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

Restoring Trust in Government and the Internet

schneier.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 122 posts

Re: Restoring Trust in Government and the Internet

#111

Post by squozzer »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #14
Zigurd wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's solvable, too. If they are interested in having credibility, Internet services can implement secure communications and storage. They may have to charge for it because they will forego some ad revenue. So what to make of the fact that nobody who has loudly declared they are all for customers' privacy has actually done anything about it?

Don't forget mesh networking. Seems like mesh with a combination of trusted anonymous P2P would be very difficult to tap into. There's lots of nerd fun here for those interested. And there's a big need. A shame more folks aren't stepping up to the plate. Just to whet the appetite, how much of the internet do you actually participate in, versus just consume? Most server stats show a 40-1 or even 200-1 ratio of readers…

I think we're going to have to minimize our traffic over established links for such a system to work. Three types of media come to mind --

1) Open-air (e.g. radio but possibly IR, optical, etc.) 2) Electric lines 3) Water pipes or other forms of conductive media 4) Couriers

So far, so good. The trickier problem is how to get people to adopt the new system while keeping out the snoopers or other bad guys.

Re: Restoring Trust in Government and the Internet

#112

Post by ksrm »

Xylakant wrote: post #36
junto wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is great and I would even good as far to say 'noble', but in a political system like the United States, your vote is wasted, because your vote is not proportionally represented in the House of Representatives. It means you face an ever-challenging battle against almost impossible odds in order to get your green or libertarian candidate into the House of Representatives.

Here in germany the system is a bit more complicated but there's also candidates that get selected by a majority vote and it used to be that people said "if you're giving your vote to the greens, the vote is wasted." That used to be true since nobody wanted to waste his vote - until enough people did so. Now there's three strong parties contesting. Even if the greens/liberals/whatever don't get elected, showing that…

At least you have some degree of proportionality in your voting system though. It's something people have been campaigning for for decades in the UK and it hasn't happened. I fear it might never happen.

Re: Restoring Trust in Government and the Internet

#113

Post by saraid216 »

0xdeadbeefbabe wrote: post #109
saraid216 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an awesome non-sequitur and I hope you use it at parties.

Okay I will, if conversation permits. What are the chances? Probably low. I'm thinking the premise is that tmobile and verizon care about your call and the conclusion is that you should call them. That conclusion doesn't follow the premise because you may not care that they care, but I presupposed you did because you were talking about trusting groups. When a tmobile support person thanks me for my call I do not trus…

Under this model, you should be calling every single person in the world and telling them how much you care. Because they're individuals.

Re: Restoring Trust in Government and the Internet

#114

Post by Amadou »

harryh wrote: post #108
Amadou wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are entirely correct. We need visceral examples. Even if they don't affect regular people directly they need to be the kind of thing that people instinctively recoil from. Emotion and vividness trump logical reasoning when it comes to swaying the masses, so we need vivid examples that make an emotional impact in order to win the public debate. I joke with friends that the NSA will be canceled overnight if we can…

> Emotion and vividness trump logical reasoning when it comes to swaying the masses See, you're going in the wrong direction right of the bat. The people that disagree with you aren't stupid. A lot of them are smarter than you are. They just have different values than you do. Speaking down to them will never work.

I don't know what to say to that - you provided a very vivid and emotionally-laden photo as what the "other side" was using to justify their position and now you say that the other side is not using vividness and emotion to make their point? What is your point?

Re: Restoring Trust in Government and the Internet

#115

Post by RyanMcGreal »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #88
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with "Real change starts at X" statements is that they necessarily handwave around the circularity of the problems we face. We can't get better policies until we elect better parties, but we can't elect better parties until we address campaign finance and fix the electoral system, but we can't address campaign finance and fix the electoral system until we elect better parties willing to pass better polici…

>We can't get better policies until we elect better parties, but we can't elect better parties until we address campaign finance and fix the electoral system, but we can't address campaign finance and fix the electoral system until we elect better parties willing to pass better policies. And the merry-go-round goes on and on. So you have to pick one and fix it. It's an engineering problem. So for example, you have to…

I don't mean to suggest there's nothing people can do. However, it's facile and unhelpful to suggest that this is a simple engineering problem. The reason campaign finance is hard to fix is that the people who have the power to fix it are the very same people who benefit the most from the current system, i.e. the people who are most effective at securing the financing of wealthy benefactors.

That's a human problem, not an engineering problem. It can still be solved, but it won't be solved with an engineering approach.

Re: Restoring Trust in Government and the Internet

#116

Post by harryh »

Amadou wrote: post #114
harryh wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Emotion and vividness trump logical reasoning when it comes to swaying the masses See, you're going in the wrong direction right of the bat. The people that disagree with you aren't stupid. A lot of them are smarter than you are. They just have different values than you do. Speaking down to them will never work.

I don't know what to say to that - you provided a very vivid and emotionally-laden photo as what the "other side" was using to justify their position and now you say that the other side is not using vividness and emotion to make their point? What is your point?

That photo is a reminder if actual real problems, and quite big ones at that. It is not a mere play to emotion over logical reasoning.

Re: Restoring Trust in Government and the Internet

#117

Post by Amadou »

harryh wrote: post #116
Amadou wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what to say to that - you provided a very vivid and emotionally-laden photo as what the "other side" was using to justify their position and now you say that the other side is not using vividness and emotion to make their point? What is your point?

That photo is a reminder if actual real problems, and quite big ones at that. It is not a mere play to emotion over logical reasoning.

Sorry, I've found that arguments based on actual real problems don't resonate. Pointing out that bees kill more people each year in the US than terrorists, that the average american has 150x more chance of being killed by lightning than by a terrorist attack -- these straightforward statistical analyses don't convince because they aren't personal the way that photo is - practically everyone in the country spent weeks looking at versions of that photo. It just isn't the same.

Re: Restoring Trust in Government and the Internet

#118

Post by harryh »

Amadou wrote: post #117
harryh wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That photo is a reminder if actual real problems, and quite big ones at that. It is not a mere play to emotion over logical reasoning.

Sorry, I've found that arguments based on actual real problems don't resonate. Pointing out that bees kill more people each year in the US than terrorists, that the average american has 150x more chance of being killed by lightning than by a terrorist attack -- these straightforward statistical analyses don't convince because they aren't personal the way that photo is - practically everyone in the country spent weeks…

> Sorry, I've found that arguments based on actual real problems don't resonate. Pointing out that bees kill more people each year in the US than terrorists

That's because this is a bad argument. Terrorism is about far more than just the number of fatalities.

Re: Restoring Trust in Government and the Internet

#119

Post by Amadou »

harryh wrote: post #118
Amadou wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I've found that arguments based on actual real problems don't resonate. Pointing out that bees kill more people each year in the US than terrorists, that the average american has 150x more chance of being killed by lightning than by a terrorist attack -- these straightforward statistical analyses don't convince because they aren't personal the way that photo is - practically everyone in the country spent weeks…

> Sorry, I've found that arguments based on actual real problems don't resonate. Pointing out that bees kill more people each year in the US than terrorists That's because this is a bad argument. Terrorism is about far more than just the number of fatalities.

Yeah, it is about the emotional reaction that causes self-inflicted wounds far greater than the original attack. Which is why I'm talking about finding arguments that are also emotionally compelling.
Post reply on HN