Hacker News Reader

Comment by aleph_minus_one | Hacker News Reader

> I do think politicians should waive some privacy rights when elected. Same thing for their bank accounts and other assets.

This would make surveillance laws socially much more acceptable. The politicians will claim:

- "We are surveilled anyway, so we can pass surveillance laws against citizens, too.", or

- "The citizens really ask for surveillance laws against specific groups (in this case: politicians). So, we will, of course, give the citizens what they want and pass surveillance laws against potential terrorists/child abusers/[whatever is currently fashionable]".

If you consider privacy or the right not to be surveilled to be important, this better should hold for the enemy (politicians).

View on HN

> “The citizens really ask for surveillance laws against specific groups (in this case: politicians).”

?? The root of the idea is not bi-directional. Politicians have a particular type of job: public service. It’s this “job” that requires the transparency.

And not transparency into their public life. Though, as a public figure if your private life becomes embarrassing, or salacious you’re guaranteed to have news hounds on your trail. Not least because your public service rivals will use whatever they can to discredit you in the court of public opinion.

It’s the same for the work product. All of the material of governance should be the “property” of the people governed.

Can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

> Though, as a public figure if your private life becomes embarrassing, or salacious you’re guaranteed to have news hounds on your trail.

This is like: if you engage in anti-social behaviour or plan some crime, you deserve to have hounds (law enforcement agencies, intelligence agencies) on your trail because of surveillance data that was gathered about you.

> Can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

This is like the political argument: "If you have nothing to hide, why are you opposed to the new surveillance law?"

In the first instance, I was making a statement about human nature, and not a moral justification.

And in the latter my statement is true by definition. A tautology.

Really, I don’t know what you were hoping to accomplish with those similes, but they’re simply not equivalent logically.

But I understand you disagree.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com