51–60 of 86 posts
Just to be clear this is the Indian Supreme Court . While it is from the indiatimes.com english language news outfit, I would assume the majority of readers on HN are not indian. Context here is important, as some may not read the article unfortunately, and even then, it isn't immeadiately clear.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11979297
I chuckled. thanks.
Just to be clear this is the Indian Supreme Court . While it is from the indiatimes.com english language news outfit, I would assume the majority of readers on HN are not indian. Context here is important, as some may not read the article unfortunately, and even then, it isn't immeadiately clear.
>I would assume the majority of readers on HN are not indian Do we have any stats on this? I am assuming most HN readers are American but I think Indians would be 2nd or 3rd on the most readers list.
This is probably my US-centrism talking, but it seems like the title could be updated to reflect that this is India 's Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court.
Maybe we should always specify the country in the title, then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm tempted to agree, but if we consider the domain part of the title (which we do), it already says India. And it's good for HN readers to have to work a little.
FWIW the domain is in a smaller font with lower contrast than the title. I would guess that a lot of people automatically skip over the domain when they read hacker news headlines, because it's less legible than the title and feels distinct.
As Kahneman explains in "Thinking Fast and Slow", System 2 (the reflective system, the one we want to be working a little on HN) is lazy and prefers to rely on System 1 (the reflexive one that deals in subsecond responses). I think the protests of HN readers when a title isn't trivially digestible or doesn't quite match expectations are largely the grumbling of System 2 that it needs to get up and move around a bit. And that's actually good for us—not the grumbling, but the working a bit. So the expectation to have titles spell everything out is a mildly bad thing and it's salutary to thwart it a little now and then.
I am saying that a provision should be given for government or any agency if it helps saving people's lives but only with a warrant or better scrutiny for the request. Shouldn't that be the case?
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2013/jun/14/nsa-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Banning a single service such as WhatsApp is not a solution to this problem. Generalizing this argument a bit, banning encryption is also not a solution to this problem. The cat is, as they say, out of the bag, and unless we're going to burn every cryptography book and remove every website documenting cryptographic methods or hosting cryptography code, there's no putting it back [1]. 1: Presuming the development of…
I think this is worth taking a step further and asking for a definition of cryptography...what is cryptography? Obviously here we are speaking in a mathematical sense, but encryption of information predates the internet. Hell, it predates electricity. Where do you draw the line? can I not encrypt my conversation with a friend by referencing shared unique experiences?
Many comments here say that it is an intrusion of privacy but a random machine sitting some corner of the world, parsing boatload of data(including yours) and detecting that there is an act of terrorism and in effect saving people. I am OK with that machine parsing through my data. I feel that when you write your email or uploading photos on FB/Instagram or send a tweet ,A machine is already doing that and many peopl…
To someone new to crypto, how do companies like WhatsApp implement their end-to-end encryption? Where are keys generated and how are they persisted in a way that allows messages to be re-read no matter what device users are running the app from but doesn't allow governments any chance at access to the keys?
One of the arguments against mass surveillance is that it is blatant intrusion of privacy, and hence it should not exist. On the other hand, the arguments against encryption seem to be that it cripples the Government agencies in their work against terrorists, which is a genuine concern. There seems to be no way to address both these major concerns (that I am aware of), and hence the battle between privacy advocates a…
Many comments here say that it is an intrusion of privacy but a random machine sitting some corner of the world, parsing boatload of data(including yours) and detecting that there is an act of terrorism and in effect saving people. I am OK with that machine parsing through my data. I feel that when you write your email or uploading photos on FB/Instagram or send a tweet ,A machine is already doing that and many peopl…
To be clear, you are saying that because you are "OK with that machine parsing through [your] data", you think that should authorize the government to parse through my data? Why should your set of values for privacy and lack of care for its preservation affect my right to privacy?