[HN Gopher] The EARN IT bill is back, seeking to scan our messag...
___________________________________________________________________
The EARN IT bill is back, seeking to scan our messages and photos
Author : glitcher
Score : 758 points
Date : 2023-04-21 15:32 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.eff.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.eff.org)
| [deleted]
| noelsusman wrote:
| I find myself consistently disappointed when reading blog posts
| like this. I generally agree with the principles that the EFF
| advocates for, but it's hard to see this post as anything other
| than rage-bait. I can't trust it to be an accurate source of
| information on what this bill actually does.
|
| For example, I've repeatedly seen claims that this bill would
| effectively outlaw end-to-end encryption, but the bill explicitly
| protects companies that offer encryption from liability.
|
| >None of the following actions or circumstances shall serve as an
| independent basis for liability of a provider of an interactive
| computer service for a claim or charge described in that
| paragraph:
|
| >(i) The provider utilizes full end-to-end encrypted messaging
| services, device encryption, or other encryption services.
|
| >(ii) The provider does not possess the information necessary to
| decrypt a communication.
|
| >(iii) The provider fails to take an action that would otherwise
| undermine the ability of the provider to offer full end-to-end
| encrypted messaging services, device encryption, or other
| encryption services"
|
| When I look to the EFF for an explanation about why this language
| isn't sufficient, I get this:
|
| >The bill clearly leaves room to impose forms of "client-side
| scanning"
|
| Going back to the bill, the phrase "client-side scanning" doesn't
| appear anywhere in the text despite the EFF implying that they're
| quoting from the bill. If they're not quoting from the bill then
| what exactly are they quoting from? This is the kind of thing
| that makes me unable to trust them to be accurate, which makes
| posts like this effectively useless to me since I feel the need
| to independently verify all of their claims.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Rage bait is by far the EFFs most powerful tool. Of course
| they're going to reach for it first.
| dmvdoug wrote:
| So, I think the bigger issue is that those things may not serve
| as an _independent_ basis for liability. But (B) then says that
| those things may be considered as evidence if they're otherwise
| admissible (under the Federal Rules). In other words,
| encryption by itself does not expose them to liability, but
| those who might get sued could have encryption used against
| them as evidence that they "knowingly" possessed, transmitted,
| etc. CSAM. If robust encryption makes it more difficult to
| identify or stop CSAM trafficking, and a service refuses to
| compromise its encryption, that could be used as evidence
| against them.
|
| That's the fear, anyway.
| borski wrote:
| Client side scanning came out of the _discussion_ around this
| bill the last time it was proposed. That it isn't in this bill
| doesn't mean it isn't in politicians' heads, and if this gets
| passed there is then significant precedent for extending it, as
| a small extension doesn't seem as big as a full-scale
| government invasion of citizens' privacy (i.e. this bill).
| noelsusman wrote:
| I don't believe the transition from "set up a commission to
| recommend best practices" to "mandate regular scans of
| everyone's phones and report the results to law enforcement"
| would be viewed as a small extension.
| borski wrote:
| I wish I were as optimistic as you, but experience has
| shown me I can't be, on this topic.
| treis wrote:
| It's such a poisoned well that it's hard to have a meaningful
| conversation. Everyone in this thread is mostly raging about
| privacy. But the reality of E2E encryption is that that Apple,
| et.al. are possessing and distributing child porn (among other
| crimes). The various excuses given don't hold water:
|
| We don't know which files are CSAM - Doesn't matter. You know
| some of them are.
|
| It's only 0.X% of files - Doesn't matter. Doing 1,000 good
| deeds doesn't get you off the hook for 1 crime
|
| It helps in X, Y, Z situations - Doesn't matter. Again, good
| deeds don't excuse crimes.
|
| The hear no evil/see no evil stance that privacy advocates take
| simply isn't how the world works or ever will. If you want
| immunity from your role in criminal behavior you have to make
| some sort of effort to limit your involvement in that crime.
| kahrl wrote:
| You're literally denouncing the 4th amendment. You're saying
| that all of us must submit to warrantless and broad searches
| because the statistics says that at least some crime must be
| occurring. Absurd.
|
| Or is it that there is an intermediary involved? Are you
| saying that banks that offer safety deposit boxes are
| responsible for their contents? Also absurd.
| treis wrote:
| Thank you for providing another example to prove my point.
| Again, I said don't participate in crimes. I didn't say
| anything about the 4th amendment. Let alone denounce it.
| Riverheart wrote:
| So 1984 style listening devices and cameras in every home is
| the obvious solution right? Houses are where a lot of abuse
| happens. Scanning doesn't even stop abuse from happening,
| just the possession and distribution of it.
| treis wrote:
| Thank you for illustrating my point about the poisoned
| well. Say "Don't participate in crimes" and it gets morphed
| into 1984.
| Riverheart wrote:
| * * *
| [deleted]
| SoylentYellow wrote:
| Perhaps the unspoken argument is that client-side scanning will
| be made into a best practice, and websites and apps that don't
| implement it will be exposed to liability.
| tzs wrote:
| The EFF seems to be going the way of many advocacy groups,
| where as time goes by their positions on the things they
| advocate for become less nuanced and they stop taking into
| consideration how those things fit into the big picture.
|
| An example of this is the National Rifle Association (NRA).
| They used to think that carrying guns around in public should
| be restricted and require licensing, and that dealers should
| need to be licensed, and that some kinds of guns should be
| restricted.
|
| For the EFF the thing that made me think that they are going
| down that road was during the controversy over Apple's plans to
| scan for CSAM. Apple had actually announced two things: (1)
| scanning on-device for CSAM in material about to be uploaded to
| iCloud, and (2) scanning on-device of devices with parental
| controls enabled to block messages that contained content that
| might be harmful to children.
|
| Most of the discussion was about #1, both from the EFF and from
| everybody else. #2 was much less discussed.
|
| Here's how #2 worked in the case where you have a child who is
| 13 or older with a phone on your family plan and you have
| enabled scanning.
|
| 1. I send your kid pictures of my dick.
|
| 2. The software temporarily blocks that and gives your child a
| modal dialog telling them it blocked something because their
| parents think it might be harmful, and asking the child if they
| want to go ahead and view the material.
|
| 3. If the child says no the material remains blocked and
| nothing else happens.
|
| 4. If the child says yes my dick picture is unblocked and
| nothing else happens.
|
| If your child is under 13, here is how it goes:
|
| 1-3: same as the 13 and above case.
|
| 4. If the child says yes they are given another modal asking of
| they are sure and reiterating that their parents think the
| material may be harmful, and telling them if they do elect to
| view it their parents will be notified. They are again asked if
| they want to proceed to view it or not.
|
| 5. If the child says no, the material remains blocked and
| nothing else happens.
|
| 6. If the child says yes my dick picture is unblocked, and the
| parents are notified.
|
| The EFF objected to this, on the grounds that #6 violates my
| privacy since I sent my dick pictures to your kid, not you, and
| did not consent to you getting access.
|
| WTF? It used to be that a big argument from privacy groups
| against server-side scanning to protect children is that
| children shouldn't be getting to the bad parts of the net in
| the first place, and keeping the kids away was something the
| parents should take care of with things like time restrictions
| and parental control software.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| This. The EFF used to be a force for good, but they are now
| free speech and privacy extremists backed principally by a
| tech industry that simply doesn't want to be liable for their
| negative impact on society.
|
| The EFF will not ever support a regulation on big tech
| behavior.
| throwaway5959 wrote:
| They only have to pass it once but we have to fight it forever.
