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

We need an NRA for privacy

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 170 posts

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#121

Post by pessimizer »

damoncali wrote: post #119
pessimizer wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NRA doesn't have " specific , actual, real gun rights atrocities " and they do just fine. How about people who won't give up their privacy until it is pried from their cold dead fingers just getting an address to send a check to in order to feel like they have agents working on their behalf? Do the NAR or the Chamber of Commerce need atrocities?

Well, there's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge

True, but the NRA was powerful before Ruby Ridge or the Davidians.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#122

Post by hga »

bcoates wrote: post #23
oinksoft wrote: post #10

There's a reason the NRA can do what they do: Guns are a >$30B/year industry. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-14/the-nras-cor...

Where most of the customers are governments. The gun industry donates less than 10% of the NRA's budget going from your link.

Hasn't been true for some time, except for a few companies. For most of the last century and continuing into this one, the US civilian market has been the most healthiest and reliable. E.g. while there are fads and fashions, we don't select guns because of politics or direct bribes.

Fabrique Nationale of Belgium is a great example, they've been selling to the US market since the '20s or '30s, the first shotgun in my family is a Browning Auto-5 with FHN markings bought by the grandfather I'm named after, we still have the papers for it.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#123

Post by snowwrestler »

pessimizer wrote: post #118
hga wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until we have specific , actual, real privacy atrocities I can't see this effort getting the traction of any of the groups you've specified. Labor had company towns and less but still specifically abusive employers, with plenty of specific people maimed or killed in unsafe workplaces or labor actions. Environmentalists had deformed children from Japanese industrial mercury dumping, and, oh, the Cuyahoga River catchin…

The NRA doesn't have " specific , actual, real gun rights atrocities " and they do just fine. How about people who won't give up their privacy until it is pried from their cold dead fingers just getting an address to send a check to in order to feel like they have agents working on their behalf? Do the NAR or the Chamber of Commerce need atrocities?

Not atrocities, but the threat is definitely personal. The message is basically "the government will take YOUR guns if you don't stand with the NRA."

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#124

Post by hga »

pessimizer wrote: post #118
hga wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until we have specific , actual, real privacy atrocities I can't see this effort getting the traction of any of the groups you've specified. Labor had company towns and less but still specifically abusive employers, with plenty of specific people maimed or killed in unsafe workplaces or labor actions. Environmentalists had deformed children from Japanese industrial mercury dumping, and, oh, the Cuyahoga River catchin…

The NRA doesn't have " specific , actual, real gun rights atrocities " and they do just fine. How about people who won't give up their privacy until it is pried from their cold dead fingers just getting an address to send a check to in order to feel like they have agents working on their behalf? Do the NAR or the Chamber of Commerce need atrocities?

You are GROSSLY ignorant of the history of gun grabbing atrocities, and they critically proceed the NRA's rise in political power. Read up on '70s BATF abuses of the GCA of '68 and get back to us before continuing to spout counterfactuals.

This is exactly what got me started on this issue in the early '70s.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#125

Post by dragonwriter »

tippytop wrote: post #106
dragonwriter wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what we need is a public that holds the government accountable to the Fourth. If you think that the government defying the purpose of the Fourth will be fixed by pushing for another amendment to be passed and then returning to public passivity, you don't understand how the fourth has been "made a runaround". The Constitution will continue to be treated as something to pay lip service to without substance as l…

Anyone who watches government in action understands quite well how laws are twisted and turned to meet objectives. It only matters what is explicit, and there is no mention anywhere in the Constitution about "privacy". If this is a value that we Americans wish to continue, then it needs to be codified. Any government action begins with words and the interpretation of said words.

> Anyone who watches government in action understands quite well how laws are twisted and turned to meet objectives. It only matters what is explicit

No, it doesn't matter what is explicit (which anyone who has observed the non-impact of the 27th Amendment would know.)

