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

Forced Exposure

groklaw.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 430 posts

Re: Forced Exposure

#201

Post by auggierose »

bostik wrote: post #187
auggierose wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That implies you have not read 1984. You should.

Oh, I have. It's just far too long ago, and I had the misfortune of reading a translation. A bad one, at that. So I couldn't place the quote. I just knew it from different context. Much the same way it took me years to find a quote that my gradeschool math teacher used and which had lodged itself firmly in my brain. Namely: "To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." - Confucius

I like the Confucius quote. There IS a certain danger in taking shortcuts in your thinking. It's probably best to use shortcuts anyway when in discovery mode, but then to check those shortcuts rigorously.

Re: Forced Exposure

#202

Post by clebio »

snowwrestler wrote: post #193
lazyjones wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's time to act, now Suggested courses of action? Tried and didn't work: * voting * not voting * protesting online / offline * writing about these issues, raising awareness What options do we have left? Violence? Hopefully there's more.

What a joke. Please educate yourself about the history of successful social movements like labor rights, civil rights, environmental protection, etc. The privacy movement has not even begun to begin what is necessary to change the law. For example: can you name the leading organization that works solely on privacy? There isn't one. The issue is only sort-of covered if you add up the partial work of a bunch of differe…

good suggestions (I'd add HRW), but you could leave the disrespectful attitude aside. Instead of your first paragraph, maybe mention the publications of the Albert Enstein Institute (http://www.aeinstein.org/).

Re: Forced Exposure

#203

Post by a3n »

lignuist wrote: post #180
jacquesm wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, yes. PJ being a woman is very well known and it irks me when people automatically assume that anybody that runs a thing as successful as groklaw has to be a guy without checking. If you don't know use a gender neutral word or check, it's simple. It's not purity in language, it is paying basic respect to a person who is named several times in full in this thread.

> ... If you don't know use a gender neutral word ... "it"?

"They" generally works, it's just not commonly used and so sounds a little odd. Try using "they" instead of instead of "he" and "her" for a few minutes to see. It works.

Re: Forced Exposure

#204

Post by kalkin »

ENOTTY wrote: post #145
rolux wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect that US tech companies who are complicit in dragnet surveillance - and PRISM specifically - are already understanding this. Absolutely. Just as 2013 is the year where "ordinary people" have begun to understand that "the cloud" is a scam. (And that is doesn't make that much of a difference if they store their data with Google, Apple, or directly with the NSA. If the blueprints of PRISM can't be kept from l…

There's no evidence the blueprints of PRISM were leaked, just training slides for analysts. There's also no evidence that actual surveillance data was leaked. This particular slippery slope argument seems weaker because one would expect the government to place tighter controls on the data or the blueprints.

If no actual surveillance data was leaked, though, that's likely because Snowden is an idealist. It seems that he had access to that data. If the next leaker just wants some cash, things could change. (Or, hell, maybe the previous leaker--maybe spy is a better word here--who didn't get caught because s/he didn't go public, or was purely the victim of an ultra-sophisticated phishing attempt!)

Re: Forced Exposure

#205

Post by panacea »

knowtheory wrote: post #198
panacea wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intimidation, confiscation/destruction of property without due process, invasive surveillance and retention under 'terrorist' laws for family of journalists is a difference of degree than what happens in Mexico. I hold the liberal Western governments to higher standards though, and see the difference in degree as being eroded more easily than you suggest.

You're still falsely equating. Even if it were a slippery slope along a line, it's still a line. Not all of the points are directly adjacent to each other.

Let me try and phrase this in terms that aren't loaded such as 'slippery slope' or rhetorical geometry.

I believe in the importance of a free press, and recent developments are troubling and lead to understandable concerns about the ability of ordinary people and journalists to discuss, report on, or investigate without undue duress, potential criminal activities by rogue agents exceeding their mandate as proscribed by their democratically elected governments.

Re: Forced Exposure

#206

Post by brown9-2 »

gregd wrote: post #94
brown9-2 wrote: post #70

Can anyone explain for the uninformed how anything like surveillance affects Groklaw? I was under the (probably wrong) impression that most of what Groklaw did was explain the law and court cases in simple terms.

Jesus, it's only two, short sentences in, "The owner of Lavabit tells us that he's stopped using email and if we knew what he knew, we'd stop too. There is no way to do Groklaw without email. Therein lies the conundrum."

The point I am confused about is why a legal analysis blog is worried about government surveillance, so I am wondering if my perception of what Groklaw actually does is incorrect.

Re: Forced Exposure

#207

Post by lazyjones »

snowwrestler wrote: post #193
lazyjones wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's time to act, now Suggested courses of action? Tried and didn't work: * voting * not voting * protesting online / offline * writing about these issues, raising awareness What options do we have left? Violence? Hopefully there's more.

What a joke. Please educate yourself about the history of successful social movements like labor rights, civil rights, environmental protection, etc. The privacy movement has not even begun to begin what is necessary to change the law. For example: can you name the leading organization that works solely on privacy? There isn't one. The issue is only sort-of covered if you add up the partial work of a bunch of differe…

I don't see the necessity to play exactly the same game our political establishment is playing (raising millions, spin-doctoring, bribery) in order to beat the system from within. It may be one way to do it, but it's costly and seems extremely inefficient. Hopefully there are other ways to achieve something.

Frankly, I am unsure about your intentions for writing the above post. You insinuate that organizations like the EFF are not suitable to fight the fight for privacy. You make this look like a gargantuan effort to even get started. Are you trying to discourage people or have you just given up?

Re: Forced Exposure

#208

Post by glesica »

tambourine_man wrote: post #176
angersock wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, right, but for everyone that isn't a lean rockstar Node ninja programmer agile kanban expert--e.g., most of the population of the United States--it is far, far too easy to weigh going hungry against getting a "harmless" Facebook profile.

No programmer is going hungry in the US.

Yep, for those of us who can read, the point of the comment was that not everyone has as many options as programmers.

Re: Forced Exposure

#209

Post by acheron »

mcv wrote: post #97
demallien wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that it's useful to be talking about Obama specifically. Before Obama there was Bush Jr, who was the sitting president when most of these programs were put in place. It should be clear now that it's not one specific President, or one specific party, but the whole political class that has been corrupted. Thinking things will get better at the next election will absolutely not help things, unless the issu…

I lot of people were hoping Obama was the start of a new direction. I'm now hoping he'll be the last of the old direction. The big problem to solve is: how do you elect someone different? As long as the two parties get to decide who American can elect, democracy is a hollow gesture. And the media are all in the pocket of the main parties. Honestly, it seems like only Al-Jazeera US might be the only independent news s…

"lot of people were hoping Obama was the start of a new direction"

Anyone who thought that wasn't paying attention, of course, but it's not like that's a new thing.

And it makes sense: it's not like your vote is actually going to do anything, so why bother paying attention? Just go vote if you remember, and pick the guy with the letter by his name that you voted for last time. (Can look up Ilya Somin's writings regarding "rational political ignorance" for more on that.)

Re: Forced Exposure

#210

Post by _mvuc »

tilsammans wrote: post #149
quail wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama continues to push hard to steal what little privacy rights US citizens have remaining. He is openly hostile about it, and lies about it constantly. Am I exaggerating here? The scary thing is I'm not. He's not done. It's going to get worse.

We -- all citizens of Western countries -- should seriously stop voting altogether. And I mean full stop. When the next election comes, nobody votes. That'll destabilize things right quick.

There is no "we", but I also disagree that it would "destabilize things". I think that after a brief initial upheaval, it would stabilize things to a great degree, and in a positive manner.
Post reply on HN