Hacker News Reader

Comment by JoeAltmaier | Hacker News Reader

While I agree in principle, opposing surveillance is like pissing into the wind. Privacy is becoming extinct. Soon devices and technologies will be impossible to regulate - specks of dust that record sound and location; recorders that stick to clothing, hair, skin; phones and tablets that come pre-infected in their OS and hardware.

We can oppose it, and maybe stave off for a few years, but inevitably we are all going under the microscope. Better to design new social mechanisms to protect against misuse of the data, than try and prevent its collection.

View on HN

Of course we can oppose surveillance. We can build anti-surveillance systems, and then we can demand companies to support them. Companies like Google could even use data mining in a way that doesn't infringe on user privacy. But their thinking will be "why change the status quo?".

That's why it's so important to fight for such changes, and not get trampled by the corporations and governments wishes for complete knowledge of a user/citizen. If Google doesn't like it, too bad. We'll just have to start supporting privacy-focused companies, and let Google die. That's capitalism, no? Adapt or become a dinosaur and die.

For internet surveillance, sure. For a while. But when the internet is a network of wireless devices, not all of which you own or even know exist, it becomes a swim against a waterfall.

> Better to design new social mechanisms to protect against misuse of the data, than try and prevent its collection.

The only way to achieve this, is to eliminate EVERY kind of asymmetry in society (which we should have achieved a long time ago, since we all always pretend that every life has the exact same value). If you keep any kind of asymmetry within society and accept mass surveillance, democracy is dead because mass surveillance will of course be abused to increase and further protect power monopolies.

This means, every kind of power would have to be distributed equally over every citizen. And that also means that everybody would have to receive the same amount of money per hour of work (all education being paid for by everybody, meaning entirely financed via taxes).

While that would be the perfect model and the most sane one, I doubt we are culturally mature enough to get there fast enough.

which we should have achieved a long time ago, since we all always pretend that every life has the exact same value

I don't think we've ever pretended this. We've "pretended" that all men are created equal, but what anyone does from there has a great impact on how society will value them. And why not? Two guys created equal: One spends his life on his parents' couch, the other becomes Bill Gates or Michael Jordan. Which one should we value more?

That depends. If the couch potato is my neighbour and takes care of my cat when I'm away, I will probably value him more.

Yes, this point cannot be made enough.

Technology will probably eliminate privacy. But the same organizations who belabor this point also claim they need total secrecy to operate.

The sword cuts both ways. And it should cut their way first.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com