| This will be like the Patriot Act, it'll never go away.
| govolckurself wrote:
| [dead]
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| A reminder that "you have nothing to hide" argument is a fallacy
| because people abuse their power:
|
| Some first hits as reminders of places where their powers are
| abused
|
| [1]: "NSA staff used spy tools on spouses, ex-lovers: watchdog"
| https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog...
|
| [2]: https://reason.com/2022/07/26/police-can-access-your-ring-
| ca...
|
| [3]: https://reason.com/2021/04/26/warrantless-border-searches-
| dr...
| nullc wrote:
| even if they didn't currently abuse their power or abused it
| only an "acceptable" degree, we're never more than one election
| away or even just one hiring decision away from someone who
| would do much worse.
|
| The right protection is for the power to not exist.
| metamate419 wrote:
| [dead]
| sschueller wrote:
| Was there a black mirror episode regarding that phrase? If not
| I think they missed an opportunity to show people that everyone
| has something to hide.
| wyldfire wrote:
| I remember an episode starring Toby Kebbell that had his
| character submitting to authorities to review his sense-
| perspective audiovisual recordings.
| waboremo wrote:
| Kind of (if you mean the Shut Up and Dance one), in classic
| black mirror fashion the episode is littered with twists that
| make it difficult for people to really grasp the point and
| instead can argue against it. In the episode the main
| character gets infected with malware (the tool he wanted is
| actually a sting operation), but because of what he's being
| blackmailed about a lot of people feel that's justified.
| Bran_son wrote:
| A better example are people that _do_ have something to hide -
| whistleblowers, union organizers, political activists,
| journalists, upstart politicians... How does the nature of
| their work change, if the current government in power knows all
| their secrets, and abuses or selectively leaks /prosecutes
| them? And does that change society for the better, or for the
| worse?
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| Only if we share everything do we have nothing (left) to hide.
| colordrops wrote:
| Well also the 4th amendment.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| People abuse their power, but that wouldn't matter if you
| really had nothing to hide. But _everybody_ has something to
| hide.
|
| Your social security number? Your bank account number? Your
| debit card PIN? Yeah, pretty sure you have something to hide.
| isk517 wrote:
| The other issue is just because something doesn't need to be
| hidden today doesn't mean a change in the political/social
| winds could happen that requires you to hide it tomorrow.
| x86x87 wrote:
| No. Sorry. This is invalid. It would be pretty bad if we
| declare some shit illegal and retroactively apply the "law".
| You will be charged for shit that everyone did and is
| perfectly fine. For example: How would you like to go to jail
| for not being a Christian? This will be weaponized.
|
| This is what fascism looks like.
| lockhouse wrote:
| It was okay to be a Jew in Germany until it wasn't. I know,
| Godwin's Law, but valid in this case.
| croes wrote:
| Imagine they make Marijuana illegal again in the states
| where is legal know.
|
| Before that you shared your consuming habits online.
|
| Then it becomes illegal.
|
| You are now a suspect and get a search warrant and if they
| find traces of marijuana you go to jail.
| croes wrote:
| Or like the anti-abortion laws showed, at first you have
| nothing to hide, them they change laws and all of sudden you
| have but it's too late
| adventured wrote:
| Nothing to hide is a premise based on most people being
| terrified of confrontation. It's an intentional staging to
| force confrontation or capitulation.
|
| When people say they have nothing to hide, in most cases what
| they're actually saying is that they're afraid of the
| confrontation implicit in the opposite response (I'm going to
| forcefully argue for a right to privacy). They're telling you
| that they're a coward.
| jcutrell wrote:
| For people who say they have nothing to hide, I ask them why
| they have locks on their doors, passwords to their email, and
| clothes on their body.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| Well, clothes are mostly down to weather and laws on public
| decency, and nudists are the counterpoint that prove some
| demographics would prefer to be naked if the law allowed it,
| same with tribes like Koma.
|
| Locks are more for security than privacy, and it's important
| not to conflate the two. People can have nothing to hide, but
| also not want to be robbed.
|
| And as for email, that's again a matter of security because
| then someone could impersonate you for one, and I can't name
| a service that allows you to omit having a password for your
| email account.
|
| (I know, looking too deeply into it! Sorry.)
| elondaits wrote:
| Email passwords are not for preventing impersonation. For
| one, POP3 passwords are separate from SMTP. Second, nothing
| in SMTP prevents impersonation... large mail handlers like
| GMail don't allow it anymore, but you can put whatever you
| want in the "From" field. Things like SPF, DMARC and DKIM
| are there to prevent impersonation at the domain level for
| mail servers that want to protect their users.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| When accessing email via a protocol with an email client,
| sure, but I primarily had the Gmail web app in mind when
| I wrote the comment. I also touched on protocols in
| another comment.
|
| With what I had in mind, if you logged into my Gmail
| account, which provides both sending and receiving, you
| could impersonate me to my own mother, but I would have
| nothing to hide as I don't receive any sensitive
| information via email (privacy). However, accounts
| elsewhere could be recovered via my email, and thus be
| used to impersonate me elsewhere (security).
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Well, clothes are mostly down to weather and laws on
| public decency
|
| Where I live, there are no laws against public nudity (as
| long as the nudity isn't "salacious" in nature). And yet,
| very nearly 100% of the people are clothed at all times.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| And yet in other areas of the world, people wear no
| clothes.
|
| People also smoke cigarettes, eat junk food, and do
| things that are unnatural and otherwise detrimental due
| to what they're bombarded with.
|
| I wear clothes, I'm not a nudist. I have zero shame about
| my body though, it's a body--we've all got one.
|
| The point as per my other comments: different solutions
| for different problems, the appropriateness of each
| varies with demographics. E.g., if you're surviving in an
| oppressive regime as a dissenter, email is something to
| be avoided. If you're running a business, it's likely
| fine, provided that it's compliant for your industry,
| e.g., HIPAA.
| pksebben wrote:
| In an information environment, security and privacy are the
| same thing. The terms may have different connotations
| culturally, but good security-in-depth is the same set of
| practices that enable digital privacy, because the
| objective is the same: prevent leakage of facts.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| Another problem that I feel has barely even been touched
| on in recent time is what even are facts. People see
| things on the Internet and take it for gospel.
|
| You know information people ALWAYS blindly believe 100%?
| "Leaked" data. Imagine how much power one could have with
| _manipulated_ , leaked, data.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| This is what I said about WikiLeaks even at the time.
| Sprinkle in some untruths with truths and you've got
| something convincing.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| You don't even need to say anything that isn't true. Just
| being _selective_ about which true secrets you reveal can
| be a very powerful tool to control the narrative.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| Absolutely.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| You can have E2EE to the service provider, but they can
| be free to rummage through your data if they choose to or
| are coerced to by a legal demand from an authority. But
| it eliminates the average schmoe from going through that
| data.
|
| Is that adequate security? Is that adequate privacy? This
| is what bills like EARN IT and its ilk are positing with
| backdoors et al. It depends on your threat model.
|
| If a warrant opens a door or account one way or another,
| it can be argued that privacy-wise, locks and passwords
| are poor solutions. Are you protecting business data or
| trying to survive in an oppressive regime?
|
| Different solutions for different problems, how
| appropriate they are varies with demographics too.
|
| This is an interesting talking point about privacy and
| security: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35617773
| ranger_danger wrote:
| > Are you protecting business data or trying to survive
| in an oppressive regime?
|
| First it's just one, then it becomes the other.
