NSA targets the privacy-conscious • Hacker News Board

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#171

Post by singlewhitemale » Fri, Jul 04, 2014, 6:42 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #141

Holbein wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You won't get to hear about how the trial turns out from your grave. Well, in contrast to you, I plan to enjoy my life instead of wasting it by worrying about some possible bad actor spying on me, which is what I'm must read is how you spend your life. Sure, fight the NSA by engaging a little bit politically, and buying the right things. But apart from that, don't worry so much, man.

>>Well, in contrast to you, I plan to enjoy my life instead of wasting it by worrying about some possible bad actor spying on me, which is what I'm must read is how you spend your life. Let me guess: you are a straight white dude with a comfortable income.

Kindly go fuck yourself, you bigot.

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#172

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 04, 2014, 8:18 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #107

pessimizer wrote: post #20

Of course this happens, and it's an obvious technique. I'm sure that not having a facebook account adds to your score, using AdBlock adds to your score, mentioning the NSA online adds to your score, refusing cookies adds to your score, using Linux adds to your score, etc. That's how a police state works. (XKeyScore += 5) My mother was involved in civil rights, so she has a file. It's fine that I have a file too. Hope…

That's how any sort of metric works - your credit score, your Acxiom consumer category score, whatever metrics Facebook and Google use to score user engagement. This is just how life is when databases are ubiquitous. After I bought a house and my name began appearing in property tax databases I started getting lots of (paper-based) commercial spam for things homeowners are more likely to buy, like different sorts of…

[deleted]

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#173

Post by fulafel » Fri, Jul 04, 2014, 8:20 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #107

pessimizer wrote: post #20

Of course this happens, and it's an obvious technique. I'm sure that not having a facebook account adds to your score, using AdBlock adds to your score, mentioning the NSA online adds to your score, refusing cookies adds to your score, using Linux adds to your score, etc. That's how a police state works. (XKeyScore += 5) My mother was involved in civil rights, so she has a file. It's fine that I have a file too. Hope…

That's how any sort of metric works - your credit score, your Acxiom consumer category score, whatever metrics Facebook and Google use to score user engagement. This is just how life is when databases are ubiquitous. After I bought a house and my name began appearing in property tax databases I started getting lots of (paper-based) commercial spam for things homeowners are more likely to buy, like different sorts of…

The credit and consumer category scores are legal in the us because of non existing privacy legislation. No such things eg in the EU. Ubiquitous invasive databases aren't fate.

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#174

Post by paletoy » Fri, Jul 04, 2014, 9:11 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #116

anigbrowl wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how any sort of metric works - your credit score, your Acxiom consumer category score, whatever metrics Facebook and Google use to score user engagement. This is just how life is when databases are ubiquitous. After I bought a house and my name began appearing in property tax databases I started getting lots of (paper-based) commercial spam for things homeowners are more likely to buy, like different sorts of…

I think people are too busy, too desperate, and too badly educated to do anything about it. Most people were only being kept solvent by credit cards, borrowing against the equity in their houses, and taking massive loans for major purchases - and when credit got tight, people started setting up tents on Wall Street. The next crash is going to be a terrifying experience. A little bit of war, however, will probably dul…

And people don't really believe that protest(at least a peaceful one) can create a meaningful change. and judging how things are going lately ,they might be right. Case in point: obama care.

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#175

Post by TazeTSchnitzel » Sat, Jul 05, 2014, 1:06 AM UTC

noobhacker wrote: post #169

I feel quite ambiguous about these discriminating techniques. For example, it is okay for us to give females / older people lower insurance rate because that's what the statistics says. Likewise, it's likely that people who search for privacy-enhancing software are more likely to engage in "subversive" activity. So it's hard for me to determine which kind of discrimination is justified and which not.

Did you mean ambivalent, not ambiguous?

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#176

Post by jeangenie » Sun, Jul 06, 2014, 4:43 PM UTC

fulafel wrote: post #151

jeangenie wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> selling raw milk ... can lead to serious harm including deaths. Please STOP spreading misinformation. The only two deaths from raw milk in the last 20 years were traced back to bad queso fresco. In fact, over the same time period, there were more deaths attributed to pasteurized liquid milk than to raw liquid milk[1]. It's amazing what 30 seconds of Googling can do. [1] http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/raw-milk-news…

It's pretty obvious it can cause deaths, since raw milk is causes listeriosis disproportionately and risks from that (including death) are very well known. Even your quoted web page lists 2 deaths from raw milk products and 3 deaths from pasteurized milk products. Considering the relative rarity of raw milk product consumption, that's a pretty obvious sign. Arguing that the contamination isn't significant since it's…

> specific to one milk product doesn't pass muster

No it's not obvious. That's the point. The CDC has admitted those deaths were caused by a product (queso fresco) that is commonly contaminated after production. There are ZERO deaths attributed to consuming raw liquid milk.

> such a small sample you can't deduce anything

Apparently all data from 1998-2011 on all reported illness and deaths from raw milk products is too small for Chicken Little.

And if this data set is too "small" why are the conclusions drawn by the CDC ("raw milk is deadly!") valid? Shouldn't the paucity of data preclude judgement one way or the other?

