Assange in 2011: "They have automated the process." • Hacker News Board

Re: Assange in 2011: "They have automated the process."

#41

Post by koralatov » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 2:28 PM UTC

kcorbitt wrote: post #15

pointernil wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First: as such you probably already do feed them Second: that kind of thinking could be a nice way to "motivate" the creation of alternative products out side of the us of a. Third: but how realistic are such endeavors in today's world?

On the other hand, there are relatively few governments worldwide that I would trust more (or distrust less, I guess) than that of the US to abuse this kind of information. The US isn't perfect, but a lot of places out there are worse.

``Being stabbed by a handsome gentleman is awful, but being stabbed by an ugly man is worse, so thank God I'm only being stabbed by a handsome gentleman!''

Re: Assange in 2011: "They have automated the process."

#42

Post by deanclatworthy » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 2:29 PM UTC

jeremy6d wrote: post #13

The problem with Facebook is not that government has access to it -- at least, that's not a problem unique to FB (Gmail, as one commenter says, is probably worse in terms of raw access to personal details). The problem with Facebook is that it is personal details specifically organized into a dossier-like format. It's one thing for the NSA, for instance, to be able to tap into the hose of undifferentiated data stream…

This is interesting, and I had the same thought reading the article. One approach might be for the user to store the information on their own computer, and only when they enter (login) the social network, does their information become available, and only to those that they specifically give access to.

Re: Assange in 2011: "They have automated the process."

#43

Post by _k » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 2:31 PM UTC

pajju wrote: post #30

twistedpair wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we can always trust the government, right?

We have voted them up — they are elected representatives. And Life goes by Hope and Positivity!

Lesterland http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_t...

Re: Assange in 2011: "They have automated the process."

#44

Post by rahoulb » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 2:36 PM UTC

smoorman1024 wrote: post #28

pajju wrote: post #25

+ We haven't committed any crime — then there's nothing to worry! And so spying on certain accounts is fine, if they need to investigate, track and analyze data for Intelligence. + I'm perfectly fine if they take my data — till its serving in the good interests of my family and people's safety. + It should only be in the good interests of our system and society. + But such credible data, should not be misused by the…

Who is to decide what is in the "interest" of your family and people's safety? This is subjective and cedes power to whoever is in control of the surveillance mechanism. The surveyor may have motives that are not as benevolent as you would like to think.

Or worse still, what if the definition of what is "safe" changes, following some sort of incident (9/11?)

Once they have amassed all this data about you they can mine it to their heart's content and use it to make predictions - those books you read before the "incident" that seemed innocent now get you flagged as a potential terrorist.

Re: Assange in 2011: "They have automated the process."

#45

Post by deanclatworthy » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 2:41 PM UTC

junto wrote: post #14

I would now consider paying for services that offer real private email, social networking and file sharing / cloud backups, where none of those services were controlled by an US controlled entity and where the NSA couldn't snoop around in my private life. However boring my private life is, it is still mine. I wonder if anyone else would part with cold hard cash though, or is it just me? There maybe a niche there.

I would also consider paying for this. However, as pointed out in the comments below, a social network like Facebook only works because a majority of the majority of people's friends are there.

But, I think the more interesting point is that even if the system were hosted outside of US jurisdiction, or anyone's for that matter, they'll just find a way to make it difficult for you to access, as they do with thepiratebay - by blocking access through the ISPs. The inconvenience/complication of working around these ISP level filters, means that a lot of people won't know how or can't be bothered to work around them. The same would apply to a social network.

Re: Assange in 2011: "They have automated the process."

#46

Post by dorolow » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 2:51 PM UTC

cinquemb wrote: post #37

robotmay wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing gets me riled up like a vaccination denier. I can't even hold a conversation with them, I just get really angry.

You could just agree to disagree with them without expanding such emotional energy. Though I wonder when dissemination of vaccines will be more of a science instead of "We know this strand of virus is going around, everyone come here and get a shot of xyz because it is good for you and will protect you all", especially since overdosage of the massess will eventually lead to resistant strands. It would be really cool…

That's certainly the most mature way to handle such disagreements, I don't think there is any disagreement there. However, it's damn hard to accept that line of reasoning when those opinions lead to a decrease in herd immunity and put the lives of immunocompromised individuals, such as myself, and others at risk because of pseudoscience, a single debunked study, and a former porn star. It's not simply unacceptable, it's asinine and infuriating.

Re: Assange in 2011: "They have automated the process."

