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

25 years of mass surveillance is enough

schneier.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 384 posts

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#321

Post by latentsea »

Varelion wrote: post #74
api wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet there's incentive structures that push it forward. It's a classic example of us being dragged along by incentives and emergent patterns against our individual wills and better judgement. People think it's a conspiracy of the elite, but the last part of your message is true and it makes me wonder to what extent everyone is being dragged along by everyone else and nobody can stop because nobody can stop. I mean if…

Hold on. Panama papers. Epstein files. CointelPro -> NSPM-7. There absolutely, without a reasonable doubt, is a conspiracy of the elite -- the billionaire class.

Poor people door all the same shit, just on a smaller scale.

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#322

Post by krapp »

laughing_man wrote: post #320
shevy-java wrote: post #104

> One of the many legacies of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 I see this more as an excuse used by a small corrupt elite wanting to enslave the people. The problem is that you do not have a real democracy in the USA. The current orange clown brigade shows this best (corrupt to the core), but it is not really much better with other roleplaying administrations. Sooner or later people will realise this too, even the n…

I don't know why Trump's existence is evidence the US does not have a "real" democracy. As a group, we voted for him, and he went to the Oval Office. That's democracy. There are certainly governments outlawing political opponents in the first world, but that's not the US.

When the same guy wins when he gets the popular vote, and wins when he doesn't, that may technically be "democracy" in the sense that a vote occurred and votes were counted, but it clearly isn't fair (and it isn't, it isn't designed to be. If it were fair, the people might do something crazy like vote in a populist demagogue...)

And yes, I would say that regarding the other side too.

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#323

Post by MentalM »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #219
N_Lens wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly agree with your take. The ultra wealthy are entrapped by their own minds & machines of wealth that have tight demands.

> The ultra wealthy are entrapped by their own minds & machines of wealth that have tight demands. But only within their minds. They could change their minds, donate or pay enough taxes that their billions would be distributed far and wide. Then they'd no longer be trapped. Plenty of people make the choice to stop acquiring, stop increasing their wealth, and stop having more everything (kids, houses, cars, pets, hobb…

> It's hard for those who have no choice, and those who've made different choices, to relate to the insatiable appetite of billionaires.

If we talk about US, your statement is outrageous hypocrisy.

Median income world-wide is less than 50 cents per hour. Average American person "who have no choice" could start working for like 30+ times more at any moment they want and choose any US government they want.

And how much money from this 30+ times more they have "donated or paid enough taxes" that their several dollars per hour "would be distributed far and wide"? Zero. So we are talking about insatiable appetite of Americans, not Billionaires. Because average American person has literally the same choice you are talking about, and literally choosing "having more everything" instead of "distribute far and wide".

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#324

Post by juiceland »

tpmoney wrote: post #300
ux266478 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we live in different worlds? I can't think of a single meaningful way my comfort has increased in the past 25 years. In fact, with the rise of the homeless and mental health crises, the encroachment of more and more people who have no business touching computers into cyberspace, the increased relevance of flash mob power on the internet, I would say my comfort has been actively degraded on a fundamental and signif…

A useful thought experiment is which 80 year period of history would you prefer to live in other than now, with the caveat that you wouldn’t know how things turn out when you lived in that time. It’s easy to pick a single brief moment in history that is in some important ways better than right now. But many of those time periods are bookended by their own periods of strife and struggle. If you had to pick a different…

>with the caveat that you wouldn’t know how things turn out when you lived in that time.

The premise sort of gives it away, doesn’t it? If you don’t know how things turn out you can’t say how you’d respond. Everyone is a product of their time. Some people are miserable, some are resilient.

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#325

Post by drunkpotato »

nekusar wrote: post #317
ux266478 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mass demonstrations are common and frequent, more than ever. The thing is that these are mild pressures at best. What came from Occupy Wallstreet? The George Floyd protests? The No Kings marches? Anti-ICE demonstrations? They're not nothing and we should continue to have them and participate in them, but we have to recognize them as what they are: background radiation. On their own, they don't affect change or bring…

You have a strong point, and it's probably not the one you want to make. Non-violent (peaceful, loud, signs) protesting does little to nothing. Historically speaking, what does work is violence, and a lot of it. Even in the USA, our own labor battles were effectively wars, with the US military fighting against the people. It's where the Pinkertons were created. And it was bloody as hell, until FDR had some sense in m…

To add to your point, I'm struggling to think of any non-violent movement in history that wasn't backed by a more violent movement that made the non-violent movement the more palatable option.

