wow it's a very nice project, I just wish whoever made that page published an "about us"...
In the meantime I will keep suggesting, to anyone who needs a primer on privacy, this similar EFF link (even though it is not as comprehensive as the link you posted), because I trust the EFF: https://ssd.eff.org/
All that's necessary to strip away privacy and civil liberty rights without the slightest resistance is to use pedophiles and terrorists as a scapegoat. After all, who doesn't want to punish pedophiles and terrorists? I don't have the exact quote or reference in front of me, but I believe on numerous occasions lettered agencies have basically said what amounts to "well yeah, but we need to catch pedophiles so we need to see everything everywhere at all times for any reason...remember...pedophiles..." Red herring much? Or take the FBI: "we need to break into any iPhone because ...terrorist!...remember that terrorist! we need his phone! sure, that will implicitly give us ALL phone access...but...terrorism!" Do I need to go on?
Giving up privacy and civil liberties in that sort of light is easier than taking candy from a baby. And it's been going on for decades now in many developed western nations.
overall though, "muh safety and muh security" uttered by plebeians has been justification for abuse of power for thousands of years. thousands.
We're not entitled to anything. Nothing. We're not entitled to life. We're not entitled to breath. We're not entitled to a damned thing.
People feel entitled to free speech, to living itself, and there is no such entitlement. You have to ensure, yourself, that the things you feel you should have, you have. If you don't they will be taken away over time.
He is saying that we the people must hold them to those standards. We should not sit idly and say "We hold you to these standards" while not actively ensuring that the standards are being followed.
The implication is that you shouldn't expect it to be there, you can hold them to those standards but that means actually putting work into verifying that they are meeting the standards, and having some recourse if they are not.
a) We're also inherently social creatures. Saying we're all just selfish agents implies a little too strongly that we are islands, which we famously aren't.
b) There are few systems of thought more explicitly "self-centered" than Hinduism, and yet they take "non-harm" as their highest ethical imperative. And, of course, ethics for them is about decreasing misery. So they believe that not-harming is the most self-centered thing you can do.
c) Cynicism isn't always inherently more accurate. Sometimes it's just cynicism.
d) What precisely do you mean by "the world"? Let's take your clever reductionism to an even more logical end: pure solipism. That is, solus ipse. What is the world when there is only the subject? It's kind of meaningless to say that it does or does not give a shit about "you."
e) Or, you know, we could take Aristotle's words to heart when he says "it is necessary to stop." That is, accept at face value that external consciousnesses exist and that they do have a fundamental capacity for caring. Unselfishly, even, by your definition of selfishness.
f) Clearly you give a shit, since you thought it worthwhile to use such strong language. clearly I give a shit, since I took the time to respond.
g) Finally, do realize the uniquely American cultural tone of voice that takes selfish/greed/etc. as the only moral absolutes. People act like it's "realism," but it simply isn't, it's obfuscation. It's "stopping" at the worst points.
For anybody who's confused about it - watch a couple of documentaries about wild life from BBC and meditate about the fact that in the grand scheme you are no more than a Gnu sipping water while a crocodile silently approaches. The Gnu maybe dies - maybe not - did it deserve that fate - wasn't it entitled to more life? Seeing its children grow up?
Seems to me that most people either believe that their government is the good guy and always will be or they are comfortable enough in their lives and current security that they don't feel motivated to make a fuss.
I think a large enough fraction of people are more scared of the external threats that the privacy invasions supposedly help fighting than of the loss of privacy itself.
A few events might change that (e.g., a large enough financial failure using the lost/leaked data originally collected by government). I hope the pendulum swings back sometime, but I'm afraid it is going to take a while (10+ years).
While I agree with concerns over privacy I still think that overall, our current obsession with it will actually have detrimental long term results because of the resulting cynicism that it is creating. Because surveillance has continued or increased overtime regardless of which party controls the government, it creates a false equivalency that has convinced a lot of people that "its all the same" and that only some kind of dramatic (and likely violent and disruptive) revolution will solve the problem, while most of us have done little or nothing to actually change things short of complaining about them.
How many people on these forums have contacted their representatives on this issue? How many have considered running for office themselves? My guess is we've all spent more time griping to each other and on online forums that are not monitored by government (for opinions at least, they unfortunately might be monitored for other reasons) than we have on any kind of productive effort.
Privacy is a big concern, but is it as big as nuclear proliferation? Is it as big of an issue as climate change (no, I would say). Many of us who live in the US currently can afford to be worried about our privacy, we're mostly comfortable, safe, and well fed and can be concerned with our privacy despite the fact that it doesn't impact almost any of us. On top of that, the cynicism created by surveillance has convinced many people to waive their right to vote because they assume, correctly in many cases, that surveillance will continue in some form under any candidate, despite the fact that many other important (in some cases more important) issues will be treated very differently.
I am not debating that it is an issue but the truth is, I am more concerned for the many people in the richest nation on earth that don't even have enough access to computers and the internet to even be worried about surveillance and its hard to be surprised that this issue doesn't resonate with many people. We need a public discussion on this issue and we need to debate what privacy we're willing to give up for our safety as law enforcement has less and less ability to monitor criminals.
