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

211–219 of 219 posts

Re: Why was this secret?

#211

Post by Toenex »

jarrett wrote: post #205
Toenex wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now imagine a dystopian future when all such diaries are available to a privileged subset of society. Imagine the power that subset would hold, and all the ways it would likely be abused. Surely that power comes not from the honesty of the words in the diary, but from the fear that those words become widely known. Do most people have something to hide that is so shameful, so damning? In many cases is secrecy a luxury…

"Do most people have something to hide that is so shameful, so damning?" Have you ever complained to a friend or family member about your boss? Then the answer is yes. Have you ever said something really embarrassingly politically incorrect? Then the answer is yes. Have you ever possessed an illegal drug, including alcohol while underage? Then the answer is yes.

That's your list?!

Re: Why was this secret?

#212

Post by foobarqux »

PeterisP wrote: post #178
foobarqux wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You definitely can have democracy in a transparent state - what happens to MLK type figures is not related to what potential oppressors know about MLK (they already knew all they needed to) but instead what they're allowed to do to restrict MLK.

I assume you meant surveillance state.

It's nonsensical: In what way do you propose to not make the subject of surveillance disempowered?

Re: Why was this secret?

#213

Post by PeterisP »

foobarqux wrote: post #212
PeterisP wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You definitely can have democracy in a transparent state - what happens to MLK type figures is not related to what potential oppressors know about MLK (they already knew all they needed to) but instead what they're allowed to do to restrict MLK.

I assume you meant surveillance state. It's nonsensical: In what way do you propose to not make the subject of surveillance disempowered?

In what way was MLK disempowered by the fact that FBI knew all about his personal life, travel plans, who he communicated with and so on?

The key is that government should be unable to prevent you from excercising your rights to action despite knowing that you want to change things. If you really need to conspire in secrecy, then it's probably already too late for anything other than an armed revolution to fix that.

Re: Why was this secret?

#214

Post by foobarqux »

PeterisP wrote: post #213
foobarqux wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume you meant surveillance state. It's nonsensical: In what way do you propose to not make the subject of surveillance disempowered?

In what way was MLK disempowered by the fact that FBI knew all about his personal life, travel plans, who he communicated with and so on? The key is that government should be unable to prevent you from excercising your rights to action despite knowing that you want to change things. If you really need to conspire in secrecy, then it's probably already too late for anything other than an armed revolution to fix that.

They blackmailed him using the fact that he was having an affair for example. The rule obviously can't be "you can't tell anyone person X is having an affair".

>The key is that government should be unable to prevent you from exercising your rights to action

No that's not the key. Severely impairing your ability to act or discouraging action by causing pain is essentially as effective as outright prohibition as is lowering someone's public esteem.

Re: Why was this secret?

#215

Post by blah32497 »

coldtea wrote: post #157
blah32497 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, I reread the article b/c I was starting to feel like I read something completely different. At no point does the author mention the government and at no point does he mention making every aspect of your life public. Seems like most of the people replying either didn't read the article and they just want to vent. There are legitimate reason to have secrets, and there are reasons that are stressors and actually s…

> At no point does the author mention the government and at no point does he mention making every aspect of your life public. No, but others in this discussion did (mention both) -- a discussion is not constrained by exactly what served to start it, it explores other tangents. Especially in this case, it was inevitable that TFA's advice, while meant for personal use, also had to be considered in relation with the cur…

"a discussion is not constrained by exactly what served to start it, it explores other tangents"

I think you're derailing the conversation. The author brings up a good and interesting point and you go on a rant about privacy and the government. ~99% of people on this website already agree with you. You're preaching to the choir. It's what's called a "circle jerk". Mutual masturbation. Letting out your pent up frustrations.

Re: Why was this secret?

#216

Post by ShirtlessRod »

matz1 wrote: post #189
ShirtlessRod wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Given enough effort" is the key there. Just because someone can break into your house given enough effort doesn't mean you leave your doors off the hinges.

I would not even need to lock my doors.

I'm very happy for you that you feel that you not in a position where that is a risky step. Are you able to fathom that others may not be in that same situation, or are you content to be blasé to their differing circumstances?

Re: Why was this secret?

#217

Post by ShirtlessRod »

matz1 wrote: post #130
wonderzombie wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't have any of that to worry about -- no regrets, no past mistakes -- that's great for you. That might be why the thought of someone having access to your "secrets" seems so contrived. But what about someone with mental health problems? Depression or anxiety? A past drug addiction, or merely alcoholism? A criminal record? How about something as "innocuous" as a drunken one night stand while in a committed r…

In an open society, I would expect society people view toward this issue will change as well. If everybody know my things and I know everybody things, hopefully stigma or negative impact an toward the issue mentioned will be less.

"I would expect" "Hopefully"

Good enough for me!

Re: Why was this secret?

#218

Post by Lagged2Death »

tedunangst wrote: post #97
Lagged2Death wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. -- Often attributed to Cardinal Richelieu

That quote doesn't really work for me, because it seems to be assuming that no other lines are available to provide context. Or rather, instead of meaning "everybody is guilty of something", I interpret the message as warning about the dangers of relying on a quote taken out of context.

...instead of meaning "everybody is guilty of something", I interpret the message as warning about the dangers of relying on a quote taken out of context.

It's not a concerned person's warning, it's a gloating celebration of ruthlessness, of power, and of the inconsequentiality of facts. It's bragging.

If your every statement is recorded, it will be possible to find something in that record to make trouble for you, should powerful parties feel the need. "Guilt" and "innocence" are, in this context, meaningless abstractions.

Re: Why was this secret?

#219

Post by joshdance »

grellas wrote: post #101

Why was her diary secret? Well, because she wanted it so. And that should be enough. When it comes to information that any given person regards as intimate about oneself, that should always be enough. It doesn't matter that someone else might peruse that information and say, "there is nothing special here." Why? Because it is not that person's judgment to make. There may be nothing special about my exact bank balance…

I think you read to far into the anecdote. He was saying that her secrets were not super valuable to him. So why should his secrets be valuable to her or anyone else? It would appear he is just promoting an open transparent culture. Not attacking the idea of secrets or privacy.
Post reply on HN