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

The FBI tracking your browsing history without a warrant might be the beginning

cybernews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 182 posts

Re: The FBI tracking your browsing history without a warrant might be the beginning

#171

Post by shadowgovt »

syshum wrote: post #170
shadowgovt wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The threat model has fundamentally changed, and I'm not so convinced it's acceptable to tell people "We will change nothing because you probably won't die" when the mode of death strikes directly at perception of day-to-day safety. American tolerance of that, from terrorism to gun ownership, is changing.

>>The threat model has fundamentally changed Not really, Authoritarian governments through out history have still killed more people than all of terrorism put together. The Threat Model is still Authoritarian government... >I'm not so convinced it's acceptable to tell people "We will change nothing because you probably won't die" What is not acceptable is telling people "just give up your liberty and you will be safe…

> that is never the case

All governments are some form of sacrificing liberty for safety. The strongest interpretation of the argument that you're putting forward is that the only just government is anarchy, and I don't think we can find many supporters of that hypothesis.

As with all government measures throughout history, the question is not "should any liberty be traded," it's "is this trade a good deal?"

Re: The FBI tracking your browsing history without a warrant might be the beginning

#172

Post by mrfusion »

malandrew wrote: post #62
shadowgovt wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems something has shifted 180 degrees since WW2 The Twin Towers were destroyed, the Pentagon was damaged, and an additional plane was crashed, via a successful conspiracy that could have been detected by blanket, passive surveillance. That's what changed. The threat model the US defense department is concerned about has changed significantly since WWII. The threat to Pax Americana is not direct military interv…

I wouldn't even say it is just the threat model that changed. Humans in developed markets now have a very unhealthy relationship with death to the point where any policy that minimizes death is acceptable consequences be damned. We no longer see death as a normal and natural part of life like previous generations did because it's not as prevalent as it once was. The threat model you just described in another era woul…

Yet we won’t find longevity research.

Re: The FBI tracking your browsing history without a warrant might be the beginning

#173

Post by zuppy »

tsukurimashou wrote: post #74
fsflover wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder which OS you are using. I would definitely recommend Qubes OS from what you wrote.

He uses TempleOS of course

Was that the guy that often posted crazy things around here? Haven't seen him for a while, I remember he was always shadow banned. Sad story, though, according to Wikipedia he died in august 2018. May he rest in peace.

Re: The FBI tracking your browsing history without a warrant might be the beginning

#174

Post by Jkiamalwayshere »

Jah6Aihe wrote: post #9

Here is what I do myself to avoid surveillance culture, in case anyone find it useful. 1. I always use local apps rather than webservices if possible. I use only free software, built from source, to be sure there's no tracker in it (I would love to find a way to whitelist which apps can access the network, but I haven't found a way for that yet). There's almost always a way to perform a task locally. 2. I have a copy…

I am really curious how did you setup your browser to have kiwix be your default search engine? I tried ages ago to setup wikipedia to be a proxy so that anytime I visit wikipedia it will redirect to kiwix running wikipedia on my localhost.

Is it possible to have kiwix be default search engine in firefox?

Re: The FBI tracking your browsing history without a warrant might be the beginning

#175

Post by syshum »

shadowgovt wrote: post #171
syshum wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>The threat model has fundamentally changed Not really, Authoritarian governments through out history have still killed more people than all of terrorism put together. The Threat Model is still Authoritarian government... >I'm not so convinced it's acceptable to tell people "We will change nothing because you probably won't die" What is not acceptable is telling people "just give up your liberty and you will be safe…

> that is never the case All governments are some form of sacrificing liberty for safety. The strongest interpretation of the argument that you're putting forward is that the only just government is anarchy, and I don't think we can find many supporters of that hypothesis. As with all government measures throughout history, the question is not "should any liberty be traded," it's "is this trade a good deal?"

>>All governments are some form of sacrificing liberty for safety.

Incorrect. Governments are instituted by groups of people to organize and support their natural right to defend their life, property, and liberty.

This principle of a "collective right", its lawfulness, is based on individual rights therefore the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute (i.e the individual right of self defense)

Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

Re: The FBI tracking your browsing history without a warrant might be the beginning

#176

Post by waffle_ss »

ta17711771 wrote: post #166
waffle_ss wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not very tricky at all. A random sampling of citizens are asked if they experienced violent crime (including instances not reported to police), and if so, to describe the offender (ethnicity being just one component).[1] Year after year the random samples of victimization correlates with arrest rate by ethnicity. [1]: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245#Methodolog...

I wonder if any of those surveyed included banking crimes in their list that affected them.

It’s a survey of violent crime. So if by banking crime you mean getting mugged, yes, but if you mean a guy from India calling your grandma and saying he’s the IRS and needs her banking info, then no.

Re: The FBI tracking your browsing history without a warrant might be the beginning

#177

Post by shadowgovt »

syshum wrote: post #175
shadowgovt wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that is never the case All governments are some form of sacrificing liberty for safety. The strongest interpretation of the argument that you're putting forward is that the only just government is anarchy, and I don't think we can find many supporters of that hypothesis. As with all government measures throughout history, the question is not "should any liberty be traded," it's "is this trade a good deal?"

