Hacker News Reader

Comment by kingkawn | Hacker News Reader

Which may explain how their booming neo-nazi terrorist movement has grown so undisturbed

so privacy == bad because it encourages racism?

I don’t think OP’s post was in good faith but I actually do think this is an interesting discussion! A lot of conspiracy theory and white supremacism thrives in places like private WhatsApp groups. I don’t think that means we have to remove all privacy but it is interesting to consider the trade offs involved.

As abhorrent as I find white supremacy groups, I don’t see any real trade off that I’m willing to make to reduce even a tiny amount of the privacy and security of communications to give government better power or means to police these groups.

I find private communications so sacrosanct that I’m willing to allow even the most vile form of private communications to remain private rather than sacrifice the privacy of all to aid government in policing the outliers.

sokoloff is right.

This is why warrants exist. If those private conversations turn towards criminal action, then the government can take action. Until then, there is nothing to act upon - speech is "free".

I think sokoloff is going further than you: he thinks private conversations should be "sacrosanct", you seem to think they should be intercepted by anyone who suspects they "turn towards criminal action" and can reach the low bar of obtaining a warrant.

That bar is currently too low (FISA and all the other post-9/11 nonsense), IMO, but generally, yes.

A tradeoff that needs supporting. How dangerous are the outliers? How have societies fared, that took this trade? Is the absolutism justified ("sacrifice the privacy of all")?

What are we talking about concretely? Is “the west” an example of a privacy absolutist civilization? Or does one have to abolish things like warrants as well?

Absolutism is a common sight seeing stop off on the road to regret

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

We can trade quips all day, probably.

Well there's not gonna be much privacy if authoritarians take over

In this case the german trauma from the stasi led to a privacy state that has allowed an inhumane terrorist political movement to grow unchecked within the security services and society in general. You and others here are downvoting and acting shocked shocked shocked but if a democratic society cannot prevent the rise of anti-democratic internal threats due to blind adherence to its abstract ideals then it is not long for this world.

The communications are not the problem (IMO). It might be a convenience for government actors if laws and technology allowed the government to monitor everything, but it’s only the deeds that harm us.

I try to think not only of what good my like-minded government might do with these expanded powers but also what ill my opposite-minded government could do with these powers.

> german trauma from the stasi

As bad as the stasi was, what happened during the holocaust was far worse and stasi affected much less people. It's therefore far-fetched to explain focus on privacy with that.

Also as bad as the Neo Nazi Terror is in germany, it's actually worse in some other countries. In the US nazi militias continually existed throughout the 20th century. You rarely see it in the news because nobody seems to care and the organizations are not only legal but even get support from the US president. Please also consider acts of Nazi Terror that happened in NZ and Scandinavia.

Moreover right wing conservative movements like AfD are also much stronger in other countries, e.g. RN in France, PVV in NL or Fidesz in Hungary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com