The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections • Hacker News Board

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#521

Post by defined » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 6:39 AM UTC

james_watson_ii wrote: post #512

defined wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'll continue to say... as I please. By that argument, we should all just be able to say and write whatever we want however we want to, even if it's technically or factually incorrect, like Humpty Dumpty or Donald Trump. Why bother hewing to "elitist" rules of grammar and accepted spellings, being that it's just prescriptivism? How does one decide objectively if something is just plain wrong, or merely prescriptive…

You are a grammar nazi and a pedant because you have derailed the conversation as a result of your lack of understanding of the differences between formal and natural languages.

Sorry, I disagree. Kindly enlighten me.

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#522

Post by johncolanduoni » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 8:29 AM UTC

gwu78 wrote: post #519

johncolanduoni wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I say it one last time: because you didn't just say what you do, you told other people what to do if they cared about privacy . If someone (not you, or me, this isn't a private chat) took that seriously, and you are wrong, you are at best spreading FUD. Don't expect me (or anyone else) to assume you are right that SNI is a significant threat to privacy based on your super-secret reasons that totally exist but you ref…

You are reading things into my comments. Whether leaking the domainname in the Client Hello packet bothers a user or not is up to them. I simply brought it up as a consideration. I have a particular dislike for SNI because it requires modifying software that works just fine without SNI. I happen to like this software better than complex programs like "modern" browsers or command line programs with hundreds of thousan…

> You are reading things into my comments.

You appear to have forgotten to read your first comment:

"This thread may grow long and maybe turn to the topic of HTTPS. SSL with SNI exposes plaintext hostnames/domainnames on the wire for anyone to read, aggregate and sell, not to mention tamper with. It should be an optional extension. For many users it adds no benefit. For some users, it breaks their software and adds needless complexity. Now the privacy advocates have a reason to dislike it too. Just say no to SNI."

The grammatical form of the last sentence is called imperative[0]. It is not a misnomer. The previous sentence quantifies over "privacy advocates". The first tells people who are not you what to do, the previous one tells people who are not you what they have reason to believe. You were the first person "telling others what software to use" in this thread.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_mood

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#523

Post by vidarh » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 9:25 AM UTC

tremon wrote: post #415

aidenn0 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I'm railing against is more that there appears to be little interest, in general, even to try to get things right. Language is a means to an end. If my entire audience understands what I am saying, and is not put-off by how I say it, then I did, in fact, get things right.

But when you're writing something down (especially for publication), you can not know your entire audience. Not using reasonable care in your written language communicates exactly that: that you care not for your audience.

Or that you care for a specific audience. I, for one, do not care about any audience members who get up in arms if I use "begs the question" in the sense of "raises the question", for example. The use has become so common, that I expect anyone who finds that offensive will not be worth the trouble for me to try to cater to.

You need to draw a line somewhere, or you will end up spending your life obsessing over unimportant details of what you write instead of actually communicating.

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#524

Post by prirun » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 2:28 PM UTC

I hear people say how important it is to participate in the political process. But when the process itself is broken, what's the point of participating?

We can vote alright, but what we are actually voting for is the person who is the most convincing liar and makes the most appealing "promises", without them being obligated in any way to actually implement their promises once elected.

As I see it, individuals only have a couple of effective ways to influence politics:

- withdraw your financial participation in things you don't agree with. This is extremely difficult: most people are not willing to endure the sacrifices necessary, and we're not coordinated to do it together. If everyone (or even 10%) canceled their Internet service, cable service, or whatever, for 1 month, THAT would get attention. If 10% were willing to lower their standard of living in order to reduce the government's tax take by 10%, that would get attention.

- regular individuals need to donate more money to politicians than corporations and wealthy individuals. It's a sickening thought to me that the only way to get public servants to actually serve the public is to bribe them, but obviously that works.

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#525

Post by 3131s » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 4:39 PM UTC

defined wrote: post #517

3131s wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not getting my point. The relationship between two nouns in a noun-noun compound is very flexible. Sometimes it means the head noun is made out of the attributive noun ("apple pie"), sometimes it means the head noun is found in the attributive noun ("ice algae"), sometimes it means something completely different (how about "ice axe"?). So, because that relationship is so flexible, it's just not absurd to cons…

Sometimes it can be useful to expand the compound noun to see if it makes sense. Apple pie: - Pie found in apple(s)? Nope. - Apple that is used to do something to pie! Hmm, no. - Pie that is modified by an apple. No... - Pie that is made with apple the primary ingredient? Yes Ice algae: - Algae found in ice? Bingo. - Algae that is used to do something to ice? No. - Algae that is modified by ice? Nope. - Algae that is…

- Tea that contains ice? Yes.

That is the relationship... "contains". There are many other examples in English of that relationship in NN compounds, and I guarantee you use them unconsciously without a second thought. You are also not getting my point, please reread my last post.

> Bottom line: "ice tea" is ambiguous. "Iced tea" is not.

This is how I know you and others in this thread have not spent a lot of time thinking about language. When has ambiguity ever prevented humans from using and understanding language? If you look at any piece of writing deeply, it is filled with an unimaginable amount of nuanced ambiguity. That's exactly why NLP is so hard.

