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

Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

blogs.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 148 posts

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#121

Post by woodman »

datashovel wrote: post #117
woodman wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That statement is wrong regardless of how you feel about the state, which is an impressive achievement. If you are of the "consent of the governed" mindset, then the government is the "collective effort". If you recognize the fact that your consent is not asked or required for governance, than you also likely recognize the fact that the state will continue to expand - as that is the nature of bureaucracies. I can onl…

I definitely wouldn't say I am certain I have a foolproof answer, otherwise the solution would probably already be apparent. What I am saying is, certainly, the problem is a difficult one. I think the idea behind '1984', the book, (before I understood what terrorism was) only seemed a flippant idea propositioned as the plot of a fictional book. Surely no human being would ever consciously choose to govern the world (…

It isn't really complicated as all that, it helps to define terms.

Problem: Reduce terrorism to zero while maximizing individual freedom. So we'd have to define "terrorism" and "freedom". That is going to be pretty difficult, as the the goal posts on terrorism have shifted from what was once an activity that fell within the spectrum of warfare, and therefor outside the realm on nonstate actors, to where it is at today - criminal activity that upsets people. I have no doubt that the goal posts will continue to shift. Freedom is even more difficult to define, as many feel they are entitled to freedoms that necessitate the reduction of other's freedoms: freedom from hunger, sickness, etc. So you aren't likely to find consensus on a definition for that.

It isn't a difficult problem, it is an impossible problem, because it isn't even possible to define the terms. That is, unless you accept the idea of universal preference, then it becomes pretty simple - as you'd be able to fix both variables. But then this conversation would be completely pointless, as universal preference invalidates the supposed justifications for the existence of government :)

The only reasonable action is to do nothing. The costs outweigh the gains by a tremendous margin.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#122

Post by nitrogen »

bhhaskin wrote: post #5

George Orwell's 1984 should be a required reading for high school students. Not just in the U.S., but world wide. It really highlights just what dangers come from the idea that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide, and the sheer amount of power and influence a global, instantaneous, and always on intelligence network can have over the population.

I read a book in high school called The Alliance that discussed pervasive digital surveillance in a dystopia. I think it's this one: http://www.amazon.com/Alliance-Gerald-Lund/dp/0875791603 . It starts slowly but gets better as I recall.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#123

Post by hackerboos »

alextgordon wrote: post #52
nailer wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For American: these are people who don't pay a mandatory tax for consuming government-run media like the BBC and Channel 4 (perhaps because the don't watch or listen to that content).

The BBC isn't run by the government, it's run by the state.

It's run by the BBC Trust which is given power by Royal Charter in order to stay independent of government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Trust

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#124

Post by nailer »

alextgordon wrote: post #52
nailer wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For American: these are people who don't pay a mandatory tax for consuming government-run media like the BBC and Channel 4 (perhaps because the don't watch or listen to that content).

The BBC isn't run by the government, it's run by the state.

Those terms are synonymous. I have read your subsequent reply but being run by the government does not in any way imply being run by the party that is currently in power.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#126

Post by fit2rule »

dllthomas wrote: post #9
bhhaskin wrote: post #5

George Orwell's 1984 should be a required reading for high school students. Not just in the U.S., but world wide. It really highlights just what dangers come from the idea that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide, and the sheer amount of power and influence a global, instantaneous, and always on intelligence network can have over the population.

I've started to think that the focus on 1984 is harmful. For one, fiction is not evidence. Using it as such is poor reasoning. For another, I've seen a reaction of "that's just fiction, it wouldn't actually happen" distracting from the important points.

Fiction is cultural commentary, and 1984 is designed by its author, specifically, to engage the culture in the discourse regarding the rights of the individual versus the needs of the state. To take 1984 literally is to lose the plot entirely; to consider it an analog of the human condition - like so many other works of literature, both fiction and non-fiction - is the point entirely. 1984 has as much relevance now as it ever has, and should be required reading for everyone - not just school kids - who care about the state of their cultures in the future.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#127

Post by nailer »

vertex-four wrote: post #56
nailer wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For American: these are people who don't pay a mandatory tax for consuming government-run media like the BBC and Channel 4 (perhaps because the don't watch or listen to that content).

The tax is for picking up TV signals, not for consuming BBC broadcasts. It does fund the BBC, though. Additionally, Channel 4 gets none of the license fee, and it is not Government-run. (Nor's the BBC for that matter run by the Government - it merely has requirements to be for the public benefit, to represent the UK, and a variety of other things, by law, and in return it gets money from the TV license.)

The post you're responding to did not say anything about broadcasts. But the tax is not for picking up signals, any consumption of BBC media means the viewer must pay the license fee.

The term government is preferable because the term 'state' is vague to people outside the UK. Being a government run service does not mean the BBC is required to follow the ideology on the current party in power.

You're right about channel four though.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#128

Post by andreasvc »

icelancer wrote: post #85
andreasvc wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have offices in other country, e.g., Switzerland. Couldn't they avoid having to create backdoors by running the service in question from there?

Absolutely not. No first world country would host it, especially one that has strong ties to the US like Switzerland now does. This isn't the 1960s.

It was my impression that Switzerland had a name for being crypto and privacy friendly. It sounds odd to me that the US making a law would automatically mean that every other country with strong ties to the US would follow it as well.

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#129

Post by AlecSchueler »

nailer wrote: post #127
vertex-four wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tax is for picking up TV signals, not for consuming BBC broadcasts. It does fund the BBC, though. Additionally, Channel 4 gets none of the license fee, and it is not Government-run. (Nor's the BBC for that matter run by the Government - it merely has requirements to be for the public benefit, to represent the UK, and a variety of other things, by law, and in return it gets money from the TV license.)

The post you're responding to did not say anything about broadcasts. But the tax is not for picking up signals, any consumption of BBC media means the viewer must pay the license fee. The term government is preferable because the term 'state' is vague to people outside the UK. Being a government run service does not mean the BBC is required to follow the ideology on the current party in power. You're right about chan…

Not any consumption, just live broadcasts. Watching shows from a week ago on e.g. iPlayer is totally fine

Re: Obama Sides with Cameron in Encryption Fight

#130

Post by jackweirdy »

nailer wrote: post #124
alextgordon wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BBC isn't run by the government, it's run by the state.

Those terms are synonymous. I have read your subsequent reply but being run by the government does not in any way imply being run by the party that is currently in power.

Not in this case, BBC is run by royal charter. So “Run by the state” means the BBC’s power comes from the Monarch, not Parliament.
Post reply on HN