Hacker News Reader

"protecting the people from the government is more important than protecting the people from the people, at least as long as it stays manageable."

This is fundamental, and this point needs more airtime than it gets. Terrorism is a real threat. It is a challenge that our institutions are struggling to deal with. But the threat that it poses is tiny compared to the threat of powerful government, a troll that goes back to the beginning of civilisation. We must not let the focus on terrorism distract us into relinquishing defenses against the greater threat of powerful government.

Advances in technology make privacy more important than it has ever been. Without privacy, there is vast opportunity for government to reach deep into our lives in the name of enforcement.

Government of the people has an obligation to find ways to combat terrorism that are compatible with the controls we need on government. If we don't hold the line on privacy, government will increasingly shift us towards serfdom.

I would add that much of the supposed non-government threat we face, at least in the case of terrorism, was actually created and continues to be sustained by government policies.

Government has gotten us all involved in an endless war of attrition in which the average person has almost nothing to gain and everything to lose. If the priority was really to keep the population safe, things would be handled very differently.

It's not that simple. Terrorism or violence can happen anywhere and not be precipitated by any externalities.

People can conspire, people can be crazy, or unhinged. Columbine, for example. And even if we accept that terrorism is a reaction, they exist in many countries and would inflict more harm if they could. Terrorism is not a thing which only threatens the US, it exists in Europe, Africa, Asia, the middle east, etc.

But yes people will have to come to terms with how to deal with the issue of privacy (secrecy) vs openness (accessibility) How it's managed will change over time, surely.

The fear is, once they have their hooks into us, there's no getting out. We could easily settle into a dystopian oligarchy or whatever and never be able to get out. This kind of surveillance is a new thing in the world.

Terrorism is dwarfed by gang violence and drug violence in the US in term of casualties. Terrorism is like the buzz of a mosquito. The psychological impact is disproportionate to the actual impact and law enforcement agencies are exploiting this buzz. They are labeling any controversial law "anti-terrorist", presenting any controversial case as an "anti-terrorist" case, etc... We should not over-react the other way but we should simply tell them "no". In a free country, two individuals should be able to have a private conversation without the State listening and recording.

But gangs aren't trying to secure nuclear weapons.

And the fact that "terrorists" have been so far completely unsuccessful should maybe make you question whether they actually are.

What proof is there that terrorists are trying to secure nuclear weapons? How would they smuggle it unnoticed across the world? Why would they want to target the city you live in?

These questions must be weighted by each person for him or herself. I've chosen for some nicer car insurance. I still don't have nuclear terrorism insurance. I still sleep well at night after working in defense in this area and having friends working on these very issues.

You are claiming this on what ground? Source please. Or stop spreading misinformation.

You use that word, acquire. You mean steal. The idea that a terrorist organization is going to manufacture nuclear weapons is ridiculous.

But the solution to "someone might steal a nuclear weapon" is not "spy on everybody in the world" -- the solution is to secure the nuclear weapons. Which is a thing governments do that nobody is objecting to and that has nothing to do with mass surveillance.

Sorry, didn't mean to suggest tacit approval for carte blanche government surveillance. I'm just implying that just because terrorism has a low death toll now, doesn't mean that it will [since terrorists are seeking to exact as much damage as possible]

Government has gotten us all involved in an endless war of attrition in which the average person has almost nothing to gain and everything to lose.

After WWII, the US government and foreign policy got reconfigured in such a way as to assure the United States could defend itself from a nuclear superpower and to have access to the resources to re-fight World War II.

The original goal in all of the above was to keep the population safe. Things have evolved a little since then, however.

I don't think the ultimate aim is serfdom, but it would be a form of abuse. Perfect enforcement of an enormous body of law would tend to punish creative people, as the only way to avoid triggering a large number of rules is to form strong, proven habits and keep to them. Constant vigilance is antithetical to either daydreaming or experimentation. It wouldn't be serfdom for the people who's personalities are compatible with routine and continuity and conformity; it would be incredibly painful for the rest.

This point cannot really be overstated.

It is quite sad that we've reached a point where technology could empower us to lift up the state of humanity, but we're deploying it in a way to keep humanity in subservience of the state. Of course... there is no such thing as a government; it is just people oppressing other people[0]

Terrorism is broadly defined as using threats and violence to coerce a civilian population for political purposes... when the government grants itself the right to indefinitely detain dissidents and declares that its own territory is a battlefield (NDAA 2012) and authorizes itself to deploy propaganda domestically (NDAA 2013), and does things like threaten economic collapse and martial law if the citizens won't pay $1 trillion with no accountability (TARP bailouts)... who are the real terrorists under that definition?

[0]: http://genius.com/Krs-one-what-kinda-world-lyrics

I love KRS-One as much as the next guy but it's a meaningless statement at best.