| smolder wrote:
| E2EE refers to fully encrypted communication between end-
| users of a service, hence end-to-end. If one of the ends
| is the service provider, the term doesn't apply.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| This is the point. It's a buzzword and the reality of a
| lot of popular services is that the service provider can
| likely already provide access to your data if requested
| to by a government.
|
| Ergo, if this is a consideration within your threat
| model, it's an inappropriate solution. However, I am
| highlighting that EARN IT is no more a threat than
| existing service providers abiding by a court order, ergo
| the existing solutions likely aren't fit-for-purpose for
| some folks, depending on threat model.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > In an information environment, security and privacy are
| the same thing
|
| Yes. Privacy is a subset of security.
| d4mi3n wrote:
| I'd argue that they're overlapping sets of concerns, not
| necessarily identical to or subsets of each other.
|
| Off the cuff:
|
| * Being an anonymous person walking through a city. This
| is a privacy concern and only becomes a security concern
| if I'm a public persona or some kind of person of
| interest.
|
| * Moving to a new school/city/job and not having your
| social reputation follow you. This allows a lot of people
| a chance to redefine who they are and how they interact
| with people around them. This can't happen if everybody
| always knows somebody's pervious public persona.
|
| * Breaking a law and being fined/punished/imprisoned for
| it. Without privacy, such a person has a much poorer
| chance of having a decent life even after they've done
| their time or paid their dues.
|
| These all strike me as privacy concerns, but not
| necessarily concerns to security. I think they're all
| important enough to consider privacy as a good thing in
| it's own right and that such scenarios signal that it's
| possible to advocate privacy in the absence of (or
| opposition to) security concerns.
| pksebben wrote:
| How would you define the terms? IMO these are all
| 'security' related, just personal security (which is what
| I define privacy as).
|
| The most accurate lines I can draw around either are
| abstract enough that they end up in the same bucket, but
| perhaps we're defining them differently
| d4mi3n wrote:
| elesiuta had some great commentary I agree with, but to
| add my own response:
|
| > IMO these are all 'security' related, just personal
| security (which is what I define privacy as).
|
| I think this level of reduction becomes problematic in
| scenarios where security>privacy advocates talk about
| security in the collective sense.
|
| Playing devil's advocate to highlight where I believe
| this reduction of security->personal security->privacy
| breaks down: A man borrowed many books from a library on
| the topic of explosive chemistry. That man later was
| involved in terrorist acts.
|
| This is a situation where one could argue that less
| privacy for people in relation to their library borrowing
| habits may have resulted in greater security.
|
| This is an example of an event that has happened, and
| while I hate the cliche of terrorism in debates about
| privacy and feel this particular point can be argued,
| it's exactly these kinds of scenarios that
| security>privacy advocates use to push for fewer privacy
| protections across large groups of people.
| elesiuta wrote:
| Not GP, but security refers to the protection of the
| system, while privacy refers to the protection of
| information.
|
| So you need to protect the system to protect the
| information on it, but there are also sometimes trade
| offs between security and privacy when you offload some
| system protection by giving away some information to
| another party. For example SmartScreen with Microsoft,
| and Safe Browsing with Google Chrome.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > as for email [passwords], that's again a matter of
| security
|
| I guess if we're nitpicking I'll point out that this is
| still privacy (how one keeps their password) for the sake
| of security. Information is kept private and passwords are
| information.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| Perhaps drawing a distinction between outbound and
| inbound email protocols would be good too. I understand
| the argument being made, but the sensible assumption is
| that your email, even with a password, isn't a sensible
| choice for sensitive communications.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > your email, even with a password, isn't a sensible
| choice for sensitive communications
|
| This seems like it's shifting the goalposts. Someone says
| something about "nothing to hide but they have locks on
| their doors" and you say "security isn't the same as
| privacy". It's accurate but it's moot. I keep the
| location of my hide-a-key _private_ so I can continue to
| keep my house _secure_ with the lock on the front door. I
| keep my email password _private_ so I can _secure_ the
| account against unauthorized access.
|
| Some people _do_ use their email for what they would
| consider sensitive communications, and it 's less than
| helpful to suggest they need better opsec practices in
| response to someone else saying that they should be able
| to expect their email to be private. It's saying "just
| hide it better, lol" when that's literally exactly what
| many people are trying to do when speaking against this
| sort of legislation.
| NickBusey wrote:
| I like to ask why they have a door on their bathroom.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I routinely pose that question to my kids. And yet, they
| still poop with the door open. And without the ventilation
| fan. I keep hoping that eventually I will get through to
| them. Maybe I'll just put a spring-loaded hinge on the
| bathroom doors and a motion-activated ventilation fan.
| croes wrote:
| Take them to a public toilet.
|
| There is a difference between pooping in front of family
| and in front of strangers.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| For sure, they act totally different in a public toilet.
| Very carefully locked door in that case. Hell, the first
| time my son used a public toilet on his own, I had to
| talk him through how to actually unlock the door when he
| finished. I tried to tell him not to latch it since I was
| standing right on the other side of the door, but no,
| -CLICK- went the lock anyway.
| wintogreen74 wrote:
| Is it irony that doing this (or even your comment) would
| likely land you in really big trouble under the purpose
| of this act?
| rightbyte wrote:
| I've got a 2.5yo that furiously yells at me to get out
| when he poops, but he have no remorse trying to
| physically drag me out of the loo when I am doing my
| business. Or force me read some book for him.
|
| I guess he is a metaphor for the surveillance state. Or
| the other way around. Dunno.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Ha! I remember when my son was about that age he came
| wandering in while I was using the toilet standing up.
| Just a little awkward to have your kid walk around the
| side and stare at your crotch while you pee. I get that
| it was fascinating for a little boy, but still. And then
| of course the next time he needed to go, he tried.
| Predictable results ;-).
|
| He might have been a little younger, I don't remember
| precisely, I don't believe he was talking much at the age
| when this happened.
| sgtnoodle wrote:
| When my 4 year old closes a door, it usually means she's
| up to no good.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| Or blinds/curtains on their windows. What are you trying to
| hide in there hmm??
| stronglikedan wrote:
| Easy: Thieves, scammers, and public decency laws, in that
| order.
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| > Thieves, scammers
|
| Which means they do have things to hide. There are lots of
| thieves in places of power, and that is a compelling reason
| not to let them have our data.
| wholinator2 wrote:
| Unsure if sarcasm but doesn't the exact same reasoning
| apply to these? If there's things you don't want thieves to
| steal then obviously you _do_ have something to hide. Or
| maybe a better word is protect but both apply equally well
| TheCraiggers wrote:
| Surely the government would never steal from its
| citizens. /s
| MikeDelta wrote:
| Many seem to not realize that privacy is not about having
| something to hide (I guess that would be secrecy), but about
| the right to keep things to yourself. Those are two different
| concepts.
| StingyJelly wrote:
| Exactly! The best way someone put it - right to choose what
| to share and who to share it with.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| The best analogy for this I've seen is this: it's no secret
| that everybody poops. But that doesn't mean everyone likes
| having other people watch while they do it (privacy).
| sporkl wrote:
| I've tried using this in an argument and gotten a
| response along the lines of "I don't mind if people watch
| me poop."
