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

Countries are competing to see which can carry out mass surveillance the best

mullvad.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 137 posts

Re: Countries are competing to see which can carry out mass surveillance the best

#11

Post by beached_whale »

vlian2088 wrote: post #8
panny wrote: post #4

Mass surveillance is bad, until I'm in charge of it. -- Parents demanding "age verification" laws

>Parents demanding "age verification" laws I keep seeing this claim, but where is it coming from?

This parent wants a form of that that doesn't require identity disclosure. Like zero trust assertions. Without that, the risks are too high.

Re: Countries are competing to see which can carry out mass surveillance the best

#12

Post by esikich »

vlian2088 wrote: post #8
panny wrote: post #4

Mass surveillance is bad, until I'm in charge of it. -- Parents demanding "age verification" laws

>Parents demanding "age verification" laws I keep seeing this claim, but where is it coming from?

Just talk to an average person rather than a tech nerd.

Re: Countries are competing to see which can carry out mass surveillance the best

#13

Post by sevenzero »

vivzkestrel wrote: post #10

- does anyone have actual proof that surveillance does not effectively curb terrorism or something along those lines? - i keep seeing the same arguments everywhere "ThEy WaNt To CoNtRoL Us" etc - how do you propose catching terrorists then?

How much of this is actually to "catch" terrorists? Its mostly for surveillance, intimidation, suppression. Usually it's the state that defines who a terrorist is, and usually terrorists are ALL people opposing the current regime.

Re: Countries are competing to see which can carry out mass surveillance the best

#14

Post by t-3 »

vivzkestrel wrote: post #10

- does anyone have actual proof that surveillance does not effectively curb terrorism or something along those lines? - i keep seeing the same arguments everywhere "ThEy WaNt To CoNtRoL Us" etc - how do you propose catching terrorists then?

What's so wrong about expecting police to get warrants and do police work legally and aboveboard? If Law Enforcement doesn't follow the law, how can we trust them to impartially investigate and enforce it? Giving more power to unaccountable groups with a well-documented and lengthy history of malfeasance is just a bad idea, we should be reforming and abolishing these institutions to create a transparent and just legal system in line with the liberal democratic principles that underly our whole civilization rather than the type of surveillance state most associated with totalitarian regimes that terrorize their own people.

Re: Countries are competing to see which can carry out mass surveillance the best

#17

Post by DrScientist »

sevenzero wrote: post #13
vivzkestrel wrote: post #10

- does anyone have actual proof that surveillance does not effectively curb terrorism or something along those lines? - i keep seeing the same arguments everywhere "ThEy WaNt To CoNtRoL Us" etc - how do you propose catching terrorists then?

How much of this is actually to "catch" terrorists? Its mostly for surveillance, intimidation, suppression. Usually it's the state that defines who a terrorist is, and usually terrorists are ALL people opposing the current regime.

Case in point - in the UK you can currently be put into prison for a long stretch under terrorism charges for holding up a sign with just 4 words.

Re: Countries are competing to see which can carry out mass surveillance the best

#18

Post by buckle8017 »

vivzkestrel wrote: post #10

- does anyone have actual proof that surveillance does not effectively curb terrorism or something along those lines? - i keep seeing the same arguments everywhere "ThEy WaNt To CoNtRoL Us" etc - how do you propose catching terrorists then?

Says a coward posting anonymously online.

Re: Countries are competing to see which can carry out mass surveillance the best

#19

Post by egorfine »

reddit started asking KYC yesterday.

You (and me) can bitch all you want, but reddit has well prepared for us whining and being sad will change nothing.

Mark my words: KYC will be required on HN in about two years. Not because dang will want it, but because that's the direction the world is going to.

Post reply on HN