Hacker News Reader

Comment by neutronicus | Hacker News Reader

I'm of two minds about this. I want my browsing habits to be a closed book to everyone, period, and I doubt I have the necessary technical savvy to achieve that goal. I'd therefore love to dump the responsibility on the government, and damn the consequences to the California economy.

I am afraid, though, that letting the government get a regulatory foot in the internet's door will send me out of the frying pan and into the fire, privacy-wise.

View on HN

Why is that (that you want your browsing habits closed)? Would you expect your flying habits to be closed as well? Every business keeps a record of their customer, why do we attribute special derision to the same thing happening online? The perceived anonymity?

The short answer: I don't fly anywhere to look at porn.

The long answer:

There are laws that tell the airlines and the railroads to whom they are not allowed to sell information on my travel habits. Restrictive ones. There are certainly laws against wireless companies selling information on my whereabouts.

Because NOYDB (or anyone else's, for that matter), that's why. Because my data and my devices should be used for my interests, and only with my consent if for someone else's.

Never forget the US government's horrid track record at civil liberties, and always remember the corporations have better lobbyists than you.

I've always found it sadly ironic that the people who elected our representatives have less say in how our representatives act than corporations with lobbyists.

Then support public funds plus a ban on all private funds for elections. For example, look at the recent senate campaign in CA, Boxer vs Fiorina. Boxer spent $28MM and Fiorina $22MM [1]. The math is you must raise $2.8e7 / (52 * 6) = $89,743 PER WEEK for your entire term to finance your next campaign. There's simply no way that comes without strings.

[1] http://flapsblog.com/2010/12/03/ca-sen-barbara-boxer-outspen...

You'll probably also need to support a new constitutional amendment:

Amendment 28 - Congress may now pass a law abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, and the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. But they should only do this to prevent rich people that I don't agree with from expressing their opinions on elections.

How about this:

Amendment 28: Money != speech. Corporations are not individuals and do not have the same rights as citizens.

Gee, that was pretty easy.

Amendment 29: lawn signs != speech. Lawn signs are not individuals, and therefore do not have the same rights as citizens.

Corporations, much like lawn signs, computers, etc, are property. They have no rights. Their owners do.

To quote Kennedy: When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought...

Which people are you trying to prevent from hearing George Soros's or David Koch's message?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com