#47

Post by resu_nimda » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 2:53 PM UTC

jeremy6d wrote: post #13

The problem with Facebook is not that government has access to it -- at least, that's not a problem unique to FB (Gmail, as one commenter says, is probably worse in terms of raw access to personal details). The problem with Facebook is that it is personal details specifically organized into a dossier-like format. It's one thing for the NSA, for instance, to be able to tap into the hose of undifferentiated data stream…

> What we need are tools that allow us to connect in ways that are difficult not only to detect but also to make sense of (not necessarily encryption, but an ad-hoc format that can't be easily parsed and aggregated).

Which would also make it much more difficult to use and less useful. We've organized our info this way because we like it and it makes sense, it's no surprise that it's useful to the government as well. In other words, I think the value to us and the value to them are very tightly coupled.

And the thing is, outside of the hardcore techie bubble, most people don't care. So what if the government can see their friends and pictures, even track them to some degree? Why should they care? They're not going to migrate to some convoluted unstructured system just for the abstract and esoteric benefit of privacy.

Re: Assange in 2011: "They have automated the process."

#48

Post by deanclatworthy » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 2:57 PM UTC

k-mcgrady wrote: post #6

tshile wrote: post #3

I'm curious if my friends, family, and co-workers that rolled their eyes at me or laughed at me when I explained why I deleted my facebook account years ago even remember the conversation, or what their response was, when they read the latest revelations about the government having access to their databases.

Deleting your Facebook account isn't a solution to this problem. Gmail may contain even more personal information. Dropbox contains your files and is essentially giving them access to documents you would have stored offline 10 years ago. The problem is that none of these services are safe anymore and we need specific legislation detailing what the government can and can't do with the information we have stored on the…

The internet provides us with a mechanism of connecting with other people. The only advantage these internet services offer us is data redundancy, and the convenience of having an application accessible from wherever we are.

- In the case of a social network, have it decentralised and have user profiles and information hosted on the user's computer, and only accessible when logged into the social network and only by those that you have granted permission for. - Messaging could be directly between users, over an encrypted channel. If user A sends a message to user B it does not arrive until they connect their device to the internet. Only then does the secure exchange of a message occur. Group messaging is a more difficult problem. - Cloud storage: if storage devices get bigger, smaller and cheaper there's no reason why it couldn't become normal for people to have physical backup solutions built into their devices. Alternatively, completely encrypted cloud storage where only the user has the keys could become the norm.

The problem lies in consumer acceptance, education and also convenience. If nobody understands the technologies they use to power their lives, it's hard to communicate why things should be done alternatively. The EFF does a fantastic job of trying to protect our rights when it comes to technology, but I don't think consumers get it. More needs to be done. The analogy of a man coming into your house and reading your mail that's been posted through your door springs to mind. And finally, it has to be easy to do all these things in a private way. Better tools need to be created to allow us to securely store our information, communicate and perform tasks.

Re: Assange in 2011: "They have automated the process."

#49

Post by cinquemb » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 3:10 PM UTC

dorolow wrote: post #46

cinquemb wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could just agree to disagree with them without expanding such emotional energy. Though I wonder when dissemination of vaccines will be more of a science instead of "We know this strand of virus is going around, everyone come here and get a shot of xyz because it is good for you and will protect you all", especially since overdosage of the massess will eventually lead to resistant strands. It would be really cool…

That's certainly the most mature way to handle such disagreements, I don't think there is any disagreement there. However, it's damn hard to accept that line of reasoning when those opinions lead to a decrease in herd immunity and put the lives of immunocompromised individuals, such as myself, and others at risk because of pseudoscience, a single debunked study, and a former porn star. It's not simply unacceptable, i…

And putting oneself in a fit because someone is sharing their viewpoint (as opinion or fact) isn't asinine?

There is also a decrease in "herd immunity" when a population has been flooded with a drug to the point where such immunizations have no effect à la "superbugs".

Re: Assange in 2011: "They have automated the process."

#50

Post by foobarqux » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 3:18 PM UTC

resu_nimda wrote: post #47

jeremy6d wrote: post #13

The problem with Facebook is not that government has access to it -- at least, that's not a problem unique to FB (Gmail, as one commenter says, is probably worse in terms of raw access to personal details). The problem with Facebook is that it is personal details specifically organized into a dossier-like format. It's one thing for the NSA, for instance, to be able to tap into the hose of undifferentiated data stream…

> What we need are tools that allow us to connect in ways that are difficult not only to detect but also to make sense of (not necessarily encryption, but an ad-hoc format that can't be easily parsed and aggregated). Which would also make it much more difficult to use and less useful. We've organized our info this way because we like it and it makes sense, it's no surprise that it's useful to the government as well.…

A Freedombox-style approach wouldn't be substantially more difficult to use or substantially less useful. It is more difficult to build, however.