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| Well I'd say they're full of shit, haha. Most people have
| something they care about; them refuting a specific case
| doesn't refute the general concept. They're either
| arguing in bad faith or are not very good at thinking
| logically.
|
| If they truly have no ethical or moral boundaries, then
| they are probably deviant enough that they won't be able
| to get into a position to set much policy, anyways, by
| definition of their lack of fitness to represent the
| majority of any population.
| hanniabu wrote:
| Reminder that the same applies to use of crypto. Just because
| it's use for some illegal activity (it's actually less % than
| fiat), doesn't mean it should be made illegal as I've seen
| some comments here advocating for in the past.
| govolckurself wrote:
| [dead]
| louloulou wrote:
| "Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic
| age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something
| one doesn't want the whole world to know, but a secret matter
| is something one doesn't want anybody to know. Privacy is the
| power to selectively reveal oneself to the world."
|
| -- excerpt from A Cypherpunk's Manifesto, Eric Hughes, March
| 9, 1993
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| By that definition I would say secrecy is also necessary
| for an open society. For example my bank password is
| something I don't want anyone to know.
| imoverclocked wrote:
| > March 9, 1993
|
| It's funny (not haha-funny) how political policy in 2023 is
| still trying to catch up to morality understood 30 years
| ago. I remember being annoyed at newscasters abusing the
| term "hackers" in the late 90s and extremely broad
| definitions of "hacking" being applied in court-rulings. It
| must still be really difficult to comprehend tech and the
| consequences of these kinds of policies for policy makers.
| Either that or policy makers really are maleficent towards
| life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
| DocTomoe wrote:
| Oh, politics understands that alright, don't you worry
| about that. Politicians are the enemies of privacy for
| the masses, because a transparent population is a
| population that is easier controlled and manipulated.
|
| That's also why terms are being used deliberately
| incorrectly, to move legitimate positions nearer to
| criminal activity. Just ask anyone interested in hobbyist
| chemistry.
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| There's a reason we don't mandate government cameras inside
| our homes. No one wants that. But in a world where everyone
| needs a computer, we shouldn't take advantage of that
| obligation by turning our computers into surveillance
| devices.
| sroussey wrote:
| If you have nothing to hide, then publish it all for the
| world to see.
| Zamicol wrote:
| Those seeking to abuse power employ the nothing to hide
| fallacy.
| wintogreen74 wrote:
| Even framing it as "nothing to hide" implies that hiding is the
| exception. Shouldn't it be the default?
| BirAdam wrote:
| For a society to work properly, yes. If we have zero rules
| around what a government can or cannot do, can or cannot have
| access to, and so on we will have created a moral hazard that
| will be grossly abused.
| waboremo wrote:
| Yes, even those who overshare on social media still are
| operating (and benefitting) from privacy as a default.
| genocidicbunny wrote:
| Anyone who uses that argument, ask them to hand you their
| phone, unlocked, and a list of passwords for all of their
| accounts. If you have nothing to hide, why would you have a
| problem with me poking around in the most intimate aspects of
| your life?
| iknowstuff wrote:
| This doesn't really convince them. To them, a friend might be
| someone they want to hide things from, but they won't care
| about some unknown government entity having access.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| This comes from not knowing what organizations are likely
| to do with it.
|
| Would they be okay with the data being used to overcharge
| them whenever they're in a hurry because the organization
| knows when they don't have time to comparison shop?
|
| How about maximizing their tax burden by using the data to
| calculate the highest tax rates each area would tolerate
| before moving or changing their vote?
|
| Suppose the government falls under the control of the party
| they don't like. Should they have access to the data that
| allows them to most effectively target their propaganda?
| genocidicbunny wrote:
| And it doesn't even have to be an organization. How often
| do you hear of cops or civil employees poking around in
| records they have no business to poke around in?
| Vogtinator wrote:
| Not fully comparable because passwords usually give you more
| than just read access.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| The really crazy part is that I have multiple friends and
| family that would turn over their info to me with no
| questions asked.
| genocidicbunny wrote:
| Unfortunately, it's an issue that's hard for many to
| understand until it directly affects them. Sometimes you
| need to find something relatively innocuous but still
| embarrassing and 'give them a thwap' with it, but even then
| the chances of them understanding are still low.
| LocalH wrote:
| I'm tired of these cutesy backronyms that they try to come up
| with to influence the public's perception of a law. "EARN IT"?
| What the fuck? It should be _outright illegal_ to pass laws whose
| acronyms spell words.
|
| But, of course, that'll never happen, because who would willingly
| give up such a juicy tool for gaming the system?
| idiotsecant wrote:
| OK, monkey paw wish granted.
|
| Laws may now only be passed and officially discussed using
| their globally unique identifier like SB-47226
|
| When politicians advocate for or against these laws in the
| public sphere they will still make up catchy names to make them
| stick in peoples heads.
|
| Now you still get misleading names but its twice as hard to
| understand what bill is what.
| sgjohnson wrote:
| Remember the PATRIOT Act?
| monksy wrote:
| You mean the precursor to the RESTRICT/S686 act? [That's
| still going on.. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-
| congress/senate-bill/686 ]
| LocalH wrote:
| Yep. Or the "USA PATRIOT" Act, as it's full name spells.
| "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate
| Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism". But by
| calling it "patriot", it implies that you're not a patriot if
| you don't support it.
|
| Never mind that modern American "patriotism" isn't anything
| of the sort, but is much closer to nationalism.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| It's blatant propaganda, but Americans continue to lie to
| themselves that they live in the freest country in the
| world.
| somenameforme wrote:
| I think the overwhelming majority of people are realizing
| a lot of the rhetoric is just cynical lies at this point.
|
| Consider the recent report [1] that only 25% of people
| _don 't_ think the media is deliberately misleading them
| - 50% think they are, 25% are undecided. The implications
| of that cannot be overstated, especially as the media has
| increasingly become little more than a proxy for the
| official position of the day.
|
| [1] - https://fortune.com/2023/02/15/trust-in-media-low-
| misinform-...
| hellojesus wrote:
| The real problem is there isn't any better country. Zero
| countries currently compete with America for greater
| freedom.
|
| Please let me know if you know of any because I'm getting
| absolutely tired of working four months for free each
| year, knowing that my tax dollars are paying for goods
| and services from which I'll never be able to benefit.
| LocalH wrote:
| Modern _governance_ is the problem. However, if there is
| no country that 's, say 50% free (to put an arbitrary
| number on it), and even when we presume that America is
| 49% free and "everyone else" is less, that doesn't mean
| there is actual freedom.
|
| American freedom seems to largely be centered around the
| ability to make money, the way things are going nowadays.
| We were more free in the 70s and 80s. Nowadays people in
| some areas get child services called because they dared
| to allow their child to venture somewhere by themselves.
| America is often the _worst_ offender in some of these
| areas. True patriotism is understanding that we 're _not_
| the "best" country in the world, and that we could stand
| a _lot_ of weeding out chaff. Taxes go to a lot more
| waste than would ever come out of individual benefits,
| when you take the end result benefit to society.
| "Freedom" to allow poverty to exist is "freedom for some,
| but not for all".
| RajT88 wrote:
| Modern American "patriotism" begins with nationalism, and
| gets darker and weirder from there.
|
| As an exercise, imagine someone who self-identifies as a
| patriot. Ask them what makes them a patriot. (If you're not
| American, you might not get what I am getting at, but
| probably Canadians get it)
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| The Party(TM) must love types like you.
|
| There's a huge subset (dare I say majority) of those
| "patriots" you deride who don't like this stuff, don't
| think their goings on are any of the government's
| business. But of course you ignore that because they
| don't want what you want on meaningless social issues.
| RajT88 wrote:
| Real patriots, in my experience:
|
| 1. Don't talk long and loud about being patriots (i.e.
| don't self-identify) 2. Tend to work for the government.
| Career govvies or military. They show their patriotism
| through action.
