Hacker News Reader

Comment by sanatgersappa | Hacker News Reader

"If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear"

Because generally the 'powers that be' don't go publishing all of your data so anyone can see. You choose what gets publicly published and they keep what they have on you largely to themselves.

That is still published, they can still use it for blackmail, and still abuse it.

If you collect my data, I consider you just as bad as a hacker who publishes everything personal of me. Yes, that's why I hate Google so much.

Thank Goodness! Since they're competent enough to keep personal info on their federal agents safe from hackers, I feel safe trusting them to keep all my sensitive information secure too!

Doesn't matter if you trust or mistrust the government - everyone leaves a digital back-gate unlocked without realizing it once in a while.

Unfortunately no matter how noble the institution, mistake-prone carelessness humans are behind them all.

that reduces down to humans are responsible for human behaviour

That means that you shouldn't trust them with access to your sensitive data, which they've been demanding recently.

I hate this crime, but having said that, your argument doesn't hold water.

As another commenter pointed out, they can't even keep their own stuff secure. In addition, if politically it's useful, you can bet that somehow it'll find a way to get out: the Justice Department aren't the only folks able to do parallel construction. Plus folks in government agencies leak confidential stuff all the time on deep background, or as a way of scoring political points.

This is a terrible thing, but it's a terrible thing because people procuring and owning massive datasets on other people is wrong. I understand that society's morals haven't caught up with that yet, but that's the only solution that makes any sense: I own my data, I store my data, under certain conditions I may lease/lend you my data for a limited time only -- and all other uses of it, whether by private or governmental bodies -- is theft.

The second half of your last paragraph is interesting to me, because what you're basically doing is affirming the political idea of intellectual property.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about DRM (which is based on exactly the same idea but applied to creative works and not information on a person or people)?

Thank you so much for that comment! I never connected these two. In fact, it was just out of frustration that I even wrote the last paragraph. It was not well-considered.

I don't know. I need to think about this some more. Thanks again.

Intellectual Property is as meaningful as Physical Property. The rules are different for each, of course, but saying "physical property exists, intellectual property does not exist" is an extreme position that shows a lack of understanding of what "property" fundamentally is.

I wasn't trying to say that intellectual property didn't exist. I think it's obvious that it does, at least in some form. (Heck, the patent system is builton the very idea.)

Perhaps in an 'ideal' world, IP wouldn't exist. This is far from an ideal world, though, and besides, the so-called "ideal world" would be extremely boring.

I think DRM takes it too far, though. My computer is my physical property. I may not have built it entirely from scratch, instead relying on vendors like Intel to manufacture the components, but it's mine and if I want it to perform a certain way, then the only thing which should be able to stop me is the law itself - not some DRM designed to help me stay in compliance with some company's idea of the law, which is inevitably biased towards their own needs.

[edit: To be clear, since I realise I sound a little extreme here - EULAs are designed to be legal contracts. As such, if you think I've broken (accidentally or intentionally) a clause in your EULA, then unless it's obvious to all involved parties that I've broken the contract (and thus broken the law), it should be up to a court to decide if a) the EULA is a valid contract, and b) if I have in fact broken said contract. If so, go ahead and punish me. Until then, it doesn't make sense to treat, for example, legal paying customers as if they were pirates when they're not.]

Except that everyone has some data that they want to keep private...

Maybe you want to keep your text messages private from your employer, or your browsing history private from your children, or your maximum driving speeds private from your local law-enforcement, or your sexual preference separate from your wife, or etc, etc.

I think the GP is repeating the line that we the public are always sold by these government agencies re privacy for comic effect :)

Hook, line, sinker.

Embarassed. :)

If it's missing the customary "/s" then good old Poe's Law can work its magic on even the best and brightest

Props for owning up

I think you kind of missed the sarcasm.

If only there were a sarcasm punctuation... Sadly, we only have emoticons. ;)

there are quotes around, should more than enough.

It should (be), maybe, but is a mistake worthy of downvotes? Probably, I guess.

Lesson: Never misinterpret, especially when feeding the ego.

It's kind of customary around HN to end sarcastic comments with /s

I frequently use the tilde ('~') for this purpose. Others use "/s".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony_punctuation

Most of the marks historically used for insincerity or irony would fail today because they cannot be typed on any keyboards.

Hmm... I only (mis)use the tilda as an expression of uncertainty, like "~130Mbit".

That's not a misuse, indicating that a value is a loose approximation is a major use of the tilde.

Humour is wasted on the internet.

Wants mean little. I want to marry Taylor Swift.

They're FBI agents. That's something they often want to hide when hunting down bad guys...

Or good guys irrespective.

only if there were some sort of separation of powers...

Not sure how the quote is relevant, I don't really see any of the affected people complaining.

Edit: 5 downvotes, really?

That's a common argument used by various agents of the government to justify their actions that violate peoples right to privacy.

There isn't any privacy violations happening here, nobody affected seems to be very bothered.

Join me in the joy of misinterpreting the sarcasm. /sarcasm

Edit: GP, please, learn that being clear is important, especially considering how many people are non-native speakers of your language.

I spotted the sarcasm, but the comment just didn't make any sense in this context.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com