Hacker News Reader

Comment by infamouscow | Hacker News Reader

The fundamental flaw of cynicism is that it invariably opts for the path of least resistance—a facile dismissal rather than a constructive lens for genuine improvement. If an overwhelming majority—say, 80% of the populace—were deeply invested in this issue, they would elect representatives committed to outlawing it, and thus it would indeed become illegal.

The cynic might retort that such laws are perpetually vulnerable to subversion under the guise of national security. While there's a kernel of truth in that, it's equally undeniable that if 80% of the citizenry truly felt impassioned, any rogue elements within the government would face severe repercussions. Acts of retribution against such actors would not only be tolerated but perhaps even tacitly endorsed by the public.

View on HN

Well, a true cynic would note that if an 80% of a dictatorship all agreed and felt so passionate -- if even 40% did, such a government would easily fall apart or be capable of reform.

If we could reliably attain passion, cooperation, consciousness? And ultimately, a belief in agency?

Then we would hardly even need to protect institutions against such subversion.

I'm reminded of ceausescu. Everyone agreed, up until they suddenly didn't and he and his wife didn't even seem to get it until they were lined up and shot.

I think it takes both agreement and desperation for that kind of thing to happen, though. Comfortable people don't tend to buck the people who can freeze their bank accounts in any serious way at simultaneous scale, even when they're in mass disagreement.

Very well put, especially about the necessary dis-comfort.

I've always personally envisioned some terrible end-state of human history where vast swathes of people are in something more like a zoo than a prison. Without escape, but also without enough pain to push them toward resistance, until it's too late to turn back.

I'm of the opposite opinion,that recording is a liberty and the right to mass record and identify people is a healthy sign of private free speech rights. I feel banning it would be dystopic. Where I disagree is the use of government at all in many of the capacities taking advantage of this such as TSA, DHS, CBP etc as they are essentially unhinged violent pirates.

Interesting opinion but there is no dystopian literature i know of that worries about banning mass surveillance. Mass surveillance on the other hand features very prominently.

Then you're looking in the wrong section. You don't want the sci-fi section, you want history - Cold War. The investigation of the government by the people was violently suppressed and the the official mouthpieces were jokes - "There is no pravda in Izvestia and no izvestia in Pravda."

Mass surveillance played out privately means every plated cop car can be tracked, every noted confidential informant and every detective, tax stasi, etc can be traced. This is already becoming the case on networked mapping apps where the road pirates are losing their revenue. It's more of a worry for the state than citizens IMO.

There's still information a.

A? Asymmetry?

That's actually a very fair point i haven't considered, i can't say i've changed my opinion to worry more about the citizens than the state but i agree with it part of the way!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com