|
| > There's a huge subset (dare I say majority) of those
| "patriots" you deride who don't like this stuff, don't
| think their goings on are any of the government's
| business.
|
| I know the type well, as that describes one side of my
| family. Despite your protestations, we're saying the same
| thing.
| prottog wrote:
| > Tend to work for the government. Career govvies or
| military. They show their patriotism through action.
|
| I just want to chime in here and say that working for the
| government isn't the only way to be a patriot (i.e. serve
| the country). Upholding American values is something
| anyone can do in any part of society.
| RajT88 wrote:
| That's fair enough. What's fresh in my memory is a few
| weeks back, I was at Quantico for the graduation of a
| family member from the FBI academy, where the convocation
| speech was delivered by Christopher Wray. I cannot
| imagine a more patriotic group of people - genuinely
| people who dedicate their whole lives to the betterment
| of the nation. It was really inspiring.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I cannot imagine a more patriotic group of people -
| genuinely people who dedicate their whole lives to the
| betterment of the nation.
|
| The actual history of the FBI (whether the near universal
| perjury in fiber "analysis" cases, the repeated use of
| provocateurs to discredit protest, especially civil
| rights, movements -- up through the last few years --
| etc.) tells of a very different culture.
| bregma wrote:
| Real patriots fly flags from their honking F-150s, play
| in bouncy castles, shit in snowbanks, and call to engage
| in fervent sexual congress with democratically elected
| leaders who have great hair.
|
| Do I win a prize?
| motohagiography wrote:
| If I were American, I might respond to their, "Eliminating
| Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies" Act,
| with the "Mitigating Overreach Limiting Obstruction Nullifying
| Lamentability And Benefiting Everyone" Act.
|
| If by EARN IT, they mean Americans should earn their freedom -
| which this government is using its own crimes[1] as a pretext for
| taking from them - that seems really just unwise.
|
| [1] EDKH
| Madmallard wrote:
| How does this stuff keep happening? Like no one wants it in the
| public why is it still coming up?
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| I'm in the public and I want this bill. My senator is one of
| the sponsors and I'm happy to see it. I think a large portion
| of society is now following enough echo chambers that they
| believe that nobody opposes their position, when usually...
| it's a pretty big chunk of society, actually, that they just
| never interact with or talk to.
| Madmallard wrote:
| The fundamental instinctive understanding that everyone has
| socially as to why gossip is bad is why privacy is important.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| _Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. HYDE-
| SMITH, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. HAWLEY, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, Mr. TILLIS,
| Ms. HASSAN, Ms. ERNST, Mr. WARNER, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. WHITEHOUSE,
| Ms. COLLINS, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. CORNYN, and Mr.
| KENNEDY_
|
| Article understated things by calling it a "group" of senators.
| That's a lot of senators already willing to get this thing off
| the ground.
| a_e_k wrote:
| That's 20. 1/5 of all senators.
| wudangmonk wrote:
| They need to pass a 'public official' bill that ties any and all
| public official records to whatever is expected of the general
| population, no exceptions.
|
| This is the only true way to stop these type of bills.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Not just public records. Public officials should be on
| Medicare. Their retirement should be Social Security. Their
| staff should be subject to the same employment rules that apply
| to everyone else. And so on.
| hellojesus wrote:
| But Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional.
| user3939382 wrote:
| Unless and until the security state and neocon/neolib
| corporatist* power complex is ripped out of our government this
| will never stop and the People will lose this war.
|
| It's much harder to rescind a law than pass it, which means they
| only have to win once and we have to win every time. We are
| doomed by this asymmetry.
| anaganisk wrote:
| I found the comments under the TikTok ban thread the other day
| and asked, Why are you so concerned about China, which can do
| nothing, while other apps collect the data in the country you
| are in has the actual power to jail you because, you support
| abortion or LGBTQ. The mental gymnastics were, US has a due
| process of law and China is an authoritarian dictatorship,
| while they still live in the US and China can't extradite them.
| People constantly fail to realize, the views change, what's
| legal today could be illegal tomorrow, and you will absolutely
| be profiled as a risk.
|
| Even if they can't prove you are guilty, the absolute nightmare
| of going through the due process of law and being tagged as a
| risk is something to think about and take it seriously. The
| concern must not be if the app is based on what country, it
| must be why does this app want to know so much about me, or why
| does the govt need to know my every opinion.
|
| US trusted Dick Cheney's words and we all know what happened.
| vegetablepotpie wrote:
| 4th amendment text:
|
| > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
| papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
| shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
| probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
| particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
| or things to be seized.
|
| Let's name names, the senators who introduced this are Mr.
| GRAHAM, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. HYDE-
| SMITH, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. HAWLEY, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, Mr. TILLIS,
| Ms. HASSAN, Ms. ERNST, Mr. WARNER, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. WHITEHOUSE,
| Ms. COLLINS, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. CORNYN, and Mr.
| KENNEDY.
| KRAKRISMOTT wrote:
| So much for being a SF senator
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| [dead]
| thrthrthr88 wrote:
| [flagged]
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| Alaska nearly voted swamp creature Murkowski out in the last
| midterm.
| rnk wrote:
| Murkowski is a non-maga republican. If she was out you'd get
| a maga supporter in all likelihood.
| monksy wrote:
| My senator Duckworth is going to respond back with a from
| letter stating "OMG THE CHILDREN". (Just like she did for the
| first Earn act concern I sent).
|
| Might as well add her name on there too.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| And it'll keep being persuasive to her voters until people
| come up with a meaningful counter-proposal that does a better
| job of addressing child safety online while also protecting
| privacy.
| [deleted]
| dehrmann wrote:
| > FEINSTEIN
|
| Many years ago, I remember she supported a similar bill around
| limiting encryption. Around six months later, it was reported
| some government agency was spying on senators' emails, and she
| wasn't happy. I don't think she made the connection between the
| two, or that she supports widespread data collection when it's
| not _her_ data.
| coldpie wrote:
| Her brain is pea soup. I'm pretty sure she is not _capable_
| of connecting things.
| lockhouse wrote:
| Between Feinstein, Biden, and Fetterman it's starting to
| look like an annual cognitive test may need to become a
| qualification for Federal government office. The two party
| system and the rigging of primaries leaves us with electing
| braindead meat puppets as the lesser of two evils. What a
| sad state of affairs.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| She has been on medical leave since February, which makes
| me wonder in what capacity she co-sponsored this bill...
| can she do that from her nursing home?
| Alupis wrote:
| Having interned long long ago, most "co-
| authorships/sponsorships" are merely tokens added to a
| bill to make it seem more impressive.
|
| Rarely, if ever, does a bill sponsor have much to do with
| the bill. At least in my experience. It was a game to see
| who we could round up for the bill, and then a political
| game about who would look better or bring a stronger
| base.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| Right, I didn't have any expectation that she personally
| drafted the text of section 4 or debated the finer
| details prior to its introduction, or sought out expert
| testimony, or even read all 53 pages, or anything like
| that.
|
| I was more curious over whether the "rounding up" and
| adding her to the list involved her being present or
| questioned in any capacity, or whether she just had a
| standing guideline that she wanted to be listed as a co-
| sponsor on any Judiciary Committee bills also sponsored
| by Durbin and Graham or something like that.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| On the plus side, she's incapable of voting at the moment.
| govolckurself wrote:
| [dead]
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| This shouldn't be surprising. Even before she was old and "of
| questionable judgement" she was voting for and sponsoring
| stuff like this. Go back to the war on drugs era and you can
| find sound bytes of her advocating for all sorts of absurd
| stuff. And by "absurd" I don't mean "didn't age well but was
| the party line". I'm talking about stuff that violates rights
| in excess of what the average party politician was pushing
| for.
