Hacker News Reader

Comment by arca_vorago | Hacker News Reader

Edit: op explained his intentions in comment below.

Apparently my point was too obtuse. What I am trying to say is that most surveillance is done legally, or just outside the lines enough to be forgiven by the blue line (in whatever country). My presumption is that the populous (us) _should be voting for spying like this to simply be illegal_, which is a topic that hardly ever comes up.

Let me try again: Spying from government to its citizens should be flatly illegal, and until we demand as much, we are failing our own democratic system and sliding per notch into turnkey totalitarianism.*

*not intended as hyperbole -- we are a long way from it, but the notches are undeniable

A solid point; would that more people thought like you. One minor grammar-nazi nitpick, though: "populous" is an adjective describing the size of a population; "populace" is a noun describing the population itself.

Hey, I really appreciate the elaboration, and I think I am in agreement with you on this point. I have to admit perhaps it was a bit over the top because I thought you were sarcastically using the pro rights gun statement and somehow trying to apply it to this topic.

Relying simply on voting and politicians to solve the problem of mass surveillance is just passing the buck.

The problem is more technical than political. It is a problem of internet architecture and design which must be addressed from within by technologists.

Currently, only a handful of ISPs and Internet Gatekeepers (i.e. Google, Facebook) have ultimate control over the majority of information flow.

If all you have to do is tap a few wires at key choke points (i.e. Room 641a) or hack into a server at FB or Google to own billions of users then that is like marching rank and file into machine gun fire on a global scale.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com