The sad thing is that if governments had been up front with their citizens and acknowledged the challenges in combating crime in an era where wiretaps and other previously available tools were becoming obsolete people might have been willing to accept intrusions into their privacy with acceptable civilian oversight; instead it was done without our knowledge and consent and now I'm afraid we'll collectively chop off our own nose to spite our face.
whenever i see an article like this, i am reminded that these authors are forced to take into consideration the timing and appearance of their articles. for instance, they would be unwise to release a scoop before or during the super bowl. in other words, in the fight to preserve liberty in the world, they are reduced to the same tactics as sleazy advertising and PR companies. it is so sad that such an important, fundamental and altruistic cause is so fragile.
> An appropriate real-world metaphor for the program might be something like this: In every room of every house and every apartment, cameras and microphones are installed, every letter is opened and copied, every telephone tapped. Everything that happens is recorded and can be accessed as needed.
This is why I hate the media.
I don't understand how making this analogy helps to explain the spying program discussed in the article. Why do we need "an appropriate real-world metaphor" in order to describe a real world spying program that actually exists? I strongly feel that this is a misleading way to relay information, and I'm sure it confused a lot of readers.
25 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 83.6 ms ] threadI prefer the one tptacek helped produce (if I understand him correctly):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13622684
In the meantime I will keep suggesting, to anyone who needs a primer on privacy, this similar EFF link (even though it is not as comprehensive as the link you posted), because I trust the EFF: https://ssd.eff.org/
Giving up privacy and civil liberties in that sort of light is easier than taking candy from a baby. And it's been going on for decades now in many developed western nations.
overall though, "muh safety and muh security" uttered by plebeians has been justification for abuse of power for thousands of years. thousands.
We're not entitled to anything. Nothing. We're not entitled to life. We're not entitled to breath. We're not entitled to a damned thing.
People feel entitled to free speech, to living itself, and there is no such entitlement. You have to ensure, yourself, that the things you feel you should have, you have. If you don't they will be taken away over time.
b) There are few systems of thought more explicitly "self-centered" than Hinduism, and yet they take "non-harm" as their highest ethical imperative. And, of course, ethics for them is about decreasing misery. So they believe that not-harming is the most self-centered thing you can do.
c) Cynicism isn't always inherently more accurate. Sometimes it's just cynicism.
d) What precisely do you mean by "the world"? Let's take your clever reductionism to an even more logical end: pure solipism. That is, solus ipse. What is the world when there is only the subject? It's kind of meaningless to say that it does or does not give a shit about "you."
e) Or, you know, we could take Aristotle's words to heart when he says "it is necessary to stop." That is, accept at face value that external consciousnesses exist and that they do have a fundamental capacity for caring. Unselfishly, even, by your definition of selfishness.
f) Clearly you give a shit, since you thought it worthwhile to use such strong language. clearly I give a shit, since I took the time to respond.
g) Finally, do realize the uniquely American cultural tone of voice that takes selfish/greed/etc. as the only moral absolutes. People act like it's "realism," but it simply isn't, it's obfuscation. It's "stopping" at the worst points.
For anybody who's confused about it - watch a couple of documentaries about wild life from BBC and meditate about the fact that in the grand scheme you are no more than a Gnu sipping water while a crocodile silently approaches. The Gnu maybe dies - maybe not - did it deserve that fate - wasn't it entitled to more life? Seeing its children grow up?
Seems to me that most people either believe that their government is the good guy and always will be or they are comfortable enough in their lives and current security that they don't feel motivated to make a fuss.
A few events might change that (e.g., a large enough financial failure using the lost/leaked data originally collected by government). I hope the pendulum swings back sometime, but I'm afraid it is going to take a while (10+ years).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation#Etymology
How many people on these forums have contacted their representatives on this issue? How many have considered running for office themselves? My guess is we've all spent more time griping to each other and on online forums that are not monitored by government (for opinions at least, they unfortunately might be monitored for other reasons) than we have on any kind of productive effort.
Privacy is a big concern, but is it as big as nuclear proliferation? Is it as big of an issue as climate change (no, I would say). Many of us who live in the US currently can afford to be worried about our privacy, we're mostly comfortable, safe, and well fed and can be concerned with our privacy despite the fact that it doesn't impact almost any of us. On top of that, the cynicism created by surveillance has convinced many people to waive their right to vote because they assume, correctly in many cases, that surveillance will continue in some form under any candidate, despite the fact that many other important (in some cases more important) issues will be treated very differently.
I am not debating that it is an issue but the truth is, I am more concerned for the many people in the richest nation on earth that don't even have enough access to computers and the internet to even be worried about surveillance and its hard to be surprised that this issue doesn't resonate with many people. We need a public discussion on this issue and we need to debate what privacy we're willing to give up for our safety as law enforcement has less and less ability to monitor criminals.
The sad thing is that if governments had been up front with their citizens and acknowledged the challenges in combating crime in an era where wiretaps and other previously available tools were becoming obsolete people might have been willing to accept intrusions into their privacy with acceptable civilian oversight; instead it was done without our knowledge and consent and now I'm afraid we'll collectively chop off our own nose to spite our face.
This is why I hate the media.
I don't understand how making this analogy helps to explain the spying program discussed in the article. Why do we need "an appropriate real-world metaphor" in order to describe a real world spying program that actually exists? I strongly feel that this is a misleading way to relay information, and I'm sure it confused a lot of readers.
They need to be shown the sheer vastness of internet spying.