|
| That said, even if you strike her name from the list you know
| this is bad because it's a bunch of bipartisan long time
| congresspeople who are sponsoring this bill. When the
| careerists of the swamp get together to do something we the
| people always lose.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Right. I wish people would stop with the ageist crap.
| Feinstein has always been highly problematic. Age has
| nothing to do with it.
| hexane360 wrote:
| Seems like she supports abortion rights, which definitely
| doesn't give the government more power over people than
| criminalizing them.
| borski wrote:
| I met her at an SVLG dinner and had a discussion about
| encryption; it became instantly clear she doesn't know what a
| computer is past that it is a TV that takes input, and that
| encryption is just "evil people wanting to do evil things."
|
| There was no reasoning with her either, frankly because she
| is well-aged, and thus thinks herself "wise" with very little
| left to learn.
|
| It was honestly infuriating.
|
| [edit] In case anyone thinks I'm exaggerating, I promise I'm
| not. I went back to look at my texts to my now-wife after
| that meeting, and I was livid and extremely disappointed. She
| was at a table of, at the time, a dozen or so cybersecurity
| experts from industry and academia, and instead of listening
| to (or rather, hearing) what they had to say, she pushed
| forward an agenda of "trying to stop evil" while "protecting
| the children" and "thanking us for our concerns," all while
| explaining that she understands encryption and knows how
| important it is, but that it's more important for the
| military to have it and normal people don't really need it as
| much. After all, it's not like we don't talk to other people
| in coffee shops where people can overhear and stuff.
|
| Ugh.
| JPKab wrote:
| I met her in 2003, along with her aides at a party I was
| invited to (in a fluke) in Palm Springs.
|
| She was a moron then, and now she's a senile moron. Her
| aides, who ended up hanging out with me all weekend, were a
| perfect illustration of the donor class kids who weren't
| that smart but got into ivy League schools by legacy
| admissions. Zero intellectual curiosity, super aware of
| social status, everything they said seemed preplanned and
| inauthentic.... Just gross.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| That's interesting because we've all had the same two
| decades to learn new things
|
| and I know many people her age that have
|
| there's people that make excuses for it and there's
| people that don't. I don't buy "brain plasticity", my
| observation is that it comes down to who your peers are,
| what social consequences you have
| dang wrote:
| Please make your substantive points without calling
| names.
|
| No one is saying you owe your least favorite senators
| better, but you owe the community better if you're
| posting here.
|
| I can't link to the guidelines because I'm on my phone -
| but this is in there!
| Dalewyn wrote:
| It's one thing to demand not calling ordinary people
| names, but Feinstein isn't an ordinary person.
|
| If one can't call a person in power names, that implies
| many things you probably didn't want to imply.
| dang wrote:
| I covered that point (or thought I did!) with the second
| sentence in my GP comment. The issue is what it does to
| _us_ as a community. That 's significant.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| yieldcrv wrote:
| That he's not a free speech absolutist? big deal, nobody
| is no platform is, thats the expected default behavior
| everywhere you go and there is zero reason why HN would
| be different. I'm not even going to go into how this is a
| private platform with clearly stated rules for you
| because it doesn't even matter, just take the L
| Dalewyn wrote:
| dang is welcome to enforce rules as he pleases, it's his
| platform (or rather publishing space).
|
| But restricting speech concerning those in power imply
| things that I would presume he would not want to imply.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| implies what? I took a guess but you keep talking in
| riddles, use your words
| HopenHeyHi wrote:
| This attitude isn't a good look for the owners of this
| private platform and I don't think they'd agree with your
| perspective nor do most of the users. Food for thought.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| The users dont matter and will do the same thing on their
| own platforms once there are any stakeholders
|
| The owner's actions speak louder than their words and the
| moderations actions in their properties are not a mystery
| or unexpected
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Sure you can namecall, but it's childish and ugly. Please
| don't do it around anyone you want to continue to have a
| reasonable conversation with.
| rnk wrote:
| This is why we need more tech people to get into politics.
| And I'm not thinking billionaire ceos. I'm talking about
| devs, qa, pm, people that did actual work.
| r3trohack3r wrote:
| Everyone should watch these two hearings:
|
| https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings/open-hearing-
| fi...
|
| https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings/open-hearing-
| fi...
|
| Feinstein shows her true colors.
|
| The first is 2013, right after Snowden leaked the
| presidential surveillance program. These are our elected
| officials who oversaw the program. They knew of its
| existence before the leak.
|
| The second is 2017, right after the Supreme Court ruled the
| presidential surveillance program was illegal (one justice
| calling it "Orwellian" in their comments).
|
| Listen to these people in 2013 defend their actions and, in
| 2017, try to defend themselves and justify their actions.
| Not only is it clear that they don't think they've done
| anything wrong, at least one of these people thought they
| had a viable chance at running for president after this.
|
| We the people trusted them to keep secrets responsibly. We
| trusted them to oversee programs that citizens could not
| hold accountable. They utterly failed and, if they had
| their way, would have continued failing in their
| responsibility. From watching these hearings I get the
| distinct feeling that these elected officials consider the
| problem to be the leak, not that someone had to utterly
| ruin their own life in order to expose this group's crimes.
|
| The only person who demonstrated they may be fit for their
| position is Sn. Wyden. Listen closely to Wyden's statement.
| He is unable to disclose secrets, but he very clearly (and
| strongly) suggests that the U.S. clandestine groups are
| harvesting geolocation data without warrants in mass under
| these programs.
| rnk wrote:
| Wyden is great, he's my model of what I'd like to work on
| if I was lucky enough to be a politician.
| hellojesus wrote:
| He's almost great. He still gets taxes very wrong.
| pc86 wrote:
| Even among the dinosaurs in the US Senate, Feinstein stands
| alone in her striking ability to be willfully ignorant
| about anything developed after the steam locomotive.
|
| The country would be an objectively better place if both
| the House and Senate had a mandatory retirement age.
| pdonis wrote:
| You don't need a mandatory retirement age, just term
| limits. For example, no more than two terms as a Senator,
| no more than three as a House member.
| tric wrote:
| Why do you recommend different term limits for house
| members?
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| House positions last a third the amount of time (2 years
| versus 6).
| borski wrote:
| My instinct is to say "no, that's ageist" because there
| are plenty of older people who are legitimately
| brilliant.
|
| But honestly, she's a fantastic example of why we should
| have term limits, at the very least.
| morkalork wrote:
| Leave administration to younger, more capable people. The
| ones who are too old but are brilliant can still be
| advisors and mentors.
| Alupis wrote:
| Why do these people continue to be re-elected at all?
|
| Surely there's some other (D) that could have replaced
| Feinstein a decade ago - but California keeps re-electing
| her? There's near unanimous agreement she "lost it" long
| ago - yet here she still is.
|
| A mandatory retirement age is great and all... but maybe
| we need to figure out why people vote for someone nearly
| nobody wants in the first place. Just the "safe" vote?
| That can't be all of the story...
| rnk wrote:
| There's this idea that someone shouldn't run against an
| incumbent. It goes against both parties. The boomer
| generation was a large group, they often see the world in
| a more common way (that world of the 50s and early 60s?),
| they still want to see themselves as being in power, even
| as they are all getting close to age 80 (made a typo here
| originally, I put 60 instead of 80). They don't want to
| give up. That's why these elderly politicians stay in
| power.