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#177

Post by DanBC » Sun, Jul 06, 2014, 5:01 PM UTC

jeangenie wrote: post #176

fulafel wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty obvious it can cause deaths, since raw milk is causes listeriosis disproportionately and risks from that (including death) are very well known. Even your quoted web page lists 2 deaths from raw milk products and 3 deaths from pasteurized milk products. Considering the relative rarity of raw milk product consumption, that's a pretty obvious sign. Arguing that the contamination isn't significant since it's…

> specific to one milk product doesn't pass muster No it's not obvious. That's the point. The CDC has admitted those deaths were caused by a product (queso fresco) that is commonly contaminated after production. There are ZERO deaths attributed to consuming raw liquid milk. > such a small sample you can't deduce anything Apparently all data from 1998-2011 on all reported illness and deaths from raw milk products is t…

Raw Milk is harmful.

> Shouldn't the paucity of data preclude judgement one way or the other?

There is no paucity of data. There are very small numbers of people who drink raw milk. And thus there are small numbers of people harmed by raw milk. But it's pretty clear that raw milk is considerably riskier than pasteurised milk.

Whether adults should be allowed to make stupid choices is another topic. I'd suggest that adults should not be allowed to inflict those stupid choices onto children - who are going to be at even greater risk from harm.

You keep talking about death. Having to have kidneys transplanted because e coli has destroyed them is not death, but I hope you agree it's a severe consequence from eating food.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/raw-milk-debate/

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5608a3.htm

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/09/is-raw-milk-s...

> The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that of 239 hospitalizations caused by tainted dairy products from 1993 through 2006, 202 involved raw milk or raw-milk cheese. Nearly two-thirds of the patients were younger than 20. "Parents go to raw milk because they hear it's good for kids' allergies," says Michele Jay-Russell, a veterinarian and food safety specialist at the University of California-Davis who has studied the outbreaks. But children's developing immune systems are more vulnerable than those of adults. "They end up sickening their kids," Jay-Russell adds.

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#178

Post by jeangenie » Sun, Jul 06, 2014, 7:00 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #177

jeangenie wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> specific to one milk product doesn't pass muster No it's not obvious. That's the point. The CDC has admitted those deaths were caused by a product (queso fresco) that is commonly contaminated after production. There are ZERO deaths attributed to consuming raw liquid milk. > such a small sample you can't deduce anything Apparently all data from 1998-2011 on all reported illness and deaths from raw milk products is t…

Raw Milk is harmful. > Shouldn't the paucity of data preclude judgement one way or the other? There is no paucity of data. There are very small numbers of people who drink raw milk. And thus there are small numbers of people harmed by raw milk. But it's pretty clear that raw milk is considerably riskier than pasteurised milk. Whether adults should be allowed to make stupid choices is another topic. I'd suggest that a…

"Harmful" is a meaningless term and contributes nothing to the discussion. Cars are harmful. Alcohol is harmful. Freedom is harmful. So what's your fucking point?

I bring up death because that's the canard trotted out by raw milk haters. And it doesn't happen with any appreciable frequency despite the large numbers of people consuming raw milk.

I'm not disagreeing that both raw and pasteurized milk can potentially cause serious illness, however I do not believe the numbers are large enough to be cause for concern or excessive regulation by control freaks who need to dictate what people put in their bodies. Perhaps you disagree and that's fine.

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#179

Post by DanBC » Sun, Jul 06, 2014, 7:12 PM UTC

jeangenie wrote: post #178

DanBC wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Raw Milk is harmful. > Shouldn't the paucity of data preclude judgement one way or the other? There is no paucity of data. There are very small numbers of people who drink raw milk. And thus there are small numbers of people harmed by raw milk. But it's pretty clear that raw milk is considerably riskier than pasteurised milk. Whether adults should be allowed to make stupid choices is another topic. I'd suggest that a…

"Harmful" is a meaningless term and contributes nothing to the discussion. Cars are harmful. Alcohol is harmful. Freedom is harmful. So what's your fucking point? I bring up death because that's the canard trotted out by raw milk haters. And it doesn't happen with any appreciable frequency despite the large numbers of people consuming raw milk. I'm not disagreeing that both raw and pasteurized milk can potentially ca…

My fucking point is a very simple point about risk. There are no rewards to drinking raw milk, but there is high risk of significant harm.

The ratio of people drinking raw milk to suffering severe harm from it is much worse than for cars, alcohol, or freedom.

> control freaks who need to dictate what people put in their bodies.

Do you agree that parents should not feed their children a dangerous product that has no benefit? Or is that a bit of control freakery that you don't care about because bias?

Re: NSA targets the privacy-conscious

#180

Post by jeangenie » Sun, Jul 06, 2014, 9:46 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #179

jeangenie wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Harmful" is a meaningless term and contributes nothing to the discussion. Cars are harmful. Alcohol is harmful. Freedom is harmful. So what's your fucking point? I bring up death because that's the canard trotted out by raw milk haters. And it doesn't happen with any appreciable frequency despite the large numbers of people consuming raw milk. I'm not disagreeing that both raw and pasteurized milk can potentially ca…

My fucking point is a very simple point about risk. There are no rewards to drinking raw milk, but there is high risk of significant harm. The ratio of people drinking raw milk to suffering severe harm from it is much worse than for cars, alcohol, or freedom. > control freaks who need to dictate what people put in their bodies. Do you agree that parents should not feed their children a dangerous product that has no b…

You are being a troll. You don't know you're talking about [1]. You can do the math to figure out that you're wrong. I already have. If you can contribute anything remotely productive I will respond otherwise have fun building regulation castles in the sky.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re...