Hacker News Reader

Comment by vivekd | Hacker News Reader

You don't need a standard procedure followed all over the world. You just need some authentication procedure that's better than an easily forgable signature. I gave a few examples of the top of my head in the parent.

This is why I would rather have profit hungry corporations manage things than governments. Because with government there's always a legion of people rushing to excuse and explain away even the most serious examples of ineptitude and mismanagement.

Would you accept it if Facebook or Google let people login to user accounts via signed letter? So why is a signature enough for a search warrant?

A signature is not an acceptable method of authentication in 2023 for important documents. I don't see how that's not obvious.

View on HN

What does having local governments have to do with huge monolithic corporations? If google was in charge of our physical security then a) it would be a de facto government b) it wouldn't care about individuals at all. Google doesn't let you log in with a signature not because they care about your security, but because it wouldn't be profitable. The problem is that when it becomes more profitable to sell your data to Corp B, who then has as a client Stalker Creep A, then they will do that. Making motivation money instead of public good is a strange way to achieve either of those goals.

How would google lose money if stalkers broke into my Gmail? No it's because in every other area besides government we have standards of security because government is the only place where people tolerate, accept and even defend massive security lapses

There's a large group of the population that has an ideological frenzy to defend government no matter what so they're able to get away with terrible lapses like this

Not sure I understand. You brought up a claim that for profit companies are better to manage people's physical and legal security needs than the courts themselves and law enforcement. That would de facto make them government -- so we are both defending government, just different forms. You think an undemocratic, for profit motivation would work to fulfill public good, and I disagree.

> No it's because in every other area besides government we have standards of security

I guess you never heard of NIST?

I suppose private companies never get hacked and have all their customer's data stolen?

You're getting lost in words not touching substance. I can distill it to this - If private contractors did warrants we'd be better off because there are no ideologically driven zealots who will defend and excuse it if they had weak security like a signature and nothing else. Thus they would be forced to have a basic workable security system. This can be extrapolated to every other area

The problem is that when you say private interests should take over the duties of a entire branch of government, you are literally telling people you want an undemocratic system motivated by money above all else in charge of the public good.

If you mean something else, then you should find a better way to articulate it. People defending against what you are literally calling for is not 'ideological zealotry', it is pushing back against extremism.

If you think the current system is motivated by the public good our values are so different there's no point talking. This is the system that gave rise to the corporations and abuses some claim to hate.

But if you agree it's not a system motivated by the public good and want me to join you in pretending it is and helping it grow while it doesn't serve the public good, our values are still too different.

I think the start is fix the system first to make it about the public good. Once we fix it then we can grow it and give it all the unlimited power and influence you want. But we can't do that because a large segment of the population has an ideology that prevents legitimate criticism of the government and will defend any aspect of it

But fascism is the new in thing right?

I cannot see how the other poster, observing how corporations work and are treated with kid gloves in the US, could possibly think anything corporations would do here would be better than the system we have in any way.

All that would happen is this...

People in government would be bribed/funded by said groups in private corporations to look past the grift/corruption said private company did. If private company A did too much wrong, then private company B would pop up in its place with all the same actors. Because these are private companies there would be no public records requirements like are on elected officials at this time.

All of the other posters complaints are based around the electorate not being involved in local elections. Why do they suddenly think it's going to get magically better when a company is involved. You're just abstracting the apathy to another degree.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com