| hermannj314 wrote:
| Senators get OP with longevity. Having a bunch of old
| senators is an emergent behavior of the rules of the
| Senate.
| pc86 wrote:
| Is this true, or are these just benefits of someone who
| has been in the Senate for 30 years having good working
| relationships with 70 other Senators, and the branch new
| Senator being lucky to know one or two?
|
| Put another way, what rules of the Senate benefit length
| of service over anything else?
| Alupis wrote:
| I don't personally think age is really the problem -
| mental (and to some extent, physical) abilities are,
| however.
|
| There's the good 80 years old, and then there's the bad
| 80 years old. We all know it when we see it... and we're
| watching it in real time in multiple places within our
| federal government right now.
|
| We, as a country, are about to face this very same
| question again, as President Biden is expected to
| announce his re-election bid shortly. Are we OK with that
| as a country, given his obvious decline in the past few
| years? Objectively, and without red or blue coloring,
| he's not the Joe Biden of 2008.
|
| So, what do we do?
| pc86 wrote:
| This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I don't
| want people born before Hitler rose to power to be in the
| government at all. I don't care how sharp you are and I
| don't care how progressive or conservative you are.
|
| If you're old enough to have had strong opinions about
| LBJ when he was in office, your time has passed and we
| really don't need you in the Senate, or the White House,
| or anywhere else in government making decisions that will
| have impacts decades after you're gone.
| pc86 wrote:
| Only 24% of registered voters in California are
| Republican, so the election hinges on the Democratic
| primary. You don't get to a position in a political party
| where you can realistically run for and potentially win a
| US Senate seat by making a habit of attacking people in
| your own party. Those that do get ostracized long before
| they have that kind of juice, and the people who could
| potentially do it are not likely to risk the entire thing
| on running now when they could more safely run in another
| term or two, especially if they've already got a
| comfortable elected position.
|
| So the answer on the inside is that nobody willing to run
| against her has the power to, and nobody with the power
| to is willing. On the outside, it's people who don't care
| who is running, they only care about the letter next to
| the name, so would never vote for a Republican or an
| Independent.
| coldpie wrote:
| I thought so too, but no! The California General Election
| is Dem vs Dem, and they choose Feinstein! It's bonkers!
| the88doctor wrote:
| I think it's a combination of risk aversion and the cost
| of acquiring information.
|
| Most people don't do extensive (or any) research before
| voting. They choose a candidate based on party
| affiliation or the information on TV. So for that
| majority of people, they will vote for a candidate
| whether or not the candidate is of sound mind. They
| assume other people have done the due diligence.
|
| On the other hand, you have the parties themselves. The
| Democratic Party would rather have a senile Democrat than
| a non-senile Republican. And the Democratic Party is
| itself strongly influenced by other Democrat politicians
| who may even appreciate a senile coworker since that
| coworker can be more easily manipulated. So they have no
| incentive to risk losing that by suggesting or supporting
| a different Democratic candidate.
|
| That in turn means new Democrat candidates will struggle
| to get the amount of support or funding which is
| necessary to publicize oneself enough that the complacent
| members of the public mentioned earlier could vote for
| them.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| In fairness, she's announced that she won't seek re-
| election in 2024.
| lockhouse wrote:
| She's not any more intelligent regarding other topics.
| Firearms being a prime example.
| prottog wrote:
| I think the reasoning behind not having an age cap in
| Congress is that if the people want to elect someone who
| is old, they should be able to do so. The ultimate check
| in a democratic society is the people, and like a
| different commenter said, it's strange that the voters of
| California continue to vote for Feinstein.
| tric wrote:
| > I think the reasoning behind not having an age cap in
| Congress is that if the people want to elect someone who
| is old, they should be able to do so.
|
| If that were true, why aren't we allowed to elect someone
| younger than 30?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_candidacy_laws_in_th
| e_U...
|
| "United States Senator:
|
| Minimum age: 30"
| morkalork wrote:
| Presumably they vote for her because she is a democrat
| and the other viable candidate, a republican, is
| completely unpalatable to them. The problem is internal
| party politics that appear to have an unwritten rule of
| re-running the same candidate until they lose.
| AaronM wrote:
| This, at one point a candidate, and those working for a
| candidate would be blacklisted by the party if they tried
| to run against an incumbent.
| dllthomas wrote:
| California has had a jungle primary for a bit now, and
| there has been at least one general election that pitted
| Feinstein against a Democrat in the general election. As
| I mentioned elsewhere, the most common argument I got
| from Democrats around me for voting for her was
| seniority, for committee appointments and such.
| hellojesus wrote:
| Seems odd to knowingly choose a candidate that will work
| to make the lives of Americans worse solely to keep
| seniority. In fact, doing so seems like you would be
| empowering a terrible person beyond a normal terrible
| person, thus ensuring the lives of Americans are that
| much worse.
|
| Bonkers.
| dllthomas wrote:
| I mean, I don't think they believe she _is_ "work[ing] to
| make the lives of Americans worse", even if they think
| the other candidate might be better. They agree with a
| lot of her positions. Heck, I agree with a lot of her
| positions, I just disagree with too many important ones.
| [deleted]
| lokar wrote:
| She has always been a militarist
| Eumenes wrote:
| She's mentally incompetent at this stage and should step
| down. Its obvious she's just a puppet.
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| She's not even a puppet, she hasn't been in DC or able to
| vote or participate in the Senate since ~Feb.
| tomschlick wrote:
| Why do Californians keep re-electing her?
| tmpz22 wrote:
| Don't these positions benefit from tenure as well as
| interpersonal relationship developed over decades?
| dllthomas wrote:
| Yeah, as a Californian asking those around me why they
| support her over another Democrat in the general after a
| jungle primary, "seniority" is the answer that stood out.
| govolckurself wrote:
| [dead]
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Because she's not a Republican, and competitive primaries
| for long-time incumbents are often political suicide for
| the challenger. Voters have a poor set of choices and
| select the least bad.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| In California's fucked up system she actually runs
| against a Democrat most of the time. I assume it's name
| recognition and more money that gets her reelected.
| jdminhbg wrote:
| California uses "jungle primaries" where the top two vote
| getters regardless of party advance to the general
| election. You can't blame the two-party system here,
| voters could easily choose another Democrat if that's
| what they wanted.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Yep, and in this case, it's isomorphic to the question,
| "Why didn't Kevin De Leon(D) defeat DiFi in the 2018
| election?" - question whose answers can range from, "not
| enough votes," to "less money," to "why did the CA coast
| prefer DiFi and CA's interior prefer KDL?"
| rnk wrote:
| The problem is last time her opponent wasn't reputable
| enough to be a good counterweight. I wish Katy Porter had
| run and replaced her. I think she was barely in politics
| then.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| Definitely. IMO, the issue in California's particular
| case is that the Democrat senior leadership isn't too
| keen to oust one of their own, creating a culture that
| permeates down. Thus the only candidates willing to run
| against Feinstein are more fringe members of the party.
| If a relatively middle-of-the pack Dem ran, it would
| probably be a much closer race. Anthony Rendon, our
| current Speaker of the CA Assembly would be an obvious
| choice, with a largely inoffensive (to the CA Democrat
| majority, anyways) platform and voting record, but
| anybody with a bit of experience would do.
| wholinator2 wrote:
| Unless it's ranked choice doesnt it still fall to the
| "least bad" fallacy? Like, people aren't sure that
| everyone else is going to vote the democrat they want and
| are afraid if they don't vote for the most likely, then
| they'll dilute the vote to the point that none of their
| chosen party wins?
