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

Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 222 posts

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#211

Post by grey-area »

angersock wrote: post #177
4891 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you - this is the most sensible comment I've seen in this thread. Many thinkers throughout history have noted that states and criminal gangs are effectively the same. They are both inherently violent organisations. Criminal gangs are tiny states; states are large, settled criminal gangs. The Yakuza in Japan or the Cray family (when they ruled half of London) are examples of intermediate forms: criminal gangs th…

Absolutely fantastic post, sir or madam. I very much agree that the rest of the world is being a bit two-faced, on the one hand enjoying immensely the pax americana which we have wrought and on the other decrying the evils of American imperialism--despite doing damned little to act in a similarly noble fashion. As much as we may, for example, decry the surveillance of foreigners by the .gov and bemoan the lack of ope…

To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.

Your apologia is as old as the Roman Empire, and made as little sense then - as Tacitus points out using Calcagus above.

The concept of a 'Pax Americana' is an absurdity given the wars instigated by the US just in the last few decades and manipulation of client states, and while other nation states are no different in many ways in being run for the benefit of those in power, I certainly wouldn't say the US is better in these regards than the majority of western states.

I'd condemn this sort of widespread surveillance no matter who the actor is (and in fact it seems the UK has been just as cavalier in their actions, to take one example). It's a very dangerous centralisation of power and will lead to the growth of a secret state, inimical to the values you appear to find admirable (though the American dream is a rather vague concept and could really mean anything).

Empires are not forces for good, on the contrary normally they civilise the world by subjugating it to their will. In our increasingly connected and mobile world, we should try to see past the concept of a nation state or empire building to universal values of human rights to basic needs, among which I'd place individual privacy fom state intrusion.

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#212

Post by dragonwriter »

jmadsen wrote: post #210
revscat wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Law is the codification of morality.

It's the codification of the parts of morality that we bargain & wrestle into a set of rules we decide to enforce. Not all "morality" turns into law, nor is all law based on morale principals.

All law is based on value judgements, and, therefore, on moral principles.

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#213

Post by angersock »

grey-area wrote: post #211
angersock wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely fantastic post, sir or madam. I very much agree that the rest of the world is being a bit two-faced, on the one hand enjoying immensely the pax americana which we have wrought and on the other decrying the evils of American imperialism--despite doing damned little to act in a similarly noble fashion. As much as we may, for example, decry the surveillance of foreigners by the .gov and bemoan the lack of ope…

To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace. Your apologia is as old as the Roman Empire, and made as little sense then - as Tacitus points out using Calcagus above. The concept of a 'Pax Americana' is an absurdity given the wars instigated by the US just in the last few decades and manipulation of client states, and while other nation state…

And once the Empire was gone, I believe a great many people missed it.

We've seen the people voluntarily subject themselves to cataloging and surveillance on an unprecedented scale--Facebook, Twitter, Google, and so forth.

So, honestly, to hell with "the people". You claim that this information gathering is an outrage, that this invasion of privacy is an affront to all things decent.

Fact is, amigo, that fully a sixth of the human race has voluntarily given up their privacy to Facebook and the like in exchange for a cute little garden to play in and communicate with. Sadly, we seem to have forfeited the right that we otherwise would've claimed.

The people have spoken.

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#214

Post by grey-area »

angersock wrote: post #213
grey-area wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace. Your apologia is as old as the Roman Empire, and made as little sense then - as Tacitus points out using Calcagus above. The concept of a 'Pax Americana' is an absurdity given the wars instigated by the US just in the last few decades and manipulation of client states, and while other nation state…

And once the Empire was gone, I believe a great many people missed it. We've seen the people voluntarily subject themselves to cataloging and surveillance on an unprecedented scale--Facebook, Twitter, Google, and so forth. So, honestly, to hell with "the people". You claim that this information gathering is an outrage, that this invasion of privacy is an affront to all things decent. Fact is, amigo, that fully a sixt…

I disagree about nostalgia for Empire - that tends to be connected with apologies for contemporary empire building, while ignoring the constant warfare, massive slavery, brutal subjugation of conquered peoples, venality and corruption of Ancient Rome. It's a fascinating period, but hardly one to feel nostalgia for.

