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

Privacy and control need to be put back into the hands of the individual

decentralize.today

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 95 posts

Re: Privacy and control need to be put back into the hands of the individual

#71

Post by GunboatDiplomat »

MereInterest wrote: post #67
GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has an obligation to spy to the maximum extent possible on foreign citizens and entities. Just as every foreign government has the same obligation to spy on the US.

Do we? I would say that the obligation of the US government is to follow the goals set in the Constitution as much as possible, until such time as the Constitution is amended or replaced. As much as spying does "provide for the common defence", it is defensible. When the spying alienates allies, it is too much. When the spying forces foreign-held companies to pull out, can it really be said to "promote the general We…

Yes, the US government has an obligation to maximize national prosperity and national security.

Spying is the cheapest and most effective way to provide for these goals.

Re: Privacy and control need to be put back into the hands of the individual

#72

Post by GunboatDiplomat »

naasking wrote: post #70
GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Duh? That's trivially true. Similarly, as a non-EU citizen outside the EU, the freedom to travel within the EU does not apply to me. Or, as a non-Canadian outside Canada, I cannot receive medical coverage from their national health care plan.

> Duh? That's trivially true. Similarly, as a non-EU citizen outside the EU, the freedom to travel within the EU does not apply to me. 1. That's not a valid analogy. The EU has no control over how people travel in other countries and any restrictions they may face. The US government does have control about how it treats people outside US borders. They're not remotely analogous. 2. The US constitution could easily be…

>2. The US constitution could easily be interpreted as a way that the US government should treat human beings, which means the 4th amendment describes how they should approach search and seizure of any person's property, wherever the US government has influence. Given the internet, influence now extends to computers across borders.

If you were willing to ignore English grammar and definitions, and several centuries of precedent, and many many other things, you could interpret it that way. But it would be ridiculous to do so. The Constitution is "We the people" laying down a basic framework for governing ourselves. It lays out how the government we create will act towards us. It specifically puts foreign affairs (how the government will act towards not-US people) under the jurisdiction of the President and does not extend rights to them.

This is well trodden ground. Your interpretation is facetious.

Re: Privacy and control need to be put back into the hands of the individual

#73

Post by MereInterest »

GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #71
MereInterest wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we? I would say that the obligation of the US government is to follow the goals set in the Constitution as much as possible, until such time as the Constitution is amended or replaced. As much as spying does "provide for the common defence", it is defensible. When the spying alienates allies, it is too much. When the spying forces foreign-held companies to pull out, can it really be said to "promote the general We…

Yes, the US government has an obligation to maximize national prosperity and national security. Spying is the cheapest and most effective way to provide for these goals.

And when spying becomes counterproductive, should we still increase the level of spying? When US-led coups destabilize a region, does this maximize national security? When US-based surveillance causes a drop in investment, does this maximize national prosperity?

Re: Privacy and control need to be put back into the hands of the individual

#74

Post by GunboatDiplomat »

MereInterest wrote: post #73
GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the US government has an obligation to maximize national prosperity and national security. Spying is the cheapest and most effective way to provide for these goals.

And when spying becomes counterproductive, should we still increase the level of spying? When US-led coups destabilize a region, does this maximize national security? When US-based surveillance causes a drop in investment, does this maximize national prosperity?

It hasn't yet become counterproductive. And there is not a point at which becoming more aware of what everyone else is doing becomes counterproductive.

Re: Privacy and control need to be put back into the hands of the individual

#75

Post by ionised »

GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #71
MereInterest wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we? I would say that the obligation of the US government is to follow the goals set in the Constitution as much as possible, until such time as the Constitution is amended or replaced. As much as spying does "provide for the common defence", it is defensible. When the spying alienates allies, it is too much. When the spying forces foreign-held companies to pull out, can it really be said to "promote the general We…

Yes, the US government has an obligation to maximize national prosperity and national security. Spying is the cheapest and most effective way to provide for these goals.

Spying is the cheapest way to maximise national prosperity?

How so?

Re: Privacy and control need to be put back into the hands of the individual

#76

Post by geon »

tomp wrote: post #11

> Earlier this year the Brazilian government used the courts to block WhatsApp for 72 hours as it seems they did not like being unable to peer into the private communications of their citizens. This happened again just a couple of weeks ago and it seems what the government cannot control should be blocked or even banned. It's very hypocritical when an American criticises foreign "corrupt, oppressive" governments for…

It is not hypocricy unless they endorse the american governments actions.

Re: Privacy and control need to be put back into the hands of the individual

#77

Post by awqrre »

creshal wrote: post #46
jbpetersen wrote: post #5

Article is actually a lengthy pitch for YAC$ (yet another cryptocurrency) It's another anonymized coin that appears to have fancy chat/marketplace support in the main wallet application as a flagship feature.

I don't understand how blockchain applications can ever be considered "anonymous", when there's a public ledger and everyone knowing your wallet address can track all your transactions.

Bitcoins can be somewhat anonymous if you buy them with cash.

Re: Privacy and control need to be put back into the hands of the individual

#78

Post by pash »

creshal wrote: post #46
jbpetersen wrote: post #5

Article is actually a lengthy pitch for YAC$ (yet another cryptocurrency) It's another anonymized coin that appears to have fancy chat/marketplace support in the main wallet application as a flagship feature.

I don't understand how blockchain applications can ever be considered "anonymous", when there's a public ledger and everyone knowing your wallet address can track all your transactions.

That sort of transparency is not an intrinsic property of blockchain-based systems. There are already several cryptocurrency protocols in use that obscure data in their blockchains to various extents.

Dash [0] does CoinJoin-style mixing at the protocol level. Some newer systems use cryptographic techniques to provide even better security guarantees. Monero [1] implements the Cryptonote protocol, which uses ring signatures [2] to obscure who owns what and who's transacted with whom. Zcash, an implementation of the Zerocoin protocol [3] that should go live in a couple of months, will use zero-knowledge proofs [4] to similar effect.

There have even been a couple of well developed proposals for changing the Bitcoin protocol to make it impractical to track transfers of coins. And one of them will probably get implemented eventually, since privacy (unlike transaction throughout) is a real concern among many of the leading Core developers.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash_(cryptocurrency)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monero_(cryptocurrency)

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_signature

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zerocoin

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof

Re: Privacy and control need to be put back into the hands of the individual

#79

Post by JadeNB »

tomp wrote: post #11

> Earlier this year the Brazilian government used the courts to block WhatsApp for 72 hours as it seems they did not like being unable to peer into the private communications of their citizens. This happened again just a couple of weeks ago and it seems what the government cannot control should be blocked or even banned. It's very hypocritical when an American criticises foreign "corrupt, oppressive" governments for…

> It's very hypocritical when an American criticises foreign "corrupt, oppressive" governments for "peering into private communications" by using public legal means against US corporations, whereas the US government has done exactly the same thing (using legal and illegal means) but you just didn't know about it (because most Internet companies are based in the US).

Surely this is only hypocritical if the American supports his or her government's doing these things. (I am an American, and I don't support these actions, whether taken by my country or any other.) Surely you don't want to take the position that those ruled by a morally corrupt regime by that fact lose their right to protest corruption?

Re: Privacy and control need to be put back into the hands of the individual

#80

Post by phatfish »

etatoby wrote: post #55
xyzzy4 wrote: post #28

Printed money is decentralized and anonymous in the cash form.

Anonymous yes, decentralized no. The bill in your hand is printed by a central authority, is given value (or taken away, at their whim) by that same central authority, is protected by law, and is technically not even your property. It's the opposite of decentralized.

Well the use is decentralized any two people can (anonymously) complete a transaction. But the creation is centralized.
Post reply on HN