Do you sacrifice your own honor to save lives? Maybe he didn't save any lives. But maybe he came into a situation where the intelligence community told him if he shut down the program like he'd intended, it would cost X dollars and cost Y years of intelligence gathering and putting us behind.

I'm not prepared to pass judgement. I don't like it, but I don't think we know the whole story yet.

Re: Why we can't go back to business as usual post-PRISM

#117

Post by pvnick »

georgemcbay wrote: post #60
obstacle1 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This problem is systemic. It has little to do with Obama or Clinton or X, Y, Z individual. Individuals are irrelevant here. What you have is a runaway state.

For better or for worse, Obama is a good symbol for the problem though in that his entire campaign was based on hope and change, only to prove that such change isn't actually possible in a couple of election cycles, if at all.

He really could have made some sort of progress if it was his intention

Re: Why we can't go back to business as usual post-PRISM

#118

Post by oinksoft »

stcredzero wrote: post #98
Amygaz wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And to elect who? Someone who most likely voted for that IAH to start with?

IAH also happens to be the code for George Bush International Airport.

Sr. got an airport named after him? Reminds me when they renamed National to Reagan National. I thought Nixon National would be catchier if the bar's that low.

Re: Why we can't go back to business as usual post-PRISM

#119

Post by logn »

pvnick wrote: post #117
georgemcbay wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For better or for worse, Obama is a good symbol for the problem though in that his entire campaign was based on hope and change, only to prove that such change isn't actually possible in a couple of election cycles, if at all.

He really could have made some sort of progress if it was his intention

If that were his intention, he'd have to make sure to never say or write that during his campaign possibly. Yup. And I'd guess there are probably people working on deciphering true intention from merely campaign promises. Welcome to our new world. If not now, then someday... unless the good of humanity prevails in coming years and we change our course.

Re: Why we can't go back to business as usual post-PRISM

#120

Post by anonyfuss »

Shivetya wrote: post #103
TelmoMenezes wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scary thing is this: these people were already voted away. People voted for Obama when he promised the end of warrantless wiretapping, the closing down of Guantanamo, etc. Why should voters believe the next guy who promises these things? It feels hopeless.

what was the excuse for voting for him again in 2012? really I fail to understand people here, One day they bitch about invasion of privacy the next day they want the same people to have every bit of control over their health care. Well guess what, you cannot have it both ways. Granted he had help from a major government agency interfering with groups opposed to his reelection from gathering funds. So perhaps you did…

> what was the excuse for voting for him again in 2012?

Romney. Unfortunately.

> One day they bitch about invasion of privacy the next day they want the same people to have every bit of control over their health care.

In one instance we have the institution of a massive surveillance state, with always-on data gathering of "meta-data" across the internet and phone calls, and seemingly secret-if-any limitations on how that data is used.

"Trust us", they say.

In the other, we have difficult-to-abuse sharing of medical data, subject to transparency, protected by extremely strong HIPAA laws.

These are not even remotely the same thing.

Post reply on HN