It matters what the public holds people in official positions accountable to.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#126

Post by hga »

damoncali wrote: post #112
the_watcher wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NRA is also very careful to support people who don't actually violate gun laws (whether because they are just normal people with guns for hunting/protection or people exploiting loopholes that - regardless of your feelings towards them - are codified by law), or who are at least making some attempt at a credible argument (trying to phrase this as politically neutral as possible. I'm not here to debate their polic…

worries about government databases of guns should be very easy to relate to actual government databases of communications. Bingo. There is a strong ally for privacy advocates in the NRA. This hasn't blown up in the media yet, but you can be sure it will next time discussions of gun registration/background checks comes up.

It will seldom if ever blow up in the media---did you hear about the publishing of gun owner names and addresses in various parts of New York, let alone a big media backlash???---but it is something we gun owners know about.

For both causes we're going to have to depend a lot on other methods of publicity. E.g. I'll bet you haven't heard that the Democratic administration running Missouri illegally gave the Social Security Administration the entire list of the state's concealed carry licensees.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#127

Post by Torkild »

pessimizer wrote: post #120
Torkild wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prohibition failed because it allowed the bootleggers of the underground to fully monopolize their trade without having to abide by any legal restrictions. If a business no longer has the threat of ramifications for questionable acts, then the questionable acts increase exponentially. That can be two-way though. Cracking down only builds a stronger underground, which is where I see the entire surveillance issue going…

Prohibition didn't fail; it was wildly successful.

For Joe Kennedy maybe.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#128

Post by PhasmaFelis »

stfu wrote: post #74
jstalin wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the NRA's 2010 form 990[1], total revenue in that year was $227 million. According to your link, only one corporate donor gave the NRA between $5 million and $10 million and four gave between $1 million and $4.9 million, etc. $100 million alone was from membership fees, $11 million from royalties, $11 million from sales of goods, $20 million from advertising, etc. Those who claim that the NRA is just an…

$11 million from sales of goods In related news the EFF should definitly clean up their merch offerings. Especially their fashion section looks like crap. I would definitely leave more money there for apparel that appeals beyond a DefCon crowd. With a single blog post "submit t-shirt designs" and a followup with a bit of voting would fix that problem. Or just having one getting design by somebody like Fairey.

Your post made me think that the EFF logo is pretty cool, and I would totally wear a T-shirt with that on it. I went to their merch page, and...they don't have one. The only shirt they have is the "Kingpin", with a metal-band-ified version of the handle of a hacker I've never heard of. What?

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#129

Post by hga »

ihsw wrote: post #21
mtgx wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How big is the part of the tech industry that relies on user trust?

That's different, people have to use Facebook because all of their friends and family are on it. If you don't like the company selling guns then you can easily go to another one -- you're not invested in one particular company.

Very true, the network effects work in our favor when it comes to guns. E.g. if you're set on many designs you only have one company you can buy it from (but almost always many ammo companies), but the more popular ones out of patent protection have multiple companies making them, e.g. AR-15 and M1911 pattern rifles and handguns, dating from the '50s and, well, 1911 ^_^.

And there's no single category I can think of that's sole source, not counting curiosities like FNH's PS90 (as seen in original full auto mode in Stargate).

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#130

Post by hga »

dragonwriter wrote: post #53
tippytop wrote: post #20

We need a privacy amendment to the Constitution. It needs to shore up the legalese of the 4th which lawyers have made a runaround.

I think what we need is a public that holds the government accountable to the Fourth. If you think that the government defying the purpose of the Fourth will be fixed by pushing for another amendment to be passed and then returning to public passivity, you don't understand how the fourth has been "made a runaround". The Constitution will continue to be treated as something to pay lip service to without substance as l…

Very clearly true. Compare to the very plain language of the 2nd Amendment, which 9 out of 9 Supreme Court justices agreed was an individual right, with of course 4 saying it then doesn't mean anything.

Those who don't support following the 2nd Amendment as it was intended, or amending it, have absolutely no place in fighting for privacy in this fashion, and, really, if you support rule of men vs. the rule of law....

Post reply on HN