Hacker News Reader

Comment by charcircuit | Hacker News Reader

>but because we can't rely on people with power to always do the right thing.

This sounds like another way of saying that you want to hide criminal behvaiour.

It sounds to me like they're saying they want to hide from abuse and criminal behavior on the part of people with power.

There are places in the world where it's a crime to be gay.

* Emit an opinion that's contrary from what's sanctioned by government.

* Consume certain types of food or chemicals.

* Meet with more than 2 or 3 people at a time.

* Stay out past a certain hour.

* Allow your children to be outside without supervision.

* Have an abortion (even in cases of rape!).

* ...

Okay. Then don't gay there. Just because something is socially acceptable in one culture doesn't mean that it is socially acceptable in all cultures.

While I would concur for any behavior (e.g. drinking), you don't really have a choice with being homosexual. Just don't be left-handed?

Then the must face whatever punishment that society deems suitable for them if they are a part of it. It may seem unfair to that person, but it is considered to be for the greater good of people.

Okay, so our society here has decided that people who espouse your view need to immediately commit suicide or be killed by torturous methods that take days. It's the law.

Now follow the law.

See, that's fucked up isn't it?

"Don't be Black or Asian or a woman because in some countries that's not acceptable." Do you see how silly you sound? (I leave open the possibility that you are not silly and instead just an asshole or a bigot.)

>Don't be Black or Asian or a woman because in some countries that's not acceptable.

You don't need to follow the laws of every country at all times. I am sure I have broken plenty of Chineese laws, but that's okay because I don't live in China.

Things that are legal/illegal are not a perfect overlap with things that are right/wrong.

Then acknowledge that you want the ability to be a criminal by doing things based off your own beliefs rather than pretending you aren't trying to hide that behaviour.

Screw it, I'll bite. Got a weird feeling you just didn't phrase what you were trying to say as well as you could, and would appreciate clarification.

Is your assertion accurately represented by the following prepositions:

A) The poster you're replying to, is desirous of the purported safety of guaranteed informational asymmetry from those in power

B) the poster in being so desirous, in all likelihood, is mistaken in the perception that codified informational asymmetry is a protection to them, because the same protection covers the person in power, except arguably moreso

Or...

C) the only reason to be desirous of such asymmetry in the first place is that one harbors the possibility of criminal intent.

Which from your phrasing of your original comment, came off with an unsaid part of "which I (referring to yourself) don't have or care about).

I'd like to think C doesn't enter the equation; and I'm fairly sure others have probably reacted thinking that was where you were going with it. If that was the case, fine...

However, even C) is rebuffed by "the definition of criminal is fluid and changes over time; and there is little guarantee in the stickyness or aggreeableness of said change". Material examples resonant with said rebuff can be found in the Roe v. Wade overturn, among other things.

But if B) is more in line with your thinking, I'd be quite interested in further expanding on it. I'd also be interested in where you fall eith regards to the statement "everyone is criminal at some point, no exceptions".

I've always entertained the hunch that one of the best disinfectants for a serving public official would be the complete dissolution of any right to privacy for the term of service. Coincidentally, there'd be problems in that most potential candidates for such work would be few and far between, and there could be pathological effects/selection pressures on the candidate pool, but I've never really had anyone to rubber duck the theory off of before.

I would say that my view is closer to C, but instead of having criminal intent someone would have intent to do something regardless of the legality.

>However, even C) is rebuffed by "the definition of criminal is fluid and changes over time; and there is little guarantee in the stickyness or aggreeableness of said change"

Which is why I believe it to be important for laws to not be retroactive. If someone is living somewhere which allows retroactive laws and wanted to do something then trying to find ways to hide your potentially criminal behavior could be desirable. I believe people should just be honest that they want to have their crimes be hidden to reduce their legal liability than to pretend that they just really like privacy as a concept or because they think privacy in a human right.

Interesting thoughts; I think on a fundamental level there is something you misunderstand about privacy though.

I genuinely do not engage in any criminal activities (that I am aware are criminal at least) - so I dont fully understand where the criminality angle comes from.

However, consider the toilet: everyone basically knows whats going on in the toilet, some people do criminal things in the toilet, yet we give toilets doors & special stalls. This is what privacy is, a little comfort that you are not being watched while doing intimate or personal things. With the understanding that, yes, sometimes this comfort can lead to some people abusing it.

Heres the blatant problem with the law changing without true justification: people plan around the laws and if a right is lost suddenly it would have life altering ramifications for more than a negligible volume of people.

If society has proven anything, it is that criminal justice systems are imperfect and laws are arbitrarily defined by the most powerful individuals in a country.

The suggestion you're making is that rather than recognise abuse of power, that instead this is an excuse for individuals to commit unnamed crimes.

So I thought I'd start at the most basic example: Police that have used government databases to spy, stalk and harrass: ex's and attractive women they saw in public. This is barely scratching the surface in the many ways that information of totally innocent people has been misused.

USA:

N.J. cop used police databases to stalk ex-girlfriend, investigators say https://www.nj.com/monmouth/2023/01/nj-cop-used-police-datab...

Officer Fired for Allegedly Using Police Database to Stalk, Harass Women https://www.newsweek.com/officer-fired-allegedly-using-polic...

Australia:

Former policeman accused of using force database to stalk ex-wife and girlfriend https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/former-policeman...

Former federal police officer faces new charges over stalking of ex-girlfriend https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6138318/former-federa...

(Note the two above articles are not the same person)

UK:

Met police officer 'used CCTV cameras to stalk his ex-girlfriend after telling her to take up sex work to pay her bills' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11868575/Met-police...

Creepy cop saw attractive woman on the road and 'looked up her license plate number so he could stalk her on Facebook' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2178556/Officer-Jef...

This list is of course not exhaustive. There are simply too many examples to cite here.

There are no "good guys and bad guys", that is an infant's-level understanding of crime. Rather all systems need to be designed assuming that bad actors may access them. This means that "red tape" and oversight is needed, as well as ensuring that not too much information is pooled into a single system.

The information that Facebook/Google learns about their users far exceeds what governments have allowed in their own systems. Privacy advocates are right to be concerned about access to these systems.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com