Yes. For the most part, I oppose the idea of nation-states and most of what people call "government" altogether. I support free movement of people, ideas, consumer goods, etc.
As far as I'm concerned, as long as no use of coercive force / aggression is involved, it's all good.
I think there's a significant idea hidden in your question. Seeing your username I hope that was intentional.
How about a self-surveillance platform to measure your footprint?
The idea is basically an automated network-level CTF. Get as much data out as possible, then report back with the results. You could do this with a group of friends (feed all your friends data into your analysis box), to yourself (and all your devices baring OS restrictions), or with a larger group of security-minded individuals.
For extra fun, if you're capturing the traffic on your own machines, you could have a tool that extracts network encryption keys from memory, which should work similarly for programs using the same encryption stack, and you then feed that into the network analysis tool.
You could then use this to make sure you're not sending out data you don't want to send out in the first place; ideally you'd get to the point where your analysis tool can decrypt every packet, so that you're sure you're not sending out any data that you don't want to get out.
PANDA looks like an interesting tool to automate the retrieval of encryption keys; it can replay full process executions using a modified version of QEMU, and find procedures that convert high entropy data (i.e. encrypted or compressed data) to lower entropy data.
Coincidentally, if you get this up and running you can also automate the breaking of (encryption-based) DRM; that's just a side effect of gaining fuller control over your general-purpose computer. Oops.
I think there's a significant idea hidden in your question. Seeing your username I hope that was intentional.
Well, it probably wasn't as well thought out as you might have hoped, but there's no question there's at least thin connection between my username and most of my positions on things.
The comment I made above was kind of just spur of the moment, off the cuff, to be honest. I have a fundamental and visceral disdain for government, and especially anything that hints at that Big Brother / Orwell-esque world of Nineteen Eighty Four. And it especially pains me to see technologists/hackers willfully taking part in supporting government oppression of free people. So of course I'm going to make an offhanded comment about how we should do the exact opposite.
And I feel a little snarky now, because people are always referring to Peter Thiel as a "libertarian" and this strikes me as extremely un-libertarian. And as a libertarian myself, I don't want Thiel misleading a lot of people about how libertarian ideals.
You could then use this to make sure you're not sending out data you don't want to send out in the first place; ideally you'd get to the point where your analysis tool can decrypt every packet, so that you're sure you're not sending out any data that you don't want to get out.
Sounds something like an inverse IDS. I know there are some tools out there now for monitoring outgoing traffic, but not sure if there's anything with that specific spin on it. You might be onto something there.
I actually was thinking more about "avoiding the government" for immigrants who are already here, and over the long term, than the actual border crossing bit. But that was an interesting read nonetheless. Thanks for sharing.
Maybe it's time for somebody to start a company aimed at helping tax cheats avoid the government.
Or maybe it's time for illegal immigrants to follow the law, just like thousands of legal immigrants do? Maybe they can pay taxes for the social welfare resources they use, the free college, the free medical expenses.
Do you know how frustrating it is for legal immigrants who worked hard to become legal and follow the law watch other illegal immigrants trample on the laws without regard? It's very frustrating.
The angel-immigrant stigma is just as biased as the evil-immigrant stigma. You make great and valid points, but you're going to downvoted to death. I however gave you an upvote. Merry Christmas.
One example. Read up on it. This is a public school, funded with your tax dollars. Tax dollars that will be spent on people who break the law, throw it in your face, and then demand more free stuff.
"Donald Trump may not have paid federal income taxes for 20 years, but the undocumented immigrants he rails against certainly have, according to the head of a Latino civic engagement organization."
This is the FIRST SENTENCE of the article. Sorry, but if the first sentence is bashing someone who follows the tax laws because of a political reason, I am not going to be able to say that is a credible source. The article has a strong political bias for illegal immigrants.
If the SECOND SENTENCE of a comment is a factually false statement, I'll still honor the effort and respond with more accurate (even if imperfect) information ;)
I upvoted you because I believe it was a well put opinion. But I have some doubts (I dont live in the US). Do illegal immigrants are allowed to free college and free medical expenses? I would imagine any kind of formal register required to use these services would lead them to be arrested and deported.
I never submit political stories (unlike the people I reply to) and do comment on technical topics and provide insight when I have expertise in the area, such as the recent discussion on linux malware. Next!
I didn't say "black people are criminals" at all. I merely said the OP's comments logically did not make sense and provided two counterpoints where their idea did not hold water. Give me a break, you're the racist, seeing "race baiting" where there is none.
