Hacker News Reader

Comment by rhino369 | Hacker News Reader

It a tool like any other. It can be used for good or evil. What you are doing in the middle of a Baltimore street isn't in any way private information. It's a public as you get.

Sure, it could be used to perpetrate a Holocaust or something, but so could the 101st airborne.

If the government wanted to go all Hitler on us, they already can get google data, facebook data, medical records, essentially everything that is kept on you. Hell, I bet google location services tracks me better than a drone does (if the war in the Pakistan tribal areas is an example).

And drones are way easier to shoot down than googles datacenters.

View on HN

Put your privacy in hacking and system security terms.

Sure, it might be easier to exploit a webpages sql injection vuln to hijack your server, but does that mean you should stop running software updates?

In other words, yes, you need to fix google and all the rest, but that doesn't mean you should stop caring about other sorts of surveillance.

And, fwiw, not everyone uses those services for this reason.

Do we really want to tie a noose at the end of all the rope we already hand the authorities?

There are tools people with power shouldn't have access to, because people with power do not have a good track record of using them in good faith.

On the other hand, if I ever disappear in the woods on a hiking trip, I really want the local PD to have twenty drones on standby they can use to canvass the area instead of hoping their one helicopter spots me.

We trust the federal government with the power to, no exaggeration, annihilate the world.

If the government were going to use its power for evil, it'd go knocking on google/facebook/visa/amazon/comcast/grocery store/school/medical/whatever database to find its enemy.

What do you honestly think is a bigger risk for you? Getting murdered by a criminal or the US government via drone. Cause it's like 40k:2 for the past couple year.

> What do you honestly think is a bigger risk for you? Getting murdered by a criminal or the US government via drone. Cause it's like 40k:2 for the past couple year.

The fact that there are bad actors in one arena does not obviate the need to push back against bad actors in other arenas. Additionally, one could argue that if the government doesn't follow its own rules, it risks undermining its authority to enforce those rules for others.

The government has quite a bit of power to do things other than actually kill people. It can take away people's lives in many other ways.

Which is are the bigger risks for you? Getting your money taken from you by the government via fines or getting it stolen from you by a criminal? Being forced, under threat of imprisonment, to show up in a location at a specific time and account for your actions by the government or by a corporation, your work, your neighbor? Getting locked up in a basement by a criminal or locked up in a prison by the government?

We give the government quite a lot of power. It behooves us to ensure that power is kept in check.

>What do you honestly think is a bigger risk for you? Getting murdered by a criminal or the US government via drone.

Non-sequitor. The gov't doesn't use drones to murder people in the US. OTOH, the gov't does inform local authorities on citizens' behavior. Local authorities sometimes go and kick peoples' doors in based on these and other sources of information. Sometimes their information is faulty, sometimes they make another kind of error. It is terribly difficult to hold police accountable when a mistake or abuse has occurred.

It's in everyone's best interest that the world isn't annihilated, that power shouldn't be in the hands of people, yet is. That isn't an excuse to hand over more power.

The biggest direct threat to my freedom, and the freedom of the masses, is the expansion of executive power.

Times I've been arrested for expressing my views: 3

Times I've been murdered, injured or locked up by another person: 0

The government already uses the data the private sector collects. It wants better, real-time data using public and invasive techniques that aren't profitable for consumer businesses yet.

I am against both access to that data collected by the private sector and the expansion of mass surveillance. The fact that the data exists is a problem and, ideally, we wouldn't live in a world where surveillance at this extreme for advertising was acceptable.

That's a hell of a straw man since I don't think anyone was talking about getting murdered by a drone, and the government doesn't seem all that great at catching real criminals.

If we're assuming bad faith in the part of the government, and we assume the private sector collects all that information, then there is no point opposing surveillance efforts. It would be trivial for the government to storm a Google data center if they really wanted that information.

ok i do already. my only real concern is the CA system.

even so, there's no harm in supporting the opposition of surveillance efforts in case it might work.

There is absolutely a point. It's possible to oppose surveillance on multiple fronts.

The whole point of checks and balances is that the government doesn't do everything it can do, nor does it act as a unified whole. A bad actor in one branch can be held in check by a good actor in another. If the police/FBI/whomever wanted to storm a government center, it's theoretically up to a court to determine if that is legal and constitutional.

> (if the war in the Pakistan tribal areas is an example)

Does the US govt ask Google and Apple for data from android and iphones which are in that area.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com