Comment by cookiecaper | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cookiecaper | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It's way different because big tech cos acquire and retain far more data about individuals than anyone ever expected to be available.

10-ish years ago, it wasn't possible to retroactively subpoena a year of minute-by-minute location history, because unless you had an ankle monitor, that data didn't exist. You couldn't get a letter-by-letter log of every term typed into a search engine or a log of the amount of time spent looking at pages of reference material. You couldn't get a record of every keystroke ever typed into a mail client or word processor. You couldn't get every photograph ever taken by the individual, because cameras didn't automatically send a copy to the mothership. This is way above and beyond standard paper seizure or record demands.

"Write angry letters, but don't send them" used to be good advice, but now that the government can just casually dash off a search warrant to produce every keystroke and every location ping within a year of a suspected crime, we all have good reason to be scared. Why'd you search "marijuana" that day last October? You expect me to believe you were just researching a ballot measure? Pfft.

This makes Big Brother a tangible reality. It certainly feels big to me.

Well you can also view things a different way. It will be a lot harder for real criminals to get away with anything in the future.

Now it becomes scary only if the authorities decide to go amok and make criminals of us all, but assuming it goes this way without anyone pushing back is not too realistic.

Many of the things we consider just and right today were illegal at one point in time but change was eventually made because of people who would have been considered criminals.

Like faking a racially-motivated crime?

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Only a police state can totally stop crime entirely. As the state is more aggressive in prosecuting crimes, it limits human rights more and more.

Just like security and usability are tradeoffs, so is this.

> Only a police state can totally stop crime entirely.

Only if that involves a complete overhaul of the police itself. Currently we have body cams that just fail at convenient times, policemen stalking their ex girlfriends and whistle blowers that get the short end of the stick. Giving the police more and more power is more likely to reach a turning point where it inherently starts to attract the corrupt and power hungry, increasing the abuse well above what we already see.

The police already attracts the corrupt and power hungry. This is just how security services work and why their power needs to be checked and there has to be oversight.

If the system ran amok they would just do whatever they want regardless.

We're already all criminals, with many people inadvertently committing multiple felonies (yes, felonies) every day: https://kottke.org/13/06/you-commit-three-felonies-a-day

This becomes terrifying when you realize the implications for quashing dissent. An inconvenient activist is an easy target for the legal system.

I had the misfortune of looking through your link, finding it to be a waste of time. The "committing three felonies a day" is the title of a book, the Amazon reviews claim it to be extreme hyperbole and just a series of case studies where the process of the law was admittedly abused.

The other anecdote in that link is the story of Joseph P. Nacchio, a CEO who was convicted for cashing out over $50 million in stock when the price was around $40, only for the price to drop all the way to $2 a year later. The NSA involvement was a failed bid by his defense to make it seem like his trading was legitimate.

> a series of case studies where the process of the law was admittedly abused

This is exactly the point. The way the law is written gives prosecutors too much leeway to convict, and if you become a problem in the eyes of the powerful, they can "throw the book at you".

> The other anecdote in that link is the story of Joseph P. Nacchio, a CEO who was convicted for cashing out over $50 million in stock when the price was around $40, only for the price to drop all the way to $2 a year later. The NSA involvement was a failed bid by his defense to make it seem like his trading was legitimate.

You left out how the government canceled their contracts with Qwest after Nacchio refused to give them access to phone records, which impacted the company's health. There were certainly other problems at Qwest, of course, but given the lax prosecution of many others involved in such scandals, it certainly feels like this is an example of this process in action.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com