Maybe the discrepancy could be explained by lead paint, solar flares, or something else, which is why I didn't propose any causes! Especially not "black people are criminals" QUOTED. I never said that at all. YOU subconsciously created the idea that black people are criminals and tried to project that onto my simple comment. Get a brain!!
It's true that you didn't say "black people are criminals" (and DanBC shouldn't have used quotation marks to make it look like you did) and also that you sometimes comment on non-political topics.
Unfortunately, it's still also true that you're posting a lot of angry ideological rants to this site. That's an abuse of HN, which is meant to be for thoughtful discussion, not political battle. So please stop.
You've also been uncivil, including several times in the current thread. We ban accounts that do that. Please don't do that any more.
Seriously... I dont know why I bothered clicking the title thinking it was a new company. Just the same datamining company that helps government agencies helping a government agency.
Of all the comments you could possibly post, ranging from concerns about the 1st or 4th amendments, to arguments in favor of what this article posits, "Palantir is hardly a startup" is what you take away from this article?
Thiel calls himself a libertarian, but his involvement with Palantir demonstrates that he is just as much a big-government statist as the people he criticizes.
I think the point is like Musk, these people hardly refuse government subsidizes. You might argue they provide a service, they are not getting a handout, but it's still paid by the same taxes they want to get rid off at first place.
Libertarians are not universally against taxation or Government involvement at large, it's a pretty wide umbrella.
Musk can also be seen as a libertarian but he does advocate for social programmes like UBI which have to be provided through taxation.
Most libertarians I know are not universally against taxation, they are against double taxation and would prefer to tax corporation and consumption at higher rates rather than individual labor.
Libertarianism is primarily about the role of the government within the life of an individual and about maximizing the agency an individual holds over their own life; It doesn't mean that an ideal libertarian society would have no taxes; If anything most libertarians would rather pay higher local taxes to offset lower national taxation because they have more agency in determining on what and how their money is being spent on.
Libertarians don't want anarchy, they are fully aware that roads, schools, police, firefighters, EMT's the military and for most of them even hospitals and much more have to be publically funded, and the only way to do it is through taxation.
It's not about borders or immigration -- that is just this specific case. Palantir helps big government in a variety of ways which are incompatible with a libertarian worldview.
Wait I'm confused. Are you literally upset by this? Why is enforcing the law and following policies so everybody can make a successful transition to become a US citizen a bad thing? If your illegal, and most likely your not going to pay your fair share for the entitlements and services you and others use then I have zero respect for you.
> The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy released a report in February 2016, stating that 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States are paying annually an estimated amount of $11.64 billion in state and local taxes, "on average an estimated 8 percent of their incomes."[25]
A significant number of undocumented workers use a fake SSN for their job so they do pay income taxes and FICA - but can never claim tax refunds, earned income credit, or their social security credits - http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/oct/02/...
Fair enough, but the parent was quoting their total payment (not just payroll) as 8% of their income, which is still an extreme underpayment, and equivalent to the case where they are only paying sales taxes.
That doesn't mean "yup, close the border", but we should still be careful about distinguishing the issues: yes, immigration may be below the optimal level, but it doesn't follow that illegal immigration is unproblematic in this respect.
I've known people who had been in the US as undocumented workers. When they were, they paid state and federal income and payroll tax, and, as a bonus, had no expectation of ever being able to use the programs funded by payroll tax.
> Why is enforcing the law and following policies so everybody can make a successful transition to become a US citizen a bad thing?
Because the laws are unjust. There is clearly an immigration problem in the United States and I personally don't believe tracking and deporting he people already here will ever contribute to a successful solution.
> If your illegal, and most likely your not going to pay your fair share for the entitlements and services you and others use then I have zero respect for you.
Many illegal immigrants still pay taxes and will never receive direct benifits for their contribution [0]
Illegal immigrants also work jobs that you would never think of working. Remember when they deported a bunch of immigrants in the south and food was rotting in the fields because no one was there to pick it a few years ago?
So the solution is just don't obey them? Also, I don't think the laws are unjust. The laws are there to make sure fiscally the United States has the resources and security to protect its citizens.
See how well open borders has worked for Germany. These policies have further strengthened extreme right parties in Germany which potentially will be much worse (see Germany brexit or equivalent of Trump in Germany) which is very possible.
> Because the laws are unjust. There is clearly an immigration problem in the United States and I personally don't believe tracking and deporting he people already here will ever contribute to a successful solution.
Then change the laws, but in order to do that you need to get your own people elected.
It's funny how ultimately the camps that allegedly is for a strong federal government would be better off with a weak "confederate style" federation. If the federal government wouldn't be in charge of immigration policies then whatever state you live in could set whatever immigration laws you want.
