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

101–110 of 157 posts

Re: My Priorities for the Next Four Years

#101

Post by clifanatic »

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).

> were started/ramped up under W. Bush

Assault on privacy and massive surveillance started as soon as the internet became a household word - which actually happened under Bill Clinton.

Re: My Priorities for the Next Four Years

#103

Post by MrZongle2 »

treebeard901 wrote: post #93
MrZongle2 wrote: post #89

Key sentence: "Under a Clinton administration, my list would have looked much the same." I have a lot of respect for Mr. Schneier. But he is fooling himself if he thinks a Clinton administration would be one iota less threatening.

That's exactly the point of the quote... The list would have looked much the same. Or am I missing something?

The following sentence is "Trump's election just means the threats will be much greater, and the battles a lot harder to win."

And I think that's a bunch of poppycock. The threats would be no less under a Clinton administration. The battles would be no easier.

Have we all forgotten the Clipper Chip debacle under the last Clinton administration?

Re: My Priorities for the Next Four Years

#104

Post by tptacek »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #70
tptacek wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very hard to be the only person promising to revolt, but it gets easier the more people that do it. What's the threshold percentage of Google or Facebook's workforce that would need to commit themselves before it would not only be safe to join them, but their demands would need to be reckoned with by management? I don't know (I'm really asking) but my gut says it's nowhere close to 51%.

The problem is how do you coordinate that? It's like forming a union in secret... Under the king of surveillance. How do you even get two people together, when talking to the wrong one will probably get you fired? I also think many of those most likely to have privacy issues with Google at this point have moved on, it's not like this is a new concern with Google. I suspect a lot of people still at Google have embrace…

I think there are lots of valid questions to be asked about any ambitious project and it's not wrong to ask them.

But I'm focused right now on my question, the one I just asked. What do we think the threshold is? What's the inflection point?

Re: My Priorities for the Next Four Years

#105

Post by pasquinelli »

MrZongle2 wrote: post #92
rajangdavis wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could be wrong, but I think there is a difference in that with Clinton, there was an expectation of what kind of administration she was going to have. Trump, on the other hand, has been unpredictable since his election (I speak more about his inclusion of Elon Musk into his advisory council as well as Bill Gates comparing him to JFK). I think an administration that is business-minded can yield great economic prospe…

"I think an administration that is business-minded can yield great economic prosperity but might not necessarily have interests in maintaining the rights of American citizens." I don't think we've seen an administration in the last 25 years that had an interest in maintaining the rights of American citizens.

And have any failed to be business-minded?

Re: My Priorities for the Next Four Years

#106

Post by nickpsecurity »

tptacek wrote: post #62
suls wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose however it is hard to revolt against the hand that feeds you more than 2x market rate. "Everyone has their price" sort of thing ..

It's very hard to be the only person promising to revolt, but it gets easier the more people that do it. What's the threshold percentage of Google or Facebook's workforce that would need to commit themselves before it would not only be safe to join them, but their demands would need to be reckoned with by management? I don't know (I'm really asking) but my gut says it's nowhere close to 51%.

"It's very hard to be the only person promising to revolt, but it gets easier the more people that do it."

Been there, done that. Several times. It's why I don't do it anymore. That threshold is higher than many people think. What happens most is insider attack where a person unsure will sell the people out to administration or management. Revolt gets squashed with that person maybe getting some compensation for it. Hard to build up to the necessary threshold without this happening. Once it does, it's witchhunting time. Most people just aren't cut out for spending long periods of time in such circumstances.

I doubt the tech people hoping from one cozy job to the next at six digits will have more endurance or patience than rebels in other sectors. I still see potential, esp if a wave of support started on social media somehow, but it looks bleak if we're talking organized rebellion inside likes of Facebook or Google.

Re: My Priorities for the Next Four Years

#107

Post by ocdtrekkie »

tptacek wrote: post #104
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is how do you coordinate that? It's like forming a union in secret... Under the king of surveillance. How do you even get two people together, when talking to the wrong one will probably get you fired? I also think many of those most likely to have privacy issues with Google at this point have moved on, it's not like this is a new concern with Google. I suspect a lot of people still at Google have embrace…

I think there are lots of valid questions to be asked about any ambitious project and it's not wrong to ask them. But I'm focused right now on my question, the one I just asked. What do we think the threshold is? What's the inflection point?

I think it may be higher than you think. Given how much of their revenue is advertising, and their entire direction on that advertising and how they market it is the targeting based on user profiles... I'd think firing even a large number of employees is easier than giving up your entire business.

Unless, and I guess maybe this is a worthwhile question to tackle first: Could Google and Facebook's advertising models still work without the privacy issues? Is their value as ad platforms still there if they can't operate that level of tracking?

Re: My Priorities for the Next Four Years

#108

Post by Balgair »

I was watching the 'Dunkirk' trailer the other day and a line stuck out to me:

An older fishing boat captain is talking to a younger and soggy rescued solider and says: "There's no hiding from this, boy", referring to the coming of WW2 in general and the captain having to turn to boat back into the melee to search for more survivors.

I think that line is also what Bruce is trying to say to a lot of the EFF supporters out there. There's no hiding from the next 4 years. The implication is then that you have to fight.

Re: My Priorities for the Next Four Years

#110

Post by nickpsecurity »

MrZongle2 wrote: post #103
treebeard901 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly the point of the quote... The list would have looked much the same. Or am I missing something?

The following sentence is "Trump's election just means the threats will be much greater, and the battles a lot harder to win." And I think that's a bunch of poppycock. The threats would be no less under a Clinton administration. The battles would be no easier. Have we all forgotten the Clipper Chip debacle under the last Clinton administration?

The last Clinton Administration increased FOIA capability & compromised on the crypto wars. Wheeler at FCC fought the schemes of ISP's. In each of these areas, Trump would do worse due to his politics or style of not compromising.

I'm a left-leaning moderate who expected Trump to win. I'm not saying any of this in a bubble. Republicans have almost always fought against civil rights (2nd Amendment is exception), privacy, far enforcement of copyright, and net neutrality. That's in the laws they pushed or passed rather than campaign promises. Trump, if he's consistent with Republican politics, will likewise do worse for people concerned about these areas. Better for those who liked the status quo & want noose tightened around individuals necks for big business & government.

I'm still holding out for the 3rd option of him knocking out a lot of this bad stuff after just saying what he needed to get elected. He could feed his ego quite well as a hero against bad laws created by special interests. On top of whatever else he does. Hope he does it but no evidence so far.

Post reply on HN