>>All governments are some form of sacrificing liberty for safety. Incorrect. Governments are instituted by groups of people to organize and support their natural right to defend their life, property, and liberty. This principle of a "collective right", its lawfulness, is based on individual rights therefore the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other miss…

> Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others...

In the absence of a government and legal framework, the concept of "lawfully" does not exist. The freedom to engage in unlawful violence is one of the freedoms that people under a government sacrifice and exchange for aggregate safety.

If I have a dispute with my neighbor over who owns the cherry tree, I could solve the problem my negotiating with them and coming to reasonable terms on sharing the tree, or I can slaughter them where they stand, and I'm under the risk they will try to solve the problem by slaughtering me where I stand, regardless of what I choose. If the two of us are living under a government, the law and the threat of government violence curtails one of those options for us both. It is a choice we willingly give up for the benefit of giving up the risk that the other will choose the same.

Re: The FBI tracking your browsing history without a warrant might be the beginning

#178

Post by syshum »

shadowgovt wrote: post #177
syshum wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>All governments are some form of sacrificing liberty for safety. Incorrect. Governments are instituted by groups of people to organize and support their natural right to defend their life, property, and liberty. This principle of a "collective right", its lawfulness, is based on individual rights therefore the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other miss…

> Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others... In the absence of a government and legal framework, the concept of "lawfully" does not exist. The freedom to engage in unlawful violence is one of the freedoms that people under a government sacrifice and exchange for aggregate safety. If I have a dispute with my neighbor over who owns the cherry tree, I could solve the…

>In the absence of a government and legal framework, the concept of "lawfully" does not exist.

Again incorrect. The concept of law predates and really exists outside of government institutions. This concept is best exemplified in Frédéric Bastiat book / pamphlet "The Law"

>>If I have a dispute with my neighbor over who owns the cherry tree, I could solve the problem my negotiating with them and coming to reasonable terms on sharing the tree, or I can slaughter them where they stand

No, even in the absence of government it would still be unlawful / unethical for you to "slaughter them where they stand", Government is simply the body for which we have ordained the authority to punish you for unlawful actions, it is not the body for which we have ordained to create the idea of what is and is not unlawful. At least not under a libertarian model of governance.

What you are describing in a Authoritarian or Totalitarian model of governance, and then proclaim that only Authoritarian / Totalitarian models of government exist, that proclamation is false

Re: The FBI tracking your browsing history without a warrant might be the beginning

#179

Post by shadowgovt »

syshum wrote: post #178
shadowgovt wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others... In the absence of a government and legal framework, the concept of "lawfully" does not exist. The freedom to engage in unlawful violence is one of the freedoms that people under a government sacrifice and exchange for aggregate safety. If I have a dispute with my neighbor over who owns the cherry tree, I could solve the…

>In the absence of a government and legal framework, the concept of "lawfully" does not exist. Again incorrect. The concept of law predates and really exists outside of government institutions. This concept is best exemplified in Frédéric Bastiat book / pamphlet "The Law" >>If I have a dispute with my neighbor over who owns the cherry tree, I could solve the problem my negotiating with them and coming to reasonable t…

> At least not under a libertarian model of governance.

I see the source of our disagreement; I was trained in Locke social contract theory and am talking about the US government (given the context of the topic), which is not crafted on a Libertarian framework (the legislature and the executive arms of the government instantiate the idea of what is and is not lawful; whether they "create" the idea or merely implement some zeitgeist understanding from the public is irrelevant to me).

Your viewpoint functions in a more abstract, universal framework. Carry on.

Re: The FBI tracking your browsing history without a warrant might be the beginning

#180

Post by syshum »

shadowgovt wrote: post #179
syshum wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In the absence of a government and legal framework, the concept of "lawfully" does not exist. Again incorrect. The concept of law predates and really exists outside of government institutions. This concept is best exemplified in Frédéric Bastiat book / pamphlet "The Law" >>If I have a dispute with my neighbor over who owns the cherry tree, I could solve the problem my negotiating with them and coming to reasonable t…

> At least not under a libertarian model of governance. I see the source of our disagreement; I was trained in Locke social contract theory and am talking about the US government (given the context of the topic), which is not crafted on a Libertarian framework (the legislature and the executive arms of the government instantiate the idea of what is and is not lawful; whether they "create" the idea or merely implement…

>> I was trained in Locke social contract theory and am talking about the US government (given the context of the topic), which is not crafted on a Libertarian framework

Actually it was in many ways, and Locke's was a supporter of Natural rights and is the basis for most libertarian philosophy

Locke did not believe it was illegal to murder another man simply because the government decreed such an act to be illegal, Locke believed it was illegal because the man had the natural right to life and no other man has the ethical authority to take that life

Everything I have stated fits nicely in Lockean Philosophy

Post reply on HN