Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjeaff | Hacker News Reader

I don't think there is any big conspiracy there because it is already legal (and always has been) for companies to give surveillance data to the government.

The government can't take it by force without a warrant. But the company is free to give it to them if they ask nicely or otherwise.

View on HN

The point is that they proposed expanding these relationships and they billed it as “security”. But anyone who really understands security knows that collecting more data and sending it to one big third party is the opposite of security. They wanted to expand surveillance while telling us they were protecting us.

"They wanted to expand surveillance while telling us they were protecting us."

The issue is that they (i.e. government) have always done this. I'm only 35, but I remember this being very clear immediately after 9/11. You just say the boogeyman is terrorism, and that is used to justify end-runs around the constitution via the "PATRIOT" Act, etc. etc. Before terrorism, the excuse was communism. Maybe I'm just cynical now or read too much "1984" as a teenager, but I feel like there will always be a new boogeyman that they use to justify more authority, more powers, and all the while saying it's for our own good and to 'protect' us.

Yes they have always been doing this and it is bad. I thought this one example of bad behavior was worth mentioning in this thread.

Problem is there is not much push back, in fact people are willing to give up most of their rights for better security.

Worse, most people do not even know what they are giving up. But I agree with your sentiment. It is deeply frustrating that the public does not know enough to care and even when they do they believe the government is really there to help us.

Are they willing, or is there simply no correct choice at the voting booth because of First Past the Post voting?

Our current electoral system: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Reply on news.ycombinator.com