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

My Priorities for the Next Four Years

schneier.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 157 posts

Re: My Priorities for the Next Four Years

#11

Post by AimHere »

tomp wrote: post #4
new299 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context of the next line is somewhat important: > Trump's election just means the threats will be much greater, and the battles a lot harder to win.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Certainly most of these problems (surveilance, assaults on various liberties, etc.) were started/ramped up under W. Bush, but most of them were greately enhanced during Obama, so I have no reason to assume that Hillary might be any better (except better at PR/propaganda, of course).

One reason for thinking that Trump would be worse is precisely because Hillary and Obama's propaganda machine is good at painting them in a better light.

Trump doesn't have to pretend to care about human rights, or war crimes or civil liberties - he outright came out in favour of torture, the killing of innocent people, racial profiling, and said a whole bunch of other heinous things during the campaign.

At least with the previous politicians, bad publicity can act as some sort of brake on the violence and the repression and the surveillance, because you have some leverage against a politician's public image. When the next Abu Ghraib-type scandal comes out, Trump can legitimately say 'So what? I said I as going to torture suspects during the campaign, didn't I?'; if it came out under Hillary, she'd be under immediate pressure to shut down whatever happened.

Having an openly lawless politician is a shitton worse than having a closet lawbreaker with a good PR machine.

Re: My Priorities for the Next Four Years

#12

Post by vanderZwan »

new299 wrote: post #3
dwe3000 wrote: post #2

> Under a Clinton administration, my list would have looked much the same. And the political polarization and bantering continue. But at least there is some truth in there.

The context of the next line is somewhat important: > Trump's election just means the threats will be much greater, and the battles a lot harder to win.

That, and the earlier part where he states (emphasis mine):

> That alternative narrative would stress business as usual, and continue to obscure the deep social problems in our society. Those problems won't go away on their own, and in this alternative future they would continue to fester under the surface, getting steadily worse. This election exposed those problems for everyone to see.

Re: My Priorities for the Next Four Years

#13

Post by ooqr »

caminante wrote: post #10
bottled_poe wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? Isn't that statement trying to defuse the political polarization?

You're assuming political preferences of the reader. The author's attacking both Clinton and Trump without offering substantive reasons.

Do you enjoy seeing dead horses beaten?

Re: My Priorities for the Next Four Years

#15

Post by caminante »

ooqr wrote: post #13
caminante wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming political preferences of the reader. The author's attacking both Clinton and Trump without offering substantive reasons.

Do you enjoy seeing dead horses beaten?

I don't understand. Can you explain?

Re: My Priorities for the Next Four Years

#16

Post by tomp »

AimHere wrote: post #11
tomp wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Certainly most of these problems (surveilance, assaults on various liberties, etc.) were started/ramped up under W. Bush, but most of them were greately enhanced during Obama, so I have no reason to assume that Hillary might be any better (except better at PR/propaganda, of course).

One reason for thinking that Trump would be worse is precisely because Hillary and Obama's propaganda machine is good at painting them in a better light. Trump doesn't have to pretend to care about human rights, or war crimes or civil liberties - he outright came out in favour of torture, the killing of innocent people, racial profiling, and said a whole bunch of other heinous things during the campaign. At least wit…

Does this theory work if you apply it to the past? Have Snowden's leaks about surveillance or relevations about Obama's drone programme (killing people, even US citizens, without trial and with a lot of collateral damage) resulted in any change in government behaviour (except more secrecy and extensive supression of leaks/information)?

My take on these questions is "no", but I haven't been following the events in detail, so I might be missing some positive consequences.

Re: My Priorities for the Next Four Years

#17

Post by NoGravitas »

apatters wrote: post #8

Interesting read, but I can't imagine how anyone could convince Google and Facebook to change their business models at this stage unless the market truly revolted and started moving away from their products due to privacy issues. I think change is much more likely to happen through disruption (which perhaps is the other side of his ideas, coming up with business models that are more privacy-friendly). I think securit…

Matching the UX and features is only a part of it. Overcoming network effects are possibly an even bigger one.

Re: My Priorities for the Next Four Years

#19

Post by geofft »

dwe3000 wrote: post #2

> Under a Clinton administration, my list would have looked much the same. And the political polarization and bantering continue. But at least there is some truth in there.

The election is over. Can we stop thinking about this as Trump good = Clinton bad or Clinton good = Trump bad, and worry about the policies of the actual president-elect instead of the possible policies of a past secretary of state?

I have my (extremely positive) opinions of Clinton, but they're irrelevant now. If there's something we disagree with Trump on, that's not a pro-Clinton statement because there's no chance of Clinton becoming president in the next four years.

Ideally, he shouldn't have to acknowledge Clinton at all to make the point he's making. The fact that he feels obligated to, and that that's seen as a good and moderate statement, is a sign of how uphill the fight to effectively oppose our president's bad policies is going to be. (Although we might also have inferred that from how poorly we're effectively opposing our current president's bad policies.)

Re: My Priorities for the Next Four Years

#20

Post by apatters »

NoGravitas wrote: post #17
apatters wrote: post #8

Interesting read, but I can't imagine how anyone could convince Google and Facebook to change their business models at this stage unless the market truly revolted and started moving away from their products due to privacy issues. I think change is much more likely to happen through disruption (which perhaps is the other side of his ideas, coming up with business models that are more privacy-friendly). I think securit…

Matching the UX and features is only a part of it. Overcoming network effects are possibly an even bigger one.

And even if you do beat their network effects, they will throw as much cash at you as it takes to buy you out... sigh.
Post reply on HN