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#526

Post by defined » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 9:23 PM UTC

3131s wrote: post #525

defined wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes it can be useful to expand the compound noun to see if it makes sense. Apple pie: - Pie found in apple(s)? Nope. - Apple that is used to do something to pie! Hmm, no. - Pie that is modified by an apple. No... - Pie that is made with apple the primary ingredient? Yes Ice algae: - Algae found in ice? Bingo. - Algae that is used to do something to ice? No. - Algae that is modified by ice? Nope. - Algae that is…

- Tea that contains ice? Yes. That is the relationship... "contains". There are many other examples in English of that relationship in NN compounds, and I guarantee you use them unconsciously without a second thought. You are also not getting my point, please reread my last post. > Bottom line: "ice tea" is ambiguous. "Iced tea" is not. This is how I know you and others in this thread have not spent a lot of time thi…

But iced tea typically does not contain ice unless you add it. Buy a can of Lipton's Iced Tea - it's still iced tea, with no ice in it. But whatever, this is getting to angels on the head of a pin territory :)

I think you are making an unwarranted assumption about me. I have indeed spent a great deal of time thinking about language; I just have different thoughts, or points of view, about it. I have been very interested in etymology for a long time.

I neither claimed that natural language was capable of being entirely unambiguous, nor that people cannot communicate in the face of ambiguity. In fact, ambiguity in language allows for great artistic expression: humor, poetry, and other word play. So I agree with you on that point.

But holy crap, do we have to make it harder than necessary to communicate, when we aren't deliberately playing with words?

Surely you agree that much of the misery, pain, and suffering in this world of ours is due to avoidable language-related misunderstandings?

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#527

Post by defined » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 9:38 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #523

tremon wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But when you're writing something down (especially for publication), you can not know your entire audience. Not using reasonable care in your written language communicates exactly that: that you care not for your audience.

Or that you care for a specific audience. I, for one, do not care about any audience members who get up in arms if I use "begs the question" in the sense of "raises the question", for example. The use has become so common, that I expect anyone who finds that offensive will not be worth the trouble for me to try to cater to. You need to draw a line somewhere, or you will end up spending your life obsessing over unimpo…

If your omission of what you assume is "unimportant detail" leads to your audience misunderstanding the "important" detail, you actually are failing to communicate.

It may also happen that the one person who you felt was not "worth the trouble" turns out to be someone who will be very important to you one day, like a potential business partner or investor, and who interprets your misuse of language as ignorance.

There's a difference between obsessing over unimportant detail and being thorough, IMHO.

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#528

Post by pseudalopex » Thu, Mar 30, 2017, 10:09 PM UTC

slang800 wrote: post #359

mikeyouse wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without consent is the important part, it will soon be part of your ISP's TOS to allow them to sell your data. The wiretap act has a specific call out for this occasion: > (d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has…

But the FCC rules that were repealed allowed data collection if you "opt-in" too, right? I haven't read the entire text of the legislation, but their news release covers this: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-341937A1.p... > Opt-in: ISPs are required to obtain affirmative “opt-in” consent from consumers to use and share sensitive information. The rules specify categories of information that are consi…

The FCC rules prohibited making consent a condition of service.

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#529

Post by alphapapa » Fri, Mar 31, 2017, 1:38 AM UTC

warlox wrote: post #492

alphapapa wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The lesser of two evils" is an important consideration in who to support politically, but the "absolute values" are even moreso--otherwise you're merely being blown about by trends, only ever getting closer to good policy by chance, rather than actively pursuing good policy. If neither party's policies are good, that absolutely matters.

In the previous election we had a milquetoast liberal running against a ur-fascist demagogue. It is clear which one was the lesser of two evils, and now we are seeing the effects of America's choice in this bill and others. If Hillary Clinton was president or if the Democrats had control of one chamber of Congress, this bill never would have passed.

> It is clear which one was the lesser of two evils

Obviously there is significant disagreement on that issue.

> If Hillary Clinton was president or if the Democrats had control of one chamber of Congress, this bill never would have passed.

Yes, because the left is happy for government agencies run by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to continually enlarge their regulatory domain. Other people consider that a bad idea in general.

And if that had happened, FCC regulations would control our privacy--after they would have taken effect, over a year from now--regulations which are not law and can be changed by unelected FCC bureaucrats who are unaccountable to the people.

I'm no fan of Congress, but it's definitely better for this to be controlled by federal law rather than an agency regulation.

Re: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections

#530

Post by 3131s » Fri, Mar 31, 2017, 2:48 AM UTC

defined wrote: post #526

3131s wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Tea that contains ice? Yes. That is the relationship... "contains". There are many other examples in English of that relationship in NN compounds, and I guarantee you use them unconsciously without a second thought. You are also not getting my point, please reread my last post. > Bottom line: "ice tea" is ambiguous. "Iced tea" is not. This is how I know you and others in this thread have not spent a lot of time thi…

But iced tea typically does not contain ice unless you add it. Buy a can of Lipton's Iced Tea - it's still iced tea, with no ice in it. But whatever, this is getting to angels on the head of a pin territory :) I think you are making an unwarranted assumption about me. I have indeed spent a great deal of time thinking about language; I just have different thoughts, or points of view, about it. I have been very interes…

Sorry for being a bit rude. And yeah, this is the most hair-splitting argument I've ever been involved in on HN :)

My work in linguistics and NLP is strongly related to ambiguity, so I tend to see things in those terms and I do not see resolving ambiguity as an impediment to understanding language (for humans at least, but for computers it is an enormous problem). We'll agree to disagree!