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

Why was this secret?

sivers.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 219 posts

Re: Why was this secret?

#81

Post by jazzyb »

TwiztidK wrote: post #20
datakid wrote: post #6

This is such bullshit - poorly formulated hippy dribble. If he was really interested in such ideas, he would know and use GPL/AGPL/MIT/Apache licences already for his code, and CC for his writings. Instead he makes everyone hippy dippy stupid about secrecy and privacy. It might all be fine when you are rich, cis-straight and white, but a single non friendly idea and you are a threat to the state. People that cheapen…

This is honestly the most worthless comment I have ever seen on HN. Besides ad hominem, there is literally nothing here other than a giant pile of conspiracy.

To play devil's advocate: The comment was poorly worded, but there is a kernel of truth in it.

Being openly gay in the 1940-50's in some places in the US may very well have been a death-sentence. Those people would have been wise to keep their sexuality private (or move somewhere a bit more progressive). Likewise today, you wouldn't have to look too hard to find countries where people have to hide their true beliefs from repressive governments or society out of a justified fear of harm.

What I think the commenter meant to say was that the blog author is a member of (I assume) a privileged class in (again, I assume) a privileged society. The public/open lifestyle he suggests might be a worth-while pursuit for others in a similar position as he, but it may very well be foolish for those less fortunate. Context matters.

Re: Why was this secret?

#82

Post by dreamfactory »

blah32497 wrote: post #74
coldtea wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reasons for privacy are always so contrived. "Dystopian futures", "enemies trying to ruin lives" etc. etc. It never resonates with me. That's because you're an average Joe. And even you, you use a pseudonymous account name here on HN. Now think of all the lives of change-makers, dissidents, activists etc that were fucked up with the use of such private information (from their sexual preferences to who they meet…

> That's because you're an average Joe. And I think this article is written targeting the average Joe. Everyone is getting off on tangents about how the gov't is going to go fascist and that privacy is the best thing in the world. He isn't arguing that privacy is inherently bad, or you should never ever have secrets. Yeah, if your trying to overthrow an fascist regime, it makes sense to have secrets. But again, that'…

That's a variant on 'nothing to hide nothing to fear'. Plenty of average Joes in East Germany under the Stasi may disagree with that notion being even potentially benign in its outcome. I'd imagine you have doors and curtains/blinds in your house - most people do and it's not out of neurosis and paranoia.

Re: Why was this secret?

#83

Post by aaronblohowiak »

blah32497 wrote: post #33
jarrett wrote: post #9

In the context of coding projects, the author's conclusion seems realistic. Given current events though, I can't help but wonder if there's a subtext about privacy and snooping. If so, then I would venture this observation: Your friend's super-secret diary is meaningless to you only because you have no desire to abuse the access you've been given. Suppose instead your friend's devious enemy obtained the diary. Then,…

The reasons for privacy are always so contrived. "Dystopian futures", "enemies trying to ruin lives" etc. etc. It never resonates with me. I think what the author is trying to say is that if you live an open life with few secrets, then your life will be less stressful. He's encouraging us to really reevaluate what we keep secret b/c when you sit down to think about it, it's most likely all in your head.

Learn more about life in East Germany.

Re: Why was this secret?

#84

Post by foobarqux »

blah32497 wrote: post #74
coldtea wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reasons for privacy are always so contrived. "Dystopian futures", "enemies trying to ruin lives" etc. etc. It never resonates with me. That's because you're an average Joe. And even you, you use a pseudonymous account name here on HN. Now think of all the lives of change-makers, dissidents, activists etc that were fucked up with the use of such private information (from their sexual preferences to who they meet…

> That's because you're an average Joe. And I think this article is written targeting the average Joe. Everyone is getting off on tangents about how the gov't is going to go fascist and that privacy is the best thing in the world. He isn't arguing that privacy is inherently bad, or you should never ever have secrets. Yeah, if your trying to overthrow an fascist regime, it makes sense to have secrets. But again, that'…

If you're a black person what happens to MLK-type figures matters to you, even if you're not them.

You don't get it: You can't have democracy in a surveillance state.

Re: Why was this secret?

#85

Post by clarkm »

You should've asked her if you could scan it, OCR it, and upload it to a publicly available, web-crawlable, SEO-optimized website where it would be scooped up and stored on archive.org for all eternity.

Re: Why was this secret?

#86

Post by alecdbrooks »

amirmc wrote: post #61
jacalata wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? You think that, for instance, someone trying to leave an abusive partner doesn't have more reason to want their whereabouts unknown than someone with no psychotic acquaintances? Someone who turned state's witness against their drug dealer friends?

Let's flip that around. The key point would be "everyone's location ... No exceptions". Then you'd know if that abusive partner was approaching you (and call relevant authorities). The dealers would probably also be known without needing a witness. Of course, we'd also know who was sleeping with whom and when. It's an interesting thought experiment to imagine such a world but for it to be viable, society would have t…

I don't think someone fleeing an abusive partner would necessarily benefit as much from knowing the abuser's location as much as the abuser would benefit from the victim's location. The information would be symmetric, but the value from it might not be.

Maybe the abuser has a car and victim is relying on mass transit. Or maybe the victim's best bet is staying with a friend whose residence is unknown to the abuser.

Re: Why was this secret?

#88

Post by dreamfactory »

sivers wrote: post #35
blah32497 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reasons for privacy are always so contrived. "Dystopian futures", "enemies trying to ruin lives" etc. etc. It never resonates with me. I think what the author is trying to say is that if you live an open life with few secrets, then your life will be less stressful. He's encouraging us to really reevaluate what we keep secret b/c when you sit down to think about it, it's most likely all in your head.

Thank you, blah32497. That's exactly what I was trying to say, and wonderfully succinctly put. :-) It could also mean reevaluating what you've made public, and deciding what should be secret.

Hats off re good promo and topicality - but I'd expect something a bit more broadly reflective and nuanced. Really don't think you've thought this one through. You seem to have taken a line for a walk and inadvertently reinvented the asinine 'nothing to hide' argument here. The whole thing about say, the Stasi, was that they were interested in all the everyday comings and goings, not the James Bond stuff. That's the depressingly mundane and terrifying reality of mass surveillance. That's why it was referred to as the 'boot in the face of humanity' by a smarter and better informed person than any of us.

> It could also mean reevaluating what you've made public, and deciding what should be secret.

aka chilling effect - surely you're not seriously advocating for it?

Re: Why was this secret?

#89

Post by pekk »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #14

My favorite thing on GameFAQs is the angry verbiage at the end of every FAQ promising dire legal consequences should anyone attempt to appropriate and profit from their work. Do you really think anyone anywhere is going to pay for your Donkey Kong Country strategy guide? If I ever write a game FAQ, it's going to end with "if you figure out a way to make a profit off of this, you are legally required to let me know ho…

People buy crappy "game guides" all the time. How easy would it be not to even pay a bad author, but just scrape the internet and use it without attribution?

Re: Why was this secret?

#90

Post by [deleted] »

throwaway_yy2Di wrote: post #19

There's an old joke: so this guy is trying to get rid of an ugly old sofa, he puts it out on the curb with the sign "free sofa!". Days pass; no luck. So he puts up a new sign saying "sofa: $50, call ###-####" and it's gone in ten minutes.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN