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

81–90 of 95 posts

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

#81

Post by naasking »

GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #72
naasking wrote: post #70

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. 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 o…

> 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.

Wow, talk about being uncharitable. I'll just ignore your insult that I'm an ignoramus talking out of my ass and just address the content: the Supreme Court has ruled only twice on the interpretation of "the people", but there is still considerable debate over its true meaning [1].

The declaration of independence also makes a broad statement that all men are created equal with unalienable rights. It's not at all a stretch that the bill of rights is an enumeration of how a government should preserve some subset of those rights. This is precisely how constitutional protections have been interpreted in other countries, for instance.

> The Constitution is "We the people" laying down a basic framework for governing ourselves.

It's actually "the People" in the constitution and the declaration of independence when referring to the governed, and only "the people" in the bill of rights. Capitalization matters, particularly if we're talking about intent.

Further, the constitution lays the basic framework for establishing a government, and "governing yourselves" is only ONE purpose. Or did you forget about "provide for the common defense" aspect of government? It's in the opening paragraph of your constitution.

> This is well trodden ground. Your interpretation is facetious.

No, this is objectively not well-trodden ground, and you're kind of acting like a dick. I recommend not doing that.

[1] http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_t...

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

#82

Post by creshal »

kqr wrote: post #51
creshal wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess you could own several wallets for different purposes?

Enigma fallacy. Tracing that back to a single owner is hard for humans, but trivial to do for computers.

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

#83

Post by cderwin »

kbart wrote: post #17
martinko wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remind me, was that before or after they enabled end-to-end encryption?

Since WhatsApp is virtually a blackbox, their word for end-to-end encryption means nothing. Few 'bugs' in implementation and you have a nice backdoor.

> Few 'bugs' in implementation and you have a nice backdoor.

This holds regardless of whether WhatsApp is a blackbox or not. Now, that doesn't make the claim of end-to-end encryption verifiable, but if you take Facebook's word for it, the bug bounty should be about as good a stalwart as there is against implementation bugs.

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

#84

Post by GunboatDiplomat »

ionised wrote: post #75
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.

Spying is the cheapest way to maximise national prosperity? How so?

Spying allows increased national security at minimal cost compared to higher military preparedness. Thus, it allows the same level of security at lower levels of funding.

In addition, spying can give a leg up to domestic commercial interests over foreign commercial interests.

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

#85

Post by GunboatDiplomat »

naasking wrote: post #81
GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 o…

> 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. Wow, talk about being uncharitable. I'll just ignore your insult that I'm an ignoramus talking out of my ass and just address the content: the Supreme Court has ruled only twice on the interpretation of "the people", but there is still considerable debate ov…

I'm not being a dick, you're being uncharitable.

>The declaration of independence also makes a broad statement that all men are created equal with unalienable rights.

So? The Declaration of Independence is not part of the laws of the United States. Its statements have no bearing on them.

> This is precisely how constitutional protections have been interpreted in other countries, for instance.

Luckily, we're not talking about other countries.

> Or did you forget about "provide for the common defense" aspect of government?

That aspect would argue more that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are applicable by the US government only to US citizens, residents, or visitors, and not to all people everywhere. The Insular Cases support this view.

>No, this is objectively not well-trodden ground, and you're kind of acting like a dick. I recommend not doing that.

Yes, it is well trodden ground. That you refuse to acknowledge it does not make a difference.

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

#86

Post by GunboatDiplomat »

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.

That's the only way to have a physical fiat currency. And the alternatives all have much more serious problems.

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

#87

Post by GunboatDiplomat »

justthisonetime wrote: post #68
furyg3 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've said it before, but why WOULDN'T a country provide protections and rights to non-citizens (residents or not) that it outlines in it's constitution? After all, the US founding fathers believed it to be "self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". If it is always wrong for a government to do certain things, then clearly it is wrong for a go…

And I call BS when I see it. A nation state is morally responsible to it's citizens to uphold the law and order and protect it's citizens [from threats internal and external]. This is funded by the tax money collected by the state from it's subjects. Nation state may, willingly provide protections and other services reserved for it's citizens to others. But concept that it must or should is flawed at heart. World tod…

This is obviously true. It's equally obvious that the neoliberal consensus is opposed to this and seeks to substitute a globalist fantasy.

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

#88

Post by rmc »

jnbiche wrote: post #26
rmc wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember: if you're a non-US citizen outside the US, then the US Constitution protection against search (4th Amendment) doesn't apply to you! We have no 4th Amendment protections!

I'm as opposed to mass surveillance as anyone on HN, but I've been surprised by this kind of reaction. Why are non-citizens surprised at this lack of constitutional protection? Are there actually any countries whose constitutional protections apply to non-citizens and/or non-residents? I think that would be pretty cool and progressive if it were the case, but I'm not aware of any.

> Are there actually any countries whose constitutional protections apply to non-citizens and/or non-residents?

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union protects you too! If you're non-US & non-Canadian, and use Facebook, then your data is under the control of Facebook Ireland Ltd, in Ireland. And the CFREU will protect you!

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

#89

Post by rmc »

cderwin wrote: post #43
kuschku wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are there actually any countries whose constitutional protections apply to non-citizens and/or non-residents? I think that would be pretty cool and progressive if it were the case, but I'm not aware of any. Yes, Germany. Almost all of German constitution applies to any "Person", not even just any human. And the government has the constitutional requirement to help ensure those rights are granted to people globally.

FYI most of the U.S. constitution only uses the word "person" as well, but legally persons outside the U.S. who are not citizens have no standing.

Germany had a history of the government claiming "those people there aren't 'people' hence the rights don't apply to them". I suspect the courts might take that into consideration if the government tries that line again.

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

#90

Post by rmc »

GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #72
naasking wrote: post #70

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. 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 o…

Other countries' constitutions cover non-citizens.
Post reply on HN