It's also curious how only in US immigration laws are seen as as immoral. Try to move to Canada and see how hard it is to survive there illegally. Yet Canada is somehow seen as the heaven of progressiveness somehow ...
Here is the thing, the more illegal immigrants you accept and defend, the harder it is for the people who actually want to respect US laws and go through the official process. That's the only thing that is immoral here. But you don't care about these people.
People tend to ignore the negative consequences of causes they support. We all want to live in the best possible world, and it's hard to accept that any policy we choose will have serious negative consequences. We know for a fact that failing to enforce immigration laws will lead to tens of thousands of murders and kidnappings every year. And yet enforcing them will lead to a lot of misery for those who are deported. There's no convenient solution where everyone wins. It's hard to accept the reality of the situation, and so we often choose to see only one side.
numerous studies going back more than
a century have shown that immigrants
—regardless of nationality or legal
status—are less likely than the
native population to commit violent
crimes or to be incarcerated
There was a response to this which quoted some statistics, including the argument that overall crime had decreased in the USA while the illegal immigration population had increased. I wanted to respond, but it seems to be gone.
This trend is true, but this is the kind of statistical manipulation that happens when emotions come into play about these kinds of sensitive issues. Comparing trends in overall crime with the growth of a minority population is misleading, as it's a minor contributor to total crime, even if it is disproportionate, especially in violent crimes. Some arguments even switch briefly to talking about legal immigrants, which is a completely different population. Also, this is an international issue.
There's plenty of interesting information in the USA. I like this article because it shows some of the errors on both sides.
Aren't you the same poster who wrote "The real question is how hard is this permit to obtain? I'm also guessing the permit limits Uber from doing what they want completely."?
62 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 96.3 ms ] threadYes. For the most part, I oppose the idea of nation-states and most of what people call "government" altogether. I support free movement of people, ideas, consumer goods, etc. As far as I'm concerned, as long as no use of coercive force / aggression is involved, it's all good.
How about a self-surveillance platform to measure your footprint?
The idea is basically an automated network-level CTF. Get as much data out as possible, then report back with the results. You could do this with a group of friends (feed all your friends data into your analysis box), to yourself (and all your devices baring OS restrictions), or with a larger group of security-minded individuals.
For extra fun, if you're capturing the traffic on your own machines, you could have a tool that extracts network encryption keys from memory, which should work similarly for programs using the same encryption stack, and you then feed that into the network analysis tool.
You could then use this to make sure you're not sending out data you don't want to send out in the first place; ideally you'd get to the point where your analysis tool can decrypt every packet, so that you're sure you're not sending out any data that you don't want to get out.
PANDA looks like an interesting tool to automate the retrieval of encryption keys; it can replay full process executions using a modified version of QEMU, and find procedures that convert high entropy data (i.e. encrypted or compressed data) to lower entropy data.
Coincidentally, if you get this up and running you can also automate the breaking of (encryption-based) DRM; that's just a side effect of gaining fuller control over your general-purpose computer. Oops.
Well, it probably wasn't as well thought out as you might have hoped, but there's no question there's at least thin connection between my username and most of my positions on things.
The comment I made above was kind of just spur of the moment, off the cuff, to be honest. I have a fundamental and visceral disdain for government, and especially anything that hints at that Big Brother / Orwell-esque world of Nineteen Eighty Four. And it especially pains me to see technologists/hackers willfully taking part in supporting government oppression of free people. So of course I'm going to make an offhanded comment about how we should do the exact opposite.
And I feel a little snarky now, because people are always referring to Peter Thiel as a "libertarian" and this strikes me as extremely un-libertarian. And as a libertarian myself, I don't want Thiel misleading a lot of people about how libertarian ideals.
You could then use this to make sure you're not sending out data you don't want to send out in the first place; ideally you'd get to the point where your analysis tool can decrypt every packet, so that you're sure you're not sending out any data that you don't want to get out.
Sounds something like an inverse IDS. I know there are some tools out there now for monitoring outgoing traffic, but not sure if there's anything with that specific spin on it. You might be onto something there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyotaje
Or maybe it's time for illegal immigrants to follow the law, just like thousands of legal immigrants do? Maybe they can pay taxes for the social welfare resources they use, the free college, the free medical expenses.
Do you know how frustrating it is for legal immigrants who worked hard to become legal and follow the law watch other illegal immigrants trample on the laws without regard? It's very frustrating.
One example. Read up on it. This is a public school, funded with your tax dollars. Tax dollars that will be spent on people who break the law, throw it in your face, and then demand more free stuff.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/oct/02/...
