Hacker News Reader

Comment by pavel_lishin | Hacker News Reader

> the deadliest attacks really are coordinated through end-to-end encrypted platforms such as WhatsApp?

Most of the recent attacks in America were carried out by lone-wolf far-right extremists. Some of the ones who were caught were actual government employees.

Furthermore, there's more to fear than someone spraying bullets into a crowd; ICE is performing 3am Gestapo raids and imprisoning citizens.

So you bet your ass I'm more afraid of the government than a guy driving a semi-truck. The government can hurt more people in a day than a terror group can in a year.

View on HN

Don't be hyperbolic.

The reality is that we should be just as concerned by a guy blowing up a truck at the Apple Store as we should about ICE raids at 3 in the morning. With both right wing terrorists and the government, scope creep has a way of ensnaring us all eventually.

Same is true of any terrorist, and any government.

So look, the question is not: Whether or not compromising my personal privacy will bring me more or less security? But rather the question is: Whether or not compromising my personal privacy is consistent with American Ideals?

I say no. So in my personal opinion we, as a nation, have no business mandating that people compromise their personal privacy.

> The reality is that we should be just as concerned by a guy blowing up a truck at the Apple Store as we should about ICE raids at 3 in the morning.

I can't be the only person completely unconcerned by events like this taking place. And I'm not someone without copious anxiety in their life.

You’re probably not literally the only person is unconcerned, but the overwhelming majority of the population seems to suffer from the availability heuristic, which means they’re concerned simply because it’s in the news, and it’s in the news simply because of its emotional affect.

> The reality is that we should be just as concerned by a guy blowing up a truck at the Apple Store as we should about ICE raids at 3 in the morning..

I disagree.

> With both right wing terrorists and the government, scope creep has a way of ensnaring us all eventually.

What's an example of a terrorist group's scope creep?

> So look, the question is not: Whether or not compromising my personal privacy will bring me more or less security? But rather the question is: Whether or not compromising my personal privacy is consistent with American Ideals?

Disagree.

> So in my personal opinion we, as a nation, have no business mandating that people compromise their personal privacy.

Agree.

Good talk.

>right wing terrorists

/s?

I looked up the word Gestapo; your usage is incorrect.

In the sense that they were the secret police of the Nazis, sure that’s incorrect usage. In the sense that ICE camps are being compared to WW2 concentration camps by people who were in WW2 concentration camps, and in the sense that the Gestapo played a key role in the WW2 camps, it’s uncomfortably accurate. After all, when it comes to who to detain and how, most of them are just following orders…

> "The government can hurt more people in a day than a terror group can in a year"

Of course. But we need to remind myself this: what it is the probability that they are going to willingly hurt innocent people on a massive scale at the moment?

Aligned with your comment:

I have to admit that one of my paranoid fears is that this will change in the future and who is supposed to protect us is actually going to be our enemy. This was also one of the founding fathers.I guess, we are in a good company.

History is full of examples of good kings that die and their successors are very wicked men.

At the moment I think that "being able to find out what they need to" is net positive for the world ( see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20509347 ) but what really bother me is that if in a future (hopefully remote) this change, there is no way to undo the past.

From my prospective the security that they are able to provide because of being able to tap in any conversation and the risk of citizen data being used against innocent people is clearly a huge compromise.

So the same attorney general that believes the FBI was infected by the "deep state" and is vulnerable to widescale corruption also thinks that same group should be able to remove encryption from anything?

How can a man even hold both of those viewpoints?

"In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values."

> what it is the probability that they are going to willingly hurt innocent people on a massive scale at the moment?

Well, given that they're doing it now, I'd say somewhere near 100%.

For downvoters and everybody else: can you help suggesting some viable ways to overcome the tradeoff?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com