Hacker News Reader

>Are we ok having our 'privacy' at the cost of security?

Yes. Security is fiction, the government cannot make you secure. All the government is doing is to make empty promises and spend your money on security theater and surveillance programs that make you less secure by drastically increasing your exposure against malicious governments, which have killed orders of magnitude more innocent people than any terrorists.

Your argument is a straw man. No one is suggesting that the government should be unable to conduct lawful surveillance subject to a warrant based on probable cause "and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." What people are suggesting is that we not have totally unchecked government surveillance power or be forced to design our technological infrastructure with dangerous security vulnerabilities.

> Yes. Security is fiction, the government cannot make you secure. All the government is doing is to make empty promises and spend your money on security theater and surveillance programs that make you less secure [...]

I really can't remember the last time I had to worry about pirates, smallpox, or a nazi invasion. The government cannot make me 100% secure, but they can certainly make me more secure than I would be on my own.

Don't get me wrong, what the NSA is doing is over the line in my opinion, but rhetoric saying that the government is incapable of any sort of security for it's citizens is a bit much.

The government is incapable of providing absolute security. You cannot be "secure" in the sense that sufficiently determined terrorists will always be able to kill you.

The way this issue is repeatedly framed is as a trade off between security and privacy, with the implication that people should always choose security over privacy and therefore have no privacy. Which is utterly ridiculous. Insert any other two things you please: In a trade off between speed and safety, you should always choose safety. It's complete rubbish because if you always choose safety you can never leave your house (or, ultimately, your cell).

Even the trade off itself is a fallacy, because the reason for privacy is security. Loose lips sink ships. The same logic applies to individuals and corporations. Someone who knows everything about you can easily kill you (or rape you or blackmail you or kidnap your children etc.) Creating a huge database of everybody's secrets is an enormous security threat.

>Are we ok having our 'privacy' at the cost of security?

Yes!

>The sad reality of our world is that there are terrorists,

Not very many of them. Your chance of being injured by a terrorist are basically zero.

>and they need/use things like email/chat/online forums/regular phones for communication.

They can also use things like coffee shops to talk in. We better get mics in there to record every conversation!

>So the question is where do you draw the line on what is acceptable/not.

I draw the line on none of it is acceptable. We're fighting a practically non-existent enemy. The government abusing this power is a vastly bigger threat and has already been happening for years.

The US government is simply too corrupt to be trusted with anything that avoids strict checks and balances. Why do you imagine the founding fathers put that stuff in there in the first place?

> if you are evading tax and the government finds out, this data cannot be permissible as evidence in court and/or used to prosecute.

For now. But that data will be there forever and attitudes on such things may change. And before you scream "ex post facto" I say look at the case of the guy accessing open AT&T links. That wasn't illegal when he did it, it became a crime well after the fact.

The "slippery slope" is a real danger when collecting data.

Once we have it piled up in nice data center it would be a shame just to leave it there, and soon everyone and their cousin will be lined up to get a share .. IRS, DEA, FBI and the rest of the alfabet soup. It has pretty much happened already with every government register and I don't see why it wont happen in the future.

And once we start to analyze the data we will see patterns. The guy who stops at the same local pub every day on his way home from work will most probably be scrutinized by both the police and DMV sine driving under the influence of alcohol is considered to be serious matter.

The fact that the pub he visits have the best hamburgers on this side of the Atlantic can't be seen in the gps-location log of his cellphone.

Once people who doesn't follow the ordinary patterns starts to get extra attention from them - the guys with guns and uniforms who have the authority to put you in jail - we will start to self-censor what we say, where we go and in general try to avoid sticking out.

This will hurt our economy, the entrepreneurs who wants to do things in other, better ways isn't there any more - they are buzzy trying to conform. You didn't find to many entrepreneurs in the former eastern block - nor will you find them in your future "balanced" surveillance state.

We will also effectively stop the any development of our society. Not so many years ago homosexuality was a criminal offence, how can the future version of the LGBT-activists possibly assemble, discuss and debate when the rulers of the country knows who and where they are and what they are doing. No more progress and humanism reforms.

We survived the cold war against the Soviet union without having to sacrifice our personal integrity or legal security, and they had spies, infiltrators, actively supported terrorist organizations across Europe and a military with thermonuclear weapons.

Our "enemy" today are a bunch of imbeciles with large beards dressed in nightshirts running around waving with a book that contains as much truth as something written by Brothers Grimm.

And you fear them enough to make the wet dream of stasi a reality?

"First a reasonable suspicion , then limited surveillance" is a principle that have served us well so far, and I hope it will continue to do so.

Unlimited surveillance will lead to unreasonable suspicion, how many honest people should get on the no-fly list of have their job/visa applications turned down for no obvious reason so you can "feel" safe?

Gentlemen don't read each others mail!

I don't understand why this has been downvoted as it doesn't violate any rule on HN. Even if I personally disagree with the comment, it explores a different point of view and it's a contribution to the discussion.

Downvoting to express disagreement is a plague that must be eradicated.

We are the Borg. Your differing viewpoint will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

Whenever I see someone downvoted for an unpopular (on HN, anyway) opinion, I always upvote the comment, even if I don't believe that the comment otherwise merits an upvote. It's my way of striking back at the practice.

It's being downvoted because it's ignorant, a disgusting view point and doesn't contribute anything useful.