And in a perverse turn of events, they probably help some social welfare programs (ie Social Security) because they can never receive those benefits.
This is the FIRST SENTENCE of the article. Sorry, but if the first sentence is bashing someone who follows the tax laws because of a political reason, I am not going to be able to say that is a credible source. The article has a strong political bias for illegal immigrants.
I flagged this comment, and your "black people are criminals" comment, because of the tedious race baiting.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13242008
I didn't say "black people are criminals" at all. I merely said the OP's comments logically did not make sense and provided two counterpoints where their idea did not hold water. Give me a break, you're the racist, seeing "race baiting" where there is none.
Maybe the discrepancy could be explained by lead paint, solar flares, or something else, which is why I didn't propose any causes! Especially not "black people are criminals" QUOTED. I never said that at all. YOU subconsciously created the idea that black people are criminals and tried to project that onto my simple comment. Get a brain!!
Unfortunately, it's still also true that you're posting a lot of angry ideological rants to this site. That's an abuse of HN, which is meant to be for thoughtful discussion, not political battle. So please stop.
You've also been uncivil, including several times in the current thread. We ban accounts that do that. Please don't do that any more.
All: please don't post like this. It poisons the environment and kills thoughtful discussion.
Hell, even some anarcho-capitalists (like the late Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe) are against open borders.
Musk can also be seen as a libertarian but he does advocate for social programmes like UBI which have to be provided through taxation.
Most libertarians I know are not universally against taxation, they are against double taxation and would prefer to tax corporation and consumption at higher rates rather than individual labor.
Libertarianism is primarily about the role of the government within the life of an individual and about maximizing the agency an individual holds over their own life; It doesn't mean that an ideal libertarian society would have no taxes; If anything most libertarians would rather pay higher local taxes to offset lower national taxation because they have more agency in determining on what and how their money is being spent on.
Libertarians don't want anarchy, they are fully aware that roads, schools, police, firefighters, EMT's the military and for most of them even hospitals and much more have to be publically funded, and the only way to do it is through taxation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_imm...
> The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy released a report in February 2016, stating that 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States are paying annually an estimated amount of $11.64 billion in state and local taxes, "on average an estimated 8 percent of their incomes."[25]
[1] - http://www.wsj.com/articles/number-of-illegal-immigrants-in-...
That doesn't mean "yup, close the border", but we should still be careful about distinguishing the issues: yes, immigration may be below the optimal level, but it doesn't follow that illegal immigration is unproblematic in this respect.
Because the laws are unjust. There is clearly an immigration problem in the United States and I personally don't believe tracking and deporting he people already here will ever contribute to a successful solution.
> If your illegal, and most likely your not going to pay your fair share for the entitlements and services you and others use then I have zero respect for you.
Many illegal immigrants still pay taxes and will never receive direct benifits for their contribution [0]
Illegal immigrants also work jobs that you would never think of working. Remember when they deported a bunch of immigrants in the south and food was rotting in the fields because no one was there to pick it a few years ago?
So the solution is just don't obey them? Also, I don't think the laws are unjust. The laws are there to make sure fiscally the United States has the resources and security to protect its citizens.
See how well open borders has worked for Germany. These policies have further strengthened extreme right parties in Germany which potentially will be much worse (see Germany brexit or equivalent of Trump in Germany) which is very possible.
Then change the laws, but in order to do that you need to get your own people elected.
It's funny how ultimately the camps that allegedly is for a strong federal government would be better off with a weak "confederate style" federation. If the federal government wouldn't be in charge of immigration policies then whatever state you live in could set whatever immigration laws you want.
It's also curious how only in US immigration laws are seen as as immoral. Try to move to Canada and see how hard it is to survive there illegally. Yet Canada is somehow seen as the heaven of progressiveness somehow ...
Here is the thing, the more illegal immigrants you accept and defend, the harder it is for the people who actually want to respect US laws and go through the official process. That's the only thing that is immoral here. But you don't care about these people.
This trend is true, but this is the kind of statistical manipulation that happens when emotions come into play about these kinds of sensitive issues. Comparing trends in overall crime with the growth of a minority population is misleading, as it's a minor contributor to total crime, even if it is disproportionate, especially in violent crimes. Some arguments even switch briefly to talking about legal immigrants, which is a completely different population. Also, this is an international issue.
There's plenty of interesting information in the USA. I like this article because it shows some of the errors on both sides.
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/12/04/problems-w...
In fact, I recall that Peter Thiel helped fund the lawsuit against them. Huh. What a coincidence.