Restoring Trust in Government and the Internet • Hacker News Board

Re: Restoring Trust in Government and the Internet

#61

Post by rayiner » Wed, Aug 07, 2013, 5:40 PM UTC

graedus wrote: post #55

rayiner wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither party cares about the issue because the people don't care, and your conclusion is that the system is broken? As far as I can tell, the system is working fine. Polls of the public at large show mixed results, but I bet if you polled actual voters (skewing older) you'd find comfortable support for the status quo. Essentially, the privacy issues don't affect people's quality of life but people worry that terrori…

> Neither party cares about the issue because the people don't care And why don't the people care? Corporate-owned media has a huge amount of influence on what people care about. But in the never ending search for ever increasing profits that is built into their structure by law, they, like the major political parties are "just giving people what they want" too by chasing ratings in order to gain larger market share…

> And why don't the people care? Corporate-owned media has a huge amount of influence on what people care about.

Again, I go back to my mom because she's the greatest insight I have into the typical voter. My mom doesn't watch the news. Her opinions are her own. She places a high value on social order, trusts the government, and assumes that the government wouldn't use any information they get from her e-mails to hurt her. And you know what? She's right. They won't. The government pretty much exists to protect middle-aged, upper middle class women like my mom. The status quo in this regard is consistent with her interests. She doesn't need a "corporate-owned media" to make her think that way.

Re: Restoring Trust in Government and the Internet

#62

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 07, 2013, 5:43 PM UTC

cinquemb wrote: post #60

graedus wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Neither party cares about the issue because the people don't care And why don't the people care? Corporate-owned media has a huge amount of influence on what people care about. But in the never ending search for ever increasing profits that is built into their structure by law, they, like the major political parties are "just giving people what they want" too by chasing ratings in order to gain larger market share…

So long as the majority of people believe they have the means to butter their slice of bread while being entertained by the circus… "Believe some say the neon signs by the loudspeakers repeating that everything is fine"

[deleted]

Re: Restoring Trust in Government and the Internet

#63

Post by ferdo » Wed, Aug 07, 2013, 5:50 PM UTC

I've never trusted the government or the internet. I trust my family and friends.

"...the three aims of the tyrant. These are, (1) the humiliation of his subjects; he knows that a mean-spirited man will not conspire against anybody; (2) the creation of mistrust among them; for a tyrant is not overthrown until men begin to have confidence in one another; and this is the reason why tyrants are at war with the good; they are under the idea that their power is endangered by them, not only because they would not be ruled despotically but also because they are loyal to one another, and to other men, and do not inform against one another or against other men; (3) the tyrant desires that his subjects shall be incapable of action, for no one attempts what is impossible, and they will not attempt to overthrow a tyranny, if they are powerless. Under these three heads the whole policy of a tyrant may be summed up, and to one or other of them all his ideas may be referred: (1) he sows distrust among his subjects; (2) he takes away their power; (3) he humbles them."

Politics By Aristotle

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.5.five.html

Re: Restoring Trust in Government and the Internet

#64

Post by mpyne » Wed, Aug 07, 2013, 5:59 PM UTC

jstalin wrote: post #27

mpyne wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We should be able to trust the government to do things like run courts > We should never trust the government when it comes to criminal prosecutions And now I'm confused again. Do all cases simply become civil cases? Murder is now OK again?

I said the government shouldn't be trusted. That's the point of the adversarial system.

The same adversarial system that would be used for Snowden, and was used for Swartz, Ellsberg, Drake, and even DJB?

Admittedly that's kind of a strawman as you're not claiming here anything to do with those one way or another. But many who don't trust the government to put people on trial do point to cases exactly like those.

On the other hand if you're simply saying that we shouldn't trust government to prosecute cases, operate surveillance without oversight, etc. just because they're the government I would agree with you 100%.

But on the other hand by the definition I wouldn't even trust the government to deliver clean water or build roads without oversight. As an example of where even the latter could go wrong I'll point to a book that HN pointed out to me, "Fatal Purity" about the French Revolution... one of the many examples of then-current corruption by the nobles was of road-building. The specific example was of a new provincial road that was argued necessary for the people to build despite there being an existing road... it was built right up to a nobleman's estate and then the rest was canceled, leaving the lord with a gratis road built straight to his property.