I agree that frequent and public sharing of information via twitter etc will in future be considered dangerous, and some people are sharing far too much, much of it out in public. That has no bearing on my individual right to privacy though - just because lots of people engage in public sharing of trivia, news, and opinions doesn't mean they are abdicating the right to privacy on more substantial matters - not many would agree to sharing all their email publicly for example.

The more important point for me is that there is a big difference between me sharing some info publicly, some info semi-anonymously, and then separately private financial info with my bank, numbers called with my phone company, email with google etc, and intel agencies of my country demanding access to all this information in aggregate for everyone, in perpetuity, and sharing it with other agencies and countries, with no effective oversight or even permission.

I see no justifiable excuse for that, not the mirage of a Pax Americana, Islamist terrorists, or any future threat.

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#215

Post by reedlaw »

rayiner wrote: post #179
nkoren wrote: post #45

The Declaration of Independence states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Gendered language aside, the idea of the founders was clearly that rights derive from one's innate humanity, and do not derive from government largess. This was the…

> that they are endowed by their Creator Okay, so what about all of us that don't believe in the supernatural? Do our rights come from an all-loving God, or are they creations of man like everything else in society?

The idea of rights as creations of man begs the question of how any of our present rights came to exist in the first place, especially considering the sentiments expressed elsewhere in this thread--that is, "might makes right" and that states are just more powerful criminal gangs. On the other hand, the idea of man's rights being endowed by their Creator implies that these self-evident rights are based on the nature of an all-loving creator God and are bestowed on mankind by God. Although such a view may be residue of the influence of Christendom on society and law, it's hard to find a more cogent argument for human rights. At least I haven't heard any compelling secular arguments for their existence.

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#216

Post by bandushrew »

Goladus wrote: post #203
abraininavat wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure nkoren's point has just flown over your head. You're talking about the obligations of the US Government. The US Government clearly only has the obligation to secure the rights of its own citizens. nkoren is talking about the rights of the US Government. Just look at the language of the very first clause. All men are guaranteed these rights. It makes no mention of citizenship. That the US Government ha…

nkoren is talking about the rights of the US Government. No, he is talking about the behavior of the US Government and the behavior of its citizens, and inferring motivating principles from that. Nkoren appears to have concluded that the US and its people have abandoned the founding enlightenment ideals in favor of utter selfishness. I don't buy the bullshit that the government can only protect my rights by violating…

Honestly, no.

Small minded thinking is being unable to step out from behind the 'protection' offered by authority figures because the world just seems too scary to you.

If the cost of belief in the rights of humanity to freedom, dignity and self determination is high, that is because the rewards are great.

Stop being cynical, and stop being scared. Look up. The sun is shining :)

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#217

Post by jpatte »

4891 wrote: post #162
Goladus wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would, perhaps, be enlightening to quote the entire sentence from the US Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the c…

Thank you - this is the most sensible comment I've seen in this thread. Many thinkers throughout history have noted that states and criminal gangs are effectively the same. They are both inherently violent organisations. Criminal gangs are tiny states; states are large, settled criminal gangs. The Yakuza in Japan or the Cray family (when they ruled half of London) are examples of intermediate forms: criminal gangs th…

For anyone interested, Norbert Elias (1897-1990) wrote a very enlightening book "The Civilizing Process" describing how these small social structures evolved into States as we know them in Occident [1]. Excerpted from a summary [2]:

According to Elias, monopolization, and especially the monopolization of physical force and violence warranted more self-restraint from both the government and the individual. In "The civilizing Process" Elias talks about "a chain of mutual dependence" which makes people dependent upon each other in order to perform various tasks and achieve their goals. This, according to Elias, explains why societies required more stability, regularity and supervision. Transportation and the development of markets increased human interactions between people who found themselves dependent on each other even without direct contact. This according to Elias has led for the need to coordinate actions and establish the "rules of the game". Playing by the rules meant a growing demand for self restraint.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civilizing_Process

[2]: http://culturalstudiesnow.blogspot.fr/2012/04/norbert-elias-...

