Hacker News Reader

I didn't mean to imply it was a choice of current government versus no government--my post was a limited response to the idea of the state being the most dangerous thing. I think it's tremendously important to constantly strive for better government.

As for solutions:

> Today, every email in your inbox, every text, every cell phone GPS coordinate, every draft in your drafts folder is plaintext in a big database.

And whose fault is that? The government didn't create SMTP, SMS, webmail, etc. You can't have privacy from the government without creating a culture of privacy. We have a culture where people share extremely intimate information with their thousand "closest friends" via Facebook, Twitter, etc. People are not going to trust the government less than their random acquaintances, and people aren't going to demand privacy from the government unless the culture shifts such that they value privacy in other aspects of their lives.

> Today, every email in your inbox, every text, every cell phone GPS coordinate, every draft in your drafts folder is plaintext in a big database.

> And whose fault is that?

That fault lies with the people directing the assembly of the information into the database.

But agreed with your comment on Internet anarcho-libertarians. That is not a view grounded in rough and tumble world reality. The state is necessary to the human condition. I just wish we had better ones that took a broader view.

There are huge databases with all your text messages and emails. The government didn't create them. Software engineers did. And once you condition people to accept that, you'll sound like a nutter complaining about the government having data that's already strewn all over the Internet.

That's why I'm hoping Tim Cook runs with what he is saying here. In principle, I can send iMessages that even Apple can't read. If you condition people to expect privacy, they will demand it from the government too.

Actually, the government did create SMTP (Postel was on a DARPA grant) and SMS (CEPT was an association of state-run PTTs, and Hillebrand in particular was a Deutsche Bundespost employee); and the US government in particular worked very hard indeed to stop SMTP, TCP, and IP from getting encryption added to them, what with treating cryptographic software as a “munition” and export-controlling it, plus constantly stymieing working groups in the IETF and other places that tried to standardize encryption.

> People are not going to trust the government less than their random acquaintances,

It sounds like you’ve never met an immigrant, a black person, or a poor person? Because that statement of yours sounds totally absurd to me.

This is interesting to follow; I basically agree with your take, but I also know precisely the kind of libertarian "anarcho-capitalist" type that Rayiner is effectively responding to, folks who follow in the footsteps of Murray Rothbard and company. They elevate "coercion" to the highest possible crime: you cannot have a state that isn't invested with the power to coerce its citizens' behavior, ergo a benevolent state is impossible. So they fashion themselves anarchists, either unaware of or choosing to downplay the very anti-capitalist roots of anarchism. (And Rayiner's observation about the frequent criticism of "a state monopoly on violence" from that crowd is one I've also had; as opposed to what, exactly, a free market for violence? Or a natural monopoly on it, perhaps? I understand their criticism to be valid concerns about what the failure conditions of that monopoly lead to, but many of the alternatives are horrifying in their success conditions.)

Turning this back on the actual topic, though, what do you think the libertarian response to the problems in your last paragraph should really be? I can't think of any reforms which don't still depend on the state following its own rules for both what it's allowed to collect and what it can do with the data it does collect. Granted, merely having those rules--which we largely don't--would be an improvement, but it feels like it's in the "necessary but not sufficient" category.

> History has shown mass surveillance to be antithetical to individual freedom. So our goal is to abolish mass surveillance.

It has? When?

Every modern authoritarian regime relies on mass surveillance as a cornerstone of its power.

Edit: for example, North Korea, Soviet bloc countries past and present, Fascist states...

I always thought it was the oppressive laws, poor economies, concentration camps and (in many cases) out right starvation of the populace that held the people in check. To me those things seem a lot more important that the gov't snooping on my email.

So just because we are not rounding dissenters up into concentration camps or starving half the population to death David Cameron (or whoever the next one is) should be able to search my entire communication and location history?

That attitude sends society rapidly back to the concentration camps and starvation.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

>It has? When?

A precise example: "the Stasi" in East Germany during the 80s.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9049096, for example.