Or for a modern example, the famed "Bridge to Nowhere".

So there is no part of government which is inherently trustworthy and worthy of operating without oversight. But once you've established good oversight (such as you'd definitely want over criminal prosecutors!), that leaves the possibility of other government-provided functions open again.

There may certainly still be reasons that government should not perform those functions, but it wouldn't be about the impossibility of providing oversight.

Re: Restoring Trust in Government and the Internet

#65

Post by graedus » Wed, Aug 07, 2013, 6:03 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #61

graedus wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Neither party cares about the issue because the people don't care And why don't the people care? Corporate-owned media has a huge amount of influence on what people care about. But in the never ending search for ever increasing profits that is built into their structure by law, they, like the major political parties are "just giving people what they want" too by chasing ratings in order to gain larger market share…

> And why don't the people care? Corporate-owned media has a huge amount of influence on what people care about. Again, I go back to my mom because she's the greatest insight I have into the typical voter. My mom doesn't watch the news. Her opinions are her own. She places a high value on social order, trusts the government, and assumes that the government wouldn't use any information they get from her e-mails to hur…

I won't deny many such examples exist, but you can't deny that the MSM is nevertheless an influence on large swaths of Americans. Even those that are not so gullible as to accept what they hear on the news as fact unquestioningly, may be influenced more subtly by the range of opinions presented and how they are portrayed.

So maybe they invite three guests on to discuss a topic like privacy: one a DoD official, one from a conservative think tank and a centrist writer. Suddenly the range of "acceptable" viewpoints is conveniently narrowed and the remainder is implied to be "fringe".

Or maybe they massively inflate the actual threat of things like terrorist attacks (because fear and xenophobia get ratings too) and give it a disproportionate amount of coverage. Now everyone who watches or even flicks by that channel is maybe more likely to talk about it at the water cooler or whatever.

This can affect the broader culture, which can in turn influence people who don't even watch the news on TV*

So how do we get people to place a higher value on, say, their liberties and human rights instead of fear of the spectre of terrorism? Is it possible? Can we get people to understand and care about relevant historical examples?

* Not to imply this is the case with your Mom!

Re: Restoring Trust in Government and the Internet

#66

Post by CWuestefeld » Wed, Aug 07, 2013, 6:06 PM UTC

jseliger wrote: post #34

junto wrote: post #33

The question is then; in a two party system where both offer the blue pill, who the hell do you vote for? Neither Democrats nor Republicans will change this. Due to the way that the political system works, a third party isn't possible. In the UK we have a Conservative/Liberal coalition, where traditionally Liberals were strong privacy advocates, but now turn a blind eye to the massive Orwellian/Huxley-esque society g…

The question is then; in a two party system where both offer the blue pill, who the hell do you vote for? Greens or libertarians, which I have been doing for a long time. Real change starts at the ballot box.

But the two big parties collude to prevent smaller parties from keeping, so that we don't have that choice. Many states have laws that make it prohibitively difficult for third parties to get on the ballot at all. In states where it doesn't look so bad, there are frequent challenges to the ballots, such that significant financial resources are necessary to defend oneself.

For example:

Gary Johnson won a nine-week legal war for the right to appear on Pennsylvania's ballot. His Libertarians had put in more than enough signatures, more than 20,601, to keep Johnson on. (Major-party candidates only need 2,000 signatures.) His opponents were, mostly, Republicans. And those Republicans managed to clear one other candidate off the list [1]

[1] http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/10/22/third_party_can...

Re: Restoring Trust in Government and the Internet

#67

Post by euroclydon » Wed, Aug 07, 2013, 6:14 PM UTC

graedus wrote: post #65

rayiner wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And why don't the people care? Corporate-owned media has a huge amount of influence on what people care about. Again, I go back to my mom because she's the greatest insight I have into the typical voter. My mom doesn't watch the news. Her opinions are her own. She places a high value on social order, trusts the government, and assumes that the government wouldn't use any information they get from her e-mails to hur…

I won't deny many such examples exist, but you can't deny that the MSM is nevertheless an influence on large swaths of Americans. Even those that are not so gullible as to accept what they hear on the news as fact unquestioningly, may be influenced more subtly by the range of opinions presented and how they are portrayed. So maybe they invite three guests on to discuss a topic like privacy: one a DoD official, one fr…

So how do we get people to place a higher value on, say, their liberties and human rights instead of fear of the spectre of terrorism?

