Hacker News Reader

> You don't need to be doing something illegal, in order to want privacy...

But due to the existence of general-purpose computers the only way of really enforcing copyright law (meaning to stop the unauthorized transfer of information) is by some kind of total surveillance cyber-policial state.

So yes, it's not the same, but they are related in practice.

General purpose computing isn't probably going away because of its economic importance (but they sure can try with DRM schemes and such). Copyright law isn't getting any better because they own the governments. Therefore...

I think it is interesting to see how many people will watch tv series, films and other content illegally, when it's easier and how many actually pays, when that's easier...

I can't remember numbers or sources, but just look at iTunes, hulu, netflix, etc. sales... I think many of their customers have watched pirated DVDs and streamed or downloaded from illegal sources, before they came around and things easy.

It's weird how, some industries would rather spend millions hunting down "pirates", instead of making access to their easy! ;)

Some content is made lagally available for free in my country over video on demand systems like BBC iplayer or channel 4 on demand.

The BBC app does not all someone to download a programme to watch later over 3g. It does allow streaming. (And i don't know what they're using to detect 3g because you can download using a 3g dongle).

So, sometimes it's easier for me to just watch it on Youtube than it is to use the official app.

It is frustrating that I try to do the right thing and they prevent me, and do so for weird reasons.

Ha! Same in Denmark with DR (Danish national broadcasting station)...

HBO (I think) owns "Dexter" and I wanted to see the latest season, only to discover they won't let iTunes sell it, till the season is over... What? Why? Wh..? Do'oh!

So you won't let me pay you to watch it on a legal "channel"?... That is why people watch it illegally!..

So many weird reasons...

I agree. I wish "a rose would still be a rose by any other name", but in reality it's nothing like that. Names are extremely important ("Patriot" Act, etc. George Orwell knew what he was talking about in his book and why politicians would use Newspeak for the same reasons, to manipulate people).

Pirate has just too many negative connotations. Would someone create a party called the "Communist Party" in a democracy today? Even if their intentions would seem much different than the "old communists", I think it would have too much trouble getting off the ground (in any democratic country, not just US, where it's impossible for any third party to get off the ground).

This is also why I dislike the names darknet or darkmail. Prosecutors in US are bad enough as they are [1] (and remember Cameron Ortiz? [2]). Imagine them having to explain what a "pirate browser" or a "dark net" is to a jury. They'd say that they clearly named it that way because their intent was evil from the beginning (even if the tool may be technologically "neutral"), and they intend it for doing bad stuff with it. And I imagine the jury, who wouldn't know any better, would tend to buy it.

And I also agree completely that normal people may try to stay away from having something called "Pirate Browser" on their desktop.

I think I understand why people usually choose such names for their projects. They want to rally their supporters faster, people who really get what it's about, but I think it would do just as well based on what it does, and not because of its name, with that early adopter crowd, since they will understand what it's about and what it does.

[1] - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/opinion/sunday/rampant-pro...

[2] - https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-stat...

In denmark we have the danish communist party, which is exactly that... But no... There is no real support for it.

A party called something like "the unity party" has something like 10% percent of the votes!.. And they're actually an old fashioned communist party with modern ideas of how to "get there"...

It's really interesting to watch the news and listen to the ways words are being used and becomes labels, that are spreading across all news medias, until nobody remembers what the actual story was - just that it "sounds bad".

It was a pleasure reading your entry, because it is exactly how I feel about privacy.

Actually, the whole process, or movement, that different governments promote is making us believe that if we want privacy, we want to do "bad stuff".

This may not seem obvious to people, but I see clearly that just about 100 years ago, privacy was "sacred" and untouchable, while nowadays it is becoming something to be ashamed of.

We are slowly becoming an Orwellian society, and I think the scariest thing is that our children, or maybe their children, will grow up in that kind of world and see it completely normal.

Good to know that I am not the only one concerned about privacy, without actually having anything to hide! :)

I agree with you totally! I am trying to raise my kid (soon kids), with a healthy scepticism towards authorities and authoritative sources of anything (science, history, anything knowledge)...

I hope that will help them think for themselves and hopefully become sensitive towards governments and how much authority they should be allowed to have.

I think we are at a dangerous point in time, where governments like US and Denmark where I live, are coming a bit to close to no longer being governing but actually controlling.

The idea of representatives of the people is dead - it is now the least worst choice of a few people sponsored by a tiny group of people, which is very often heads of large corporations... That makes "the peoples" interests waaaay less interesting, than the corporations.

With a tiny group of people shifting "the power" around amongst themselves, they're bound to get a distorted view of what "real" people are concerned about and what rights they should have. I think there is a tendency to generalize so much, that it becomes default to look at a population as a big non-feeling group with no real individuality and no real individual rights.

I agree. Here in the UK it's thankfully not illegal to circumvent censorship filters. Indeed you can opt out (although there are good reasons why requiring opt out is a bad thing).

The term pirate has negative, fringe connotations for many. Our rights to privacy and an uncensored internet should be a mainstream concern.

That's not to say this project shouldn't be lauded, it should. It'd just be nice to see projects like this becoming super accessible and I think terminology plays a part in that.

The opt out is another one of those things, build in a way, which more or less says: "no, no... you don't need to... just come on down to the office and sign this paper... no hard feelings..." ;)

It's interesting how many journalists are using Tor and privacy tools like that and how few are helping make privacy a mainstream concern.

I totally agree that this project is a good thing! More of it! It can (almost) only help to make more people aware of why it is important :)

It's funny you mention this, because I read "PrivateBrowser" both in the link and headline instead. I didn't know that there is a Freudian slip effect for reading.

I agree with you about the negative connotation of the word "pirate". That's an issue with the political Pirate parties in Europe, too. I just don't see them ever gaining voting support from a wider audience with that name.

Yeah... Our brains are funny that way... :-P In Denmark we also have a Pirate Party - which I might have voted on, if there were ANY change they would get enough votes to actually make a difference...

I'm 100% certain that the right name change could have multiplied their votes by magnitudes! They have so many good points and so little credibility with such a name...

I agree. But I also think the name shows the author's primary intention.

Pirating means they will not RESPECT the owner's rights including licensing like GPL or even crediting contributors.