Hacker News Reader

Comment by danboarder | Hacker News Reader

Where are my elected representatives that represent my privacy rights on bills like this? Maybe I need to run for office since I care about end2end encryption, free software, and the rights of free people and information to freely travel around the world...

View on HN

You can run, and with that platform your opponent will conveniently turn it around into "my opponent supports child molestors and terrorists". Because if you think you'll simply walk up to the podium talking about something most folks could not give a working definition for, boy, are you going to be in for a shock when your opponent "dumbs it down" for the audience.

Which is how we end up with stuff like the EARN IT Act that one would reasonably think would be shot down immediately, but isn't.

"My opponent supports the attorney general having access to your porn habits. I support your privacy" is a pretty straightforward simplified riposte to your above oversimplification.

Let's take it a step further:

"My opponent supports giving all law enforcement officers unrestricted access to your children's chats, photos and calls."

A bit further: "The NSA can and does see your nudes and those of your family."

The media will only show the perspective of their masters

> that one would reasonably think would be shot down immediately, but isn't.

EARN IT looks like a compromise compared to this: https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2020/06/there%E2%80%99s-n... which is I assume why it was pushed only a few days ago.

Lesser of two evils is a common tactic to push authoritarian bills in some countries. They don't expect LAED to pass and it has practically no supporters.

In that case we need to provide working definitions advocating for privacy and information freedom that the average consumer can appreciate and support. I'm open to ideas. One approach is to explain that without private encrypted communications your information cannot be free: instead it will be monitored and censored by the many parties that believe we should not see or say one thing or another. Privacy enables freedom.

For what it's worth, if you happened to run on this platform in an area where I had a vote, you would probably get it.

"information cannot be free"

You're talking about an electorate that has been shown the abuses of its data by Google, Facebook, and others time and again and couldn't care less.

> my opponent supports child molestors

The ruling elite have a monopoly on this. They publicly opposite it via bills like this and use media giants to crush 'conspiracy theories' involving people like Epstein and all the people he was closely associated with in Washington and Hollywood.

I think if we actually got evidence and leaks on how bad child abuse within politicians are, Americans would be absolutely horrified by the straight up hypocrisy.

Indeed, but think about who is running those blackmail ops... the three letters, well, how is it that Schumer put it, "you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from sunday at getting back at you..."

[1] https://youtu.be/6OYyXv2l4-I?t=52

We need a new Church committee.

Bill Maher may be right -- you have to fight fire with fire. Once mud has been thrown your only option is to throw more mud back. Point out the Cosbys, Epsteins, Trumps, warmongers, etc. "The untouchable elite are the terrorists and molestors"

My reply: "Government is trying to spy on every aspect of your life. There are more government employees that can spy on your children than there are child molestors in the country."

Do you want creepy gov't contractors spying on your kids?

In Europe quite a few "pirate parties" popped up about a decade ago. None of them were too successful as far as I know, at least in The Netherlands they didn't mention to gain a single seat (out of 150).

You should call their offices. Give your qualifications and make their staff listen to you explain all the reasons why its a terrible idea. It can move the needle if enough people do it. If you have the energy to run for office then you should start by lobbying for these issues, it's good practice

Awkwardly enough the only Senator I have even the smallest amount of respect for these days did add a bunch of amendments to try and fix parts of it....but I think its a shit bill from top to bottom and I expect him to vote against it anyway.

Perhaps instead of supporting politicians who "say" they're going to do X, Y, and Z we should support politicians who have a track record of doing exactly X, Y and Z regardless of how politically convenient it is to do something else.

More laws will not fix the problem of having too many bad laws, in my opinion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com