'rayiner answered your question:

[She] trusts the government, and assumes that the government wouldn't use any information they get from her e-mails to hurt her. And you know what? She's right. They won't.

Most people are not concerned about a theoretical invasion of their privacy, instead they would be very concerned with an invasion that has material consequences. Isn't this simple?

Re: Restoring Trust in Government and the Internet

#68

Post by lorenzaccio » Wed, Aug 07, 2013, 6:16 PM UTC

Schneier pointed out the 'trust and verify' mechanism, i.e. the need to have accountability on Government policy and actions. That is a basic instrument to ascertain legality of government actions. However, if we talk about improving the level of 'trust' in institutions, that is a whole different level. We can't possibly stop there. Gaining and maintaining 'trust' means a lot more than simply acting in a legal way and takes more then just verification. I consider a basic need for establishing trust also the analysis of their motivation behind certain choices. Government officials are not just 'citizens', and their agencies are not private companies. While the private citizens and companies can do whatever they want which is not considered illegal, public officials and agencies are governed by a different concept: they have a specific mandate/scope and can only perform in that narrow path. They should not exploit policy wording to perform questionable actions; especially if such policies are classified and only a restricted number of people has the ability to review and assess them. If the government wants to conquer back some form of trust by the public opinion, not only it should improve transparency, but should also steer from this farce of hiding their real intentions behind legalese and wordplay contained in all the latest security related policies.

Re: Restoring Trust in Government and the Internet

#69

Post by markost » Wed, Aug 07, 2013, 6:19 PM UTC

gbhn wrote: post #48

twoodfin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is literally that simple. If Bush ordered this surveillance started, Obama can order it stopped. The NSA works for him. If they don't do as he asks he can start firing people until they do. Obviously Schneier understood this when he wrote his 2005 column.

Yes. The Obama fiasco has been a huge disappointment. I'm interested in ideas about what could have been done differently -- Obama talked a very good game during his candidacy about issues of this sort. The really big indicator he was being dishonest was the post-election flip-flop over unwarranted wiretaps. Only picking candidates that have a track record of opposition to programs like this would be good, but such c…

>post-election

Pre-election. He flip-flopped about the wiretaps prior to his election, after winning the primaries.

Re: Restoring Trust in Government and the Internet

#70

Post by rayiner » Wed, Aug 07, 2013, 6:23 PM UTC

graedus wrote: post #65

rayiner wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And why don't the people care? Corporate-owned media has a huge amount of influence on what people care about. Again, I go back to my mom because she's the greatest insight I have into the typical voter. My mom doesn't watch the news. Her opinions are her own. She places a high value on social order, trusts the government, and assumes that the government wouldn't use any information they get from her e-mails to hur…

I won't deny many such examples exist, but you can't deny that the MSM is nevertheless an influence on large swaths of Americans. Even those that are not so gullible as to accept what they hear on the news as fact unquestioningly, may be influenced more subtly by the range of opinions presented and how they are portrayed. So maybe they invite three guests on to discuss a topic like privacy: one a DoD official, one fr…

Your points are well-taken, but in a democracy it's a hard argument to make to say: "people don't really think what they think they think because of the media."

> So how do we get people to place a higher value on, say, their liberties and human rights instead of fear of the spectre of terrorism? Is it possible?

I think people do care about their liberties and human rights, but they do so in concrete ways. I think you can get people to care by making it more concrete for people.

People on HN take it for granted that your average voter should be outraged by the FBI being able to look at someone's Facebook posts. But why? To my mom, Facebook is just one of those things that wrong with kids today--posting half-naked pictures of themselves for everyone on the internet to see. You're not going to get instinctual outrage from her on the issue.

With her, you might get some traction on the front that the government might use it to single out people from certain backgrounds. After all, she worries the government holds up her checks because she's got a middle eastern last name. Other others you might get traction on the front the government could use it to single out particular religious beliefs, immigrant communities, etc. Painting with broad brushes, there are ways to take the privacy argument and put it into terms that target Jews, Muslims, Blacks, Hispanics, Mormons, Baptists, etc. But right now it seems like the arguments are couched in the language of young libertarian white techie humanists, and that's just not a major voting demographic...