This is even more troubling because smart people are less likely to be caught.
At least, like Snowden's leaks, this is proof that privacy extremists aren't conspiracy nuts, and hopefully it will open a few eyes to the real danger of giving up privacy.
Other comments are right: stop using big words and write plain sentences.
The word "engineer" is critical to the first sentence, and your version has no translation of "banal, lascivious panopticon".
The roundabout structure of the sentences is much more relevant than the use of a big word or two.
I removed "engineer" because it's not necessary to the broader premise that more highly skilled people tend to be both more trusted in our society and more likely to know how to get away with a crime.
I didn't translate "banal, lascivious panopticon" because it was it's one of those faux-profound images that adds very little.
It's hardly revelatory to tell HN readers that people are troublingly comfortable with constant tracking by corporations and governments.
That's a very strange interpretation to me. It doesn't look at all profound or faux-profound to me, it's just imagery.
Such a simple point, and look over how many heads it went.
I think it's pretty presumptuous to think a world salad went "over" any of our heads, when a simpler explanation is that the point was obscured by unnecessarily complex language.
That's still assuming your interpretation was what the writer intended. As a native English speaker, I can tell you that it's not 100% clear.
> what necessitates knee-jerk responses or downvotes?
The meaning of a down vote is not defined by HN itself, so it's personal. For me, I use it based on value. I up-vote comments that add to or improve the discussion. I down-vote comments that add nothing.
I did not down-vote the root comment here. I replied because I found the content to be locked away by the presentation, and the content seemed to be a worthwhile part of the discussion of the article.
I think your your summary of the comment doesn't really match the comment.
On the other hand, I was taught early on not to trawl the thesaurus for word substitutions. It’s just pretentious.
It's not really clear to me what you are saying exactly.
Spedru posits the covert and exposed deviants within companies, that we've exchanged our data with, are another style of entity (besides state actors) that we ought to strive to deprive of access to that data.
At least, that's as charitably as I can characterize the comment.
That implies there's an uncharitable characterization. What would that be?