Unconditionally embracing nonviolence is not, properly, a goal. Nonviolence is a strategy. It must be conditional on its effectiveness.

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#326

Post by overfeed »

pstuart wrote: post #319
overfeed wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The left gets trapped... Nevermind the wedge driven when moderates who think of themselves as being on the left agree with the idea that past weak attempts to nudge things leftward "went too far", or that there actually is an issue with "government waste". Sir/Ma'am - you are complicit in moving the Overton window to the right.

I've been called a "shrill far leftist" and a "fascist appeaser" so does that make me a centrist? Any labeling I may apply to myself is for convenience of packaged assumptions about my values. > moderates who think of themselves as being on the left agree with the idea that past weak attempts to nudge things leftward "went too far" Examples please? Not a challenge, I just am not pickup up what you're laying down. As…

I could have been more clear in my writing, but I was adding to your point of things that trap the left. The "Sir/Ma'am" was addressing a hypothetical left-ish "moderate" who gets trapped into criticizing other on the left by conservative talking points - not accusing you personally. I have no idea what your politics are.

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#327

Post by tpmoney »

juiceland wrote: post #324
tpmoney wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A useful thought experiment is which 80 year period of history would you prefer to live in other than now, with the caveat that you wouldn’t know how things turn out when you lived in that time. It’s easy to pick a single brief moment in history that is in some important ways better than right now. But many of those time periods are bookended by their own periods of strife and struggle. If you had to pick a different…

>with the caveat that you wouldn’t know how things turn out when you lived in that time. The premise sort of gives it away, doesn’t it? If you don’t know how things turn out you can’t say how you’d respond. Everyone is a product of their time. Some people are miserable, some are resilient.

It's a necessary restriction. Part of what drives modern anxiety is you don't know the future, so it's necessary that while you get to pick a time period where you have perfect visibility into its future (for example, you know that the cold war doesn't lead to the nuclear apocalypse) the person who lives through that moment can't have that knowledge. If you picked the cold war period, it is necessary that you pick it knowing your cold war self would NOT know that, and would be as anxious as their time and circumstances would make them with the information they would have had then, not the perfect* information you have now.

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#328

Post by ok_dad »

MentalM wrote: post #323
paulryanrogers wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ultra wealthy are entrapped by their own minds & machines of wealth that have tight demands. But only within their minds. They could change their minds, donate or pay enough taxes that their billions would be distributed far and wide. Then they'd no longer be trapped. Plenty of people make the choice to stop acquiring, stop increasing their wealth, and stop having more everything (kids, houses, cars, pets, hobb…

> It's hard for those who have no choice, and those who've made different choices, to relate to the insatiable appetite of billionaires. If we talk about US, your statement is outrageous hypocrisy. Median income world-wide is less than 50 cents per hour. Average American person "who have no choice" could start working for like 30+ times more at any moment they want and choose any US government they want. And how much…

The average American struggles to pay rent, utilities, and food, actually. They can’t just go donate 99.999% of their wealth and still survive like billionaires could.

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#329

Post by wslh »

MentalM wrote: post #323
paulryanrogers wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ultra wealthy are entrapped by their own minds & machines of wealth that have tight demands. But only within their minds. They could change their minds, donate or pay enough taxes that their billions would be distributed far and wide. Then they'd no longer be trapped. Plenty of people make the choice to stop acquiring, stop increasing their wealth, and stop having more everything (kids, houses, cars, pets, hobb…

> It's hard for those who have no choice, and those who've made different choices, to relate to the insatiable appetite of billionaires. If we talk about US, your statement is outrageous hypocrisy. Median income world-wide is less than 50 cents per hour. Average American person "who have no choice" could start working for like 30+ times more at any moment they want and choose any US government they want. And how much…

[flagged]

Re: 25 years of mass surveillance is enough

#330

Post by Varelion »

latentsea wrote: post #321
Varelion wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hold on. Panama papers. Epstein files. CointelPro -> NSPM-7. There absolutely, without a reasonable doubt, is a conspiracy of the elite -- the billionaire class.

Poor people door all the same shit, just on a smaller scale.

The scale is the problem; their money is orders of magnitude more damaging.
Post reply on HN