The meaning I derive from that statement is that terms like "government" and "the state" refer to things that do not exist in the collection of mass, energy, and quantum whatevers that we call "the universe"... they are simply concepts in the minds of people, and are not capable of interacting with "the universe" except through the people in whose minds they exist.

Thus it is never "the government" oppressing people... it is people oppressing people. Similarly it is never "the government" helping people... it is only people helping people.

The moral and/or ethical implications of this concept are significant, as it "pierces the veil" of the idea that the actors are somehow absolved from their actions because they are in the name of "the government".

How comes already there are no firearm firing sound detectors

There are: http://www.shotspotter.com/

Though results are mixed at best: https://www.cctvcambridge.org/DoesShotSpotterWork

Similar results in Birmingham, UK (second city). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9497318...

I think OP meant that they don't have those armed with firearms that shoot back.

That's actually incredible idea for community hacker project.

Create loads of dirt cheap shotspotters with https://nurdspace.nl/ESP8266 plant them in your neighborhood. Make them report to community site so false positives could be eliminated by considering only simultaneous detection from nearby sensors.

Invite cops to use the site.

ShotSpotter helped the cops get to the scene of a shooting near my house in SF the other day.

> I will worry when I see blood on the street.

Playing devil's advocate to your last comment. There are a lot of people in the world that DO see blood on the street, every single day. Does the fact you come from a country that doesn't out weigh their experience? I agree with a lot of your other points, but if you want to be true to them then it shouldn't matter even if you see blood on your own street. Even if you become the minority that is to die. You're just one more human in humanity... we all are.

Further to that you need to be able to say the same thing when it is your family that may die, or your child.

<<Actually it is not what we're talking about, because they're not blind, they can use usual means of inquiry, and the technology. How comes already there are no firearm firing sound detectors, or remote-controlled drones with tasers in major streets to react instantly, ect...? There are ways to act which don't strip citizens from their power, as information nowadays is power.>>

That's actually exactly what we are talking about. The police's job is to enforce the law, and as technology changes, they need to adapt, the same way firearms now have serial numbers, and they collect DNA samples / fingerprints (all of which have met similar resistance before they became a broadly adopted technology, and are also open to abuse).

It's totally fine to have a rational discussion of where, as a society, we want to draw a line, but let's please keep our own rhetoric in check - there are lots of scenarios (outside the high visibility of this case) where, with proper legal controls, enabling the police to be able to access someone's phone is the equivalent of a traditional search order that allows the police to enter someone's premises and search for evidence.

And more and more we see those methods are quite fallible but sold to the public as proof positive: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151028133944.h...

The point is the government is already not respecting the rule of law with all the 'secret FISA court' stuff nor does their foreign policy seem capable of making us safer. I am loathe to give them more weapons against activists, politicians, journalist and the discontented when they have greatly earned our distrust.

Even if the "Searching X is like searching Y" were true which it rarely is, the issue is that "proper legal controls" don't get executed. Even in the traditional realm.

Once we have transparency and controls in place to make sure traditional laws are being used properly we can begin a careful deliberation on expanding those laws.

Let's not play dumb. If we (me included) get our way and have perfect digital security, it WILL make it harder or impossible for law enforcement to do proper police work. Criminals will be able to do all business and communication with 100% privacy from spying.

Let's debate honestly about what we think is acceptable. I honestly don't know, but I think perfect security is a mathematical inevitability, so I guess I'm more on the side of figuring out how to live with it.

> Criminals will be able to do all business and communication with 100% privacy from spying.

No.

Do you know how the police normally operate? There is a victim who comes to the police and says "these people committed a crime" and the police go investigate. They get a warrant based on the victim's testimony/evidence. They plant a bug in the suspect's home/office/car. They send undercover officers to infiltrate the organization. They interview witnesses and find other victims.

All of which can be done regardless of whether they can read your iPhone, which people didn't even have 15 years ago. And a video bug can capture you entering your PIN into your iPhone before they arrest you and confiscate it, so there is also that.

People always bring up the idea that they didn't have this capability until recently as if that bolsters your position. Since criminals didn't have this capability 15 years ago they couldn't use it to hide criminal activity. How does that make your case? "Regular old police work" has become less effective because it will find less evidence. If criminals are sufficiently on top of their shit, they can be very hard to catch indeed.

I mean, why draw the line here? Bugs and taps were new at one point. Why not say "police used to get things done without these newfangled spy devices, so why should we allow it now?" I would say a bug or tap is actually very invasive, but as long as a warrant is required, it doesn't seem so bad.

> Since criminals didn't have this capability 15 years ago they couldn't use it to hide criminal activity.

The difference with an iPhone is not that it hides criminal activity but that it records it to begin with. There was no default recording of the content of communications. What loss have the police suffered that the information is now stored but unreadable when it was previously not stored at all?

> I mean, why draw the line here?

Because there is a difference between the police being allowed to do something and everyone else being obligated to facilitate it.