Hacker News Reader

Comment by AsymetricCom | Hacker News Reader

The thing about the NSA dragnet is that if the NSA wasn't doing it, then corporations would (are) doing it. You can't stop technology from moving forward. Someone is going to be sniffing your packets now until the end of time.

View on HN

Not very worried about Google arresting me at some point in the future with their jackboot thugs for something I did or said in the past (when X wasn't illegal).

This applies to Facebook, Twitter, AT&T, Verizon, Samsung, Snapchat, and so on. When these guys start trying to acquire their own domestic armies, then I'll get really concerned.

There seems to be a common gloss-over regarding the fact that it's the United States Military that is doing the domestic spying. They were tapping Obama's phones when he was a Senator; most likely they own everybody at this point. This isn't some fluffcake brigade; it's the US freakin' military. Slip, and you're knee deep in a military dictatorship very quickly.

Black water already exists so your nightmare scenario is about one contract away.

Samsung already has a weapons manufacturing arm. Your dystopian nightmare of a future may not be so far off!

You should be concerned now, because the government can compel those companies to hand over their dossier on you, including your cell's tower or GPS records, your extremist views (surely something you've written is extremely different from someone in power, now or in the future), your advocacy of treason (you must have expressed displeasure about a President or member of Congress at some time), your support of terrorists (ever say anything negative about a declared or undeclared war?), and anything else you've ever said as a dirty, stinkin' agitator.

You've also been in a conversation with me, and that makes you a person of interest in some very plausible future scenario. ... "So, we notice that you spent a lot of time on this Hacker News site. Tell us about that."

I think everyone here would agree about that, but you are ignoring that avoiding an intrusive commercial product, or obfuscating your private information from a commercial product is easier than avoiding state-actor pervasive surveillance. It would be a step in the right direction to reduce the state-actor threat.

Not ignoring, just talking about one among many related problems. I agree completely it would be good to reduce the state-actor threat.

If they dont like your business model or want to compete with you they can damage or destroy your ability to make a living

As a practical matter, I worry about corporations screwing me over more than I worry about "jackboot thugs." The government has very little incentive to mess with me. I'm much more worried about employers using my browsing habits to deny me jobs, companies using my spending habits to deny me a mortgage, etc. Not as bad as having "jackboot thugs" break down your door, but a heck of a lot more likely and potentially life-ruining by itself.

The problem is that the more these assaults on freedom are allowed to persist, the more likely it is to come to your door step. Maybe now you're more likely to experience hardship at the hands of a corporation, but if we continue down this road that absolutely will change.

It's much easier to opt out of corporate sniffing. A Linux laptop with the OS booted from a live-cd comes to mind.. and of course not engaging in all these web-services helps.

How does booting Linux from a live CD make your packets invulnerable to sniffing? Also, that's not a real solution, even if it did work.

Sure, all it does is to make sure that no cookies are retained and that other things that can identify the user (browser version, fonts, installed extensions, etc.), are more or less defaults which, I assume, makes id more difficult.

I also assume/hope that Google and Facebook etc. are not able to sniff any packets that are not meant for them.

Corporations don't have the legal right to take my property or harm me or my family. The two aren't equal.

unless we're talking Blackwater where legal is what you make it.

Sorry. I definitely left out GSEs and govt. contractors in my response. There's certainly some grey area there.

Yeah, no bank has ever foreclosed on someone's home.

That's a bogus argument. A mortgage is a private agreement between you and a bank. A bank foreclosing on a property without a mortgage (as at least Bank of America is alleged to have done on several occasions) is a tort that should be litigated and a crime that should be prosecuted.

So it's a private agreement? I don't understand your point. You agree to pay a certain amount and if you don't a bad thing happens. When it's a bank and a mortgage, you lose your house and your family is harmed. When it's the government and taxes, your wages are garnished and your family is harmed.

Having a banking system helps people buy houses and having a government helps literally everything a society does.

It's not your house, it's the bank's house. That's what a mortgage is.

You know, until it isn't.

http://4closurefraud.org/2010/07/20/bank-of-america-confisca...

Yes, and had you read my GP post you'd know that everyone in the topic agrees that BoA should be litigated against for damages by the affected homeowners and the people ordering the bogus foreclosures charged criminally.

The bank owns the home, not the occupant. As the other person said, that's a bogus argument.

If said corporation wields enough power to be able to take your property at will, "legality" isn't going to stop it.

IMHO human and animal rights are technology, too. At least in the sense of progress being made there as well.

It's not that long ago black people were slaves/segregated, and women's suffrage is even fresher. And as much there is still to improve, some progress happened; instead of, say, there "always being one class of people considered subhuman", which no doubt some people have uttered in defeat back then, too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com