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#218

Post by ajuc »

scarmig wrote: post #157
ajuc wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes you are protected in civilized countries nobody can read your letters without your consent, no matter your citizenship. It's criminal offence if they do.

True. But do any civilized countries exist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy_of_correspondence

Polish constitution (in Polish, but I'll translate):

http://www.msw.gov.pl/portal/pl/193/24/Konstytucyjne_wolnosc...

Article 49:

"Zapewnia się wolność i ochronę tajemnicy komunikowania się. Ich ograniczenie może nastąpić jedynie w przypadkach określonych w ustawie i w sposób w niej określony." = "[The state] ensure everybody has freedom of ommunication and secrecy of communication, this can only be limited in cases specified in the law, and in a way specified in law".

Article 37:

"Kto znajduje się pod władzą Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, korzysta z wolności i praw zapewnionych w Konstytucji. Wyjątki od tej zasady, odnoszące się do cudzoziemców, określa ustawa. " = "Who is on the Polish territory - has the same rights and freedoms as Polish citizen. Only exceptions are specified in the law".

The exceptions are mostly about the right to be elected to government etc.

Poland isn't particulary civilized country, this is really common sense.

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#219

Post by Goladus »

bandushrew wrote: post #216
Goladus wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nkoren is talking about the rights of the US Government. No, he is talking about the behavior of the US Government and the behavior of its citizens, and inferring motivating principles from that. Nkoren appears to have concluded that the US and its people have abandoned the founding enlightenment ideals in favor of utter selfishness. I don't buy the bullshit that the government can only protect my rights by violating…

Honestly, no. Small minded thinking is being unable to step out from behind the 'protection' offered by authority figures because the world just seems too scary to you. If the cost of belief in the rights of humanity to freedom, dignity and self determination is high, that is because the rewards are great. Stop being cynical, and stop being scared. Look up. The sun is shining :)

http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/08/01

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#220

Post by vidarh »

alephnil wrote: post #65
vidarh wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're skipping about 1000 years of history there to make your point. By the time of the rise of nationalism, many parts of Europe had shifted back and forth in control between larger empires for hundreds of years, and it mostly was not a continent of tiny little city states and small kingdoms any longer. The era of the city states started fading quickly after the renaissance, and were in the first place mostly limit…

> You're skipping about 1000 years of history there to make your point. This varied by area. Some nation states developed early (England, France, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland), while other areas was dominated by city states much longer, like Italy and Germany that did not become a nation states before around 1870.

Not really

For the most part these countries were monarchies whose territories waxed and waned with the power of their ruling houses, where the idea of a nation with a specific government did not develop much earlier than elsewhere. Their development into nation states in fact largely happened as they contracted into core territories with common cultures and languages and the power of their monarchs was put under increasing challenge.

As for Germany and Italy, while they did not become nation states until late in the game, a large part of that was that they were part of empires and other kingdoms long before.

The Holy Roman Empire (not to be confused with the Roman Empire), the West Roman Empire, the Ostrogothic Kingdom ("heir" to the West Roman Empire, including Italy), the Frankish (Carolingian) Empire, the Bysantine Empire (East Roman Empire); Habsburg Spain; Habsburg Austria; the original Roman Empire.

The period of scattered small autonomous city states was a historical "blip" of not much more than two hundred years due to a temporary political and military vacuum caused by the constant tug of war of various of these larger empires.

The core areas of Germany and Italy had been dominated by organized larger scale governments for the most part of the preceding two millenias (depending on region) before nationalism existed.

Post reply on HN