Hacker News Reader

Comment by heyitsnick | Hacker News Reader

The only people who don't want cameras in their house are those with something hide.

Or those who fancy sex on the dinner table without spectators? That's a relatively crass example (sorry), but the privacy implication is clear when you put it in those terms. My home is my home, and what I do behind my door is my business.

I'm surprised you're getting voted up. As much as I disagree with most of the privacy agenda, a lot of their fights are the only thing stopping us from turning Orwellian.

Nothing to hide is pretty arbitrary, too; you mean you have nothing to hide under our current laws. So sure, let them bring the cameras in. Then they'll rewrite the law and you'll suddenly have something to hide.

^ Presumably, heyitsnick meant this sarcastically.

Maybe, and if that were the case, the number of people the sarcasm is missing means it could have been communicated better. Watch his karma swing around -- I'm not the only one that missed it, apparently. It certainly wasn't a good spot for it, because he's responding to sarcasm.

It's a popular mantra made by politicians any time they want to introduce a new anti-privacy measure. This mantra and his version especially is so farcical, I think it's obvious to the majority of readers that his tongue is firmly in his cheek.

Ha, I posted that I wondered if I was going to come back to a -4 or a +4 karma :)

Yes it was sarcastic. As other commenters said, it's a very common and senseless rhetoric used by anti-privacy politicians. Applying it to an extreme example (like camera in your home) was meant to demonstrate how daft such a stance is.

But I disagree, I think it was a very good spot for it: In my mind, some of the best irony is when it's nearly indistinguishable from truth. So I will take the swinging karma as a complement :D

Fair enough! This crow is delicious, want some?

I thought it was brilliant.

It's also a worrying illustration of how far the anti-privacy agenda has progressed, when people can think you're seriously advocating surveillance cameras in private homes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com