Hacker News Reader

Comment by TameAntelope | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, like I said, you give up some of your rights in order for a prosperous society to exist.

I'm not denying the right exists, I'm saying we give up our other rights all the time for the benefit of society, why is privacy any different?

Further, it's a spectrum. You're not putting a camera up for police to peruse at their leisure, it's only in specific situations.

View on HN

You are not giving up privacy to a prosperous society, you are just giving up privacy.

I couldn't find evidence that mass surveillance is good a society.

'prosperous society' ~= convenience, less human hours wasted on boring stuff. The convenience of a video doorbell and connected home sure seem worth it to me.

And how are either of those things substantially impacted if Google's policy was "we do not hand over user data without a warrant"?

I'm not saying they are, just that consumers are giving up privacy for some sort of return. It's not required, as there are E2E HomeKit alternatives, but it's inaccurate that 'all you do is give up privacy'.

Agree to disagree. Systems that frustrate the accumulation and concentration of power seem to be integral to a functional society, nevermind a prosperous one, historically speaking.

“Convenience, less human hours wasted on boring stuff” is fine as an individual consumer mindset, but does not form sufficient criteria for evaluating complex social systems.

You can have all of this without giving up data.

What was the discussion I remember seeing long ago, about two kinds of surveillance-in-society?:

Kinda-good, 1, so and so can just go check the camera that points at the central plaza fountain that anyone can access, and sees that his spouse has arrived and is waiting for him as agreed.

or Bad, 2, cameras all over that everyone has no idea who controls, watches, and/or is recording

That attitude is the start of a slippery slope. If the end always justifies the means then none of your freedoms will be protected if someone else decides it's more convenient for you to not have them. This is the major problem with the big government authoritarianism that has infected the republican party.

Slippery slope arguments are a fallacy. If something bad happens, or is proposed, we can address it when the bad thing happens or is proposed. Nothing actually bad is happening or is proposed here.

As noted above, the trade-off our society has chosen to make is search warrants. Otherwise, it might as well be "for the police to peruse at their leisure". Is Google going to rigorously vet every "emergency" request for data the police make?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com