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

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

thenextweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 86 posts

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

#51

Post by jeremy6d »

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.…

> Which would also make it much more difficult to use and less useful.

Maybe. As somebody who's worked in content management system design for a great deal of his career, I'm not at all convinced that the ongoing enclosure of information into systems of formatting serves people. Instead, what you find is people jumping through hoops to fit their information into the format chosen by others. Paul Goodman critiqued the tyranny of format 50 years ago, and Douglas Rushkoff authored the natural extension of this critique in his seminal "Program or Be Programmed". The promise of the internet has to be more than giving people text boxes, or I give up. :)

> 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.

Really? The users of FB have decided that this is the way they'd like to organize their information? Surprising. I never recall in my use of FB being given the ability to structure the format as I and my friends see fit. I must have missed something.

In all seriousness, I think we need to look very carefully at this coupling of value you speak of. There are almost certainly areas where the format chosen by an authority (a corporation, a government, any institution really) is that that free individuals would choose. But not every area, and as the information gets more personal, the format becomes more restrictive. I'm not sure where the line between sharing on one's own terms and another's terms gets crossed, but any network that can aggregate detailed information about BILLIONS of people has certainly crossed it. The question is simply whether or not we should be content with this situation.

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

#52

Post by jeremy6d »

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 CMS is essentially a collection of keys and values. The format prescribes the keys, and the user fills in the values.

All I'm suggesting is that we design the keys ourselves. If that makes communication more difficult, perhaps it's also true that not all communication needs to be universally legible.

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

#53

Post by JamisonM »

cinquemb wrote: post #49
dorolow wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Your comment seems to misunderstand the difference between vaccinations and antibiotic treatments. Herd immunity disallows an organism a foothold in a population, it is not present to become immune - it is something entirely separate from the emergence of superbugs immune to all or most known antibiotic treatments.

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

#54

Post by alan_cx »

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.

As I understand it, the US has no controls over the NSA spying out side of the US. So, you'd have less protection. Even if they did, as a result of this, and knowing how other governments bend to US will, I wouldn't trust anything connected to the internet at all.

Privacy wise, the internet is dead. Just, forget it. The war is lost. They can, there for, they will. And that's that.

I mean, does any one seriously think these abilities and powers will be go, or be given up?

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

#55

Post by ISL »

muyuu wrote: post #12
k-mcgrady wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Deleting FB alone might not be a solution, but it's a part of it. Out of these, I only have a gmail account. No personal data in it is real. I never email anyone I know in person from that account, nor I give it to anybody who knows me. I think I'm on the safe side. I operate similarly with my phone and basically everything else.

Are your emails encrypted? If not, anyone in the pipeline can read them.

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

#56

Post by alan_cx »

euroclydon wrote: post #32

I've been following these discussions the past couple of days on HN, and there are a few calm minds who are very knowledgeable of the law, who's comments have been enlightening and reassuring ('rayiner and others). But we now live in a completely online world, where nearly all communication and files are conveyed and hosted by third parties, and soon it will take several minutes for even a geek to mentally count up t…

Brilliant, you get comfort from a murdering, torturing, loose cannon nut job, who takes no notice of his superiors. Not to mention making mistakes that kill others. Amazing. Its a live cartoon. Might as well have faith in Batman.

Yeah, I loved 24, but thank god its a wonderful fantasy and not real.

Oh, forgive me, but what was the episode where Jack and co got the bad guys by looking at facebook?

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

#57

Post by cinquemb »

JamisonM wrote: post #53
cinquemb wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Your comment seems to misunderstand the difference between vaccinations and antibiotic treatments. Herd immunity disallows an organism a foothold in a population, it is not present to become immune - it is something entirely separate from the emergence of superbugs immune to all or most known antibiotic treatments.

How is the emergence of superbugs immunity to antibiotic treatments entirely separate when they are different strands of organisms that were previously treated?

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

#58

Post by rpgmaker »

wavefunction wrote: post #18
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.

Paying with your credit card? That's being tracked. Your back account transactions are being indexed and collated. They're probably in all of our computers already. I've been operating a windows7 honeypot as my "main" computer for several years, generating what appears to be legit "personal" traffic. You wouldn't believe the shit I've found, and it doesn't appear to be your garden variety cyber criminals or foreign s…

I also want you to elaborate on this.

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

#59

Post by resu_nimda »

jeremy6d wrote: post #51
resu_nimda wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

> Which would also make it much more difficult to use and less useful. Maybe. As somebody who's worked in content management system design for a great deal of his career, I'm not at all convinced that the ongoing enclosure of information into systems of formatting serves people. Instead, what you find is people jumping through hoops to fit their information into the format chosen by others. Paul Goodman critiqued the…

> The users of FB have decided that this is the way they'd like to organize their information?

In aggregate, by choosing to use Facebook, and by providing feedback and usage data that shapes how it changes. I realize that there is a certain stickyness and network effect at play, but at some level we have chosen this platform and format, and many (most?) are content with it.

I can't really wrap my head around a useful replacement that has no enforced formatting/is difficult to aggregate and parse. If you have any more concrete ideas or examples I would be interested.

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

#60

Post by rpgmaker »

euroclydon wrote: post #32

I've been following these discussions the past couple of days on HN, and there are a few calm minds who are very knowledgeable of the law, who's comments have been enlightening and reassuring ('rayiner and others). But we now live in a completely online world, where nearly all communication and files are conveyed and hosted by third parties, and soon it will take several minutes for even a geek to mentally count up t…

"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxemburg

Of course you don't care about privacy, why should you? You're just a peaceful flock member. never acting against the power of the status quo. But look around and see what happens to the people that actually do confront power and you'll see why privacy is important.

Post reply on HN