|
| I mean, sure, if the democratic vote was a monolith that
| was capable of making a single choice or even knowing
| what its own choices would be we could say that it must
| be this way because people want it like this. Rather than
| it being yet another consequence of antiquated voting
| systems incrementally improving while claiming all the
| hard work is already done
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I do wish people would read to the end of the sentence
| (which addressed that issue) before reacting.
| borski wrote:
| I honestly think it's mostly that voters simply don't
| know.
|
| She's a democrat, but runs against democrats (usually),
| and wins largely because she's been there forever and,
| tbh, California is a pretty spectacular place to live.
|
| Thus, as CA is pretty great in general, Feinstein "can't
| be that bad," so why mess up a fine thing.
|
| (Keep your "CA sucks" comments out of here please; your
| perception doesn't matter in this case. Most Californians
| like living in California, by and large. It's not perfect
| by any stretch, but neither is any state.)
| Alupis wrote:
| > Thus, as CA is pretty great in general, Feinstein
| "can't be that bad," so why mess up a fine thing.
|
| A senator represents the state's views within the federal
| government, and has next to nothing to do with internal
| policies within the state.
|
| Electing Feinstein or some other person has effectively
| little-to-no impact on a California citizens daily life.
|
| > (Keep your "CA sucks" comments out of here please; your
| perception doesn't matter in this case. Most Californians
| like living in California, by and large. It's not perfect
| by any stretch, but neither is any state.)
|
| People are allowed to gripe about where they live. Just
| because you live somewhere doesn't make it perfect by any
| stretch. California has a lot of problems, and needs to
| address them, regardless of your political persuasion.
| borski wrote:
| I agree with everything you said, but you missed my point
| somewhat.
|
| _You and I_ know that a senator is not an in-state
| representative, and that their work is federal in nature.
| Most people who vote do not know that, and do not
| understand the distinction between state reps and federal
| reps. If you took a poll, how many people do you think
| would even know CA _had_ a state senate _and_ separate
| federal senators? I would surmise very few.
|
| As to the point about CA; I agree, gripe away if you'd
| like, and I agree CA has many issues it needs to address.
| So does literally every state; my point was to not go
| down that rabbit hole, and instead realize that _most_
| Californians like it here. They enjoy the weather,
| infrastructure generally works, etc. As a result, most
| vote for the status quo. I'm not saying that's a good
| thing.
| Alupis wrote:
| > If you took a poll, how many people do you think would
| even know CA had a state senate and separate federal
| senators? I would surmise very few.
|
| Sadly, agreed. Perhaps this is a component in the ever-
| growing push of state issues into the federal level.
|
| > ...CA has many issues it needs to address. So does
| literally every state... instead realize that most
| Californians like it here...
|
| Well, this is saying nothing at all, is it? We can safely
| assume citizens of any state generally like where they
| live, lest they'd move away if they had the means.
|
| However, we rarely see a dogpile of people publicly
| bemoaning Massachusetts, for example. Perhaps there is
| something going on in California right now, some sort of
| breaking point, where people are starting to realize some
| of the problems California has are unique to California,
| caused by decades of possibly misguided but well-
| intentioned policy. Policy does not happen in a vacuum.
|
| It's also interesting to see someone such as yourself
| feel it necessary to qualify your love for the state you
| live in. It has a sort of, captive, feel about it.
| borski wrote:
| I used to live in MA. People complained about it all the
| time. Same goes for when I lived in NYC.
|
| I do not get the sense that the political climate in CA
| is any different than those were when I lived there,
| excepting perhaps San Francisco which is, incidentally,
| the same discourse as is happening about NYC _in_ NYC
| right now too (lots of friends and my family still lives
| there).
|
| I'm not trying to qualify my love for CA; I was making
| the point that the people who vote Feinstein (or
| McConnell) in are generally happy with the status quo in
| their state. CA was mentioned specifically because we
| were discussing Feinstein, but that's why people vote
| them in; they're generally content with the status quo.
|
| The ones who are unhappy either leave to states that fit
| them better (if they have the means), or complain about
| it to their friends and/or on HN/Twitter. But it isn't
| the majority.
| Alupis wrote:
| > I used to live in MA. People complained about it all
| the time. Same goes for when I lived in NYC.
|
| The difference is you don't often hear complaints about
| MA unless you also live in MA. At this point, pretty much
| the entire country is sick of hearing Californian's
| complain...
|
| I think the issues in NYC are similar to that of
| California's mega-cities (LA, SF), which is why we hear
| more about them.
|
| These cities went from lawlessness and chaos, to law-and-
| order cities a few decades ago. Things got great, and
| then collectively people forgot what it used to be
| like... and fell into the same trappings. Today, these
| three mega-cities are facing lawlessness and chaos again
| - and I predict a law-and-order decade is coming soon.
|
| Anecdotally (which isn't worth much I know), and having
| lived in CA my entire life, I have noticed an increase of
| complaints from fellow CA citizens. People are tired of
| the fires, power outages, water shortages, homelessness,
| etc. All are related to policy decisions made sometimes
| decades ago, and we're just now paying for it.
|
| I think if you truly love where you live, recognizing
| these issues is a necessity. Pretending issues are the
| same everywhere and are something that "just happens" or
| are caused by external forces is akin to keeping our
| collective heads in the sand. Decisions have consequences
| - so we better make good ones.
| borski wrote:
| > The difference is you don't often hear complaints about
| MA unless you also live in MA. At this point, pretty much
| the entire country is sick of hearing Californian's
| complain...
|
| That's because "SF is hell" is a good media story along
| with "tech bros hate poor people."
|
| > I think the issues in NYC are similar to that of
| California's mega-cities (LA, SF), which is why we hear
| more about them. These cities went from lawlessness and
| chaos, to law-and-order cities a few decades ago. Things
| got great, and then collectively people forgot what it
| used to be like... and fell into the same trappings.
| Today, these three mega-cities are facing lawlessness and
| chaos again - and I predict a law-and-order decade is
| coming soon.
|
| I don't disagree; but I think it's notable that NYC is
| the other big tech hotspot. I give it five years before
| Miami is in the news for the same.
|
| > Anecdotally (which isn't worth much I know), and having
| lived in CA my entire life, I have noticed an increase of
| complaints from fellow CA citizens. People are tired of
| the fires, power outages, water shortages, homelessness,
| etc.
|
| I wonder if this is just because we've gotten older? I
| certainly didn't care when I was 22. I definitely care
| now.
|
| > All are related to policy decisions made sometimes
| decades ago, and we're just now paying for it. I think if
| you truly love where you live, recognizing these issues
| is a necessity. Pretending issues are the same everywhere
| and are something that "just happens" or are caused by
| external forces is akin to keeping our collective heads
| in the sand. Decisions have consequences - so we better
| make good ones.
|
| I agree with all of that. I wish everyone did.
| throwaway5959 wrote:
| Why do Kentuckians keep re-electing Mitch McConnell?
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| He looks out for their interests. One of the first
| projects finished with the infrastructure bill was bridge
| in kentucky that Mcconnell and Biden opened together.
| jdminhbg wrote:
| Because he represents their views and is an extremely
| powerful senator besides?
| alistairSH wrote:
| Exactly.
| Alupis wrote:
| Unlike McConnell, there doesn't seem to be a lot of
| "regular joe" support for Feinstein. There's practically
| nobody in this thread singing her praises... even among
| her fellow D's.
| alistairSH wrote:
| I suspect that's because the Democrats, in recent times,
| haven't pursued "party purity" to the same extent as the
| Republicans. It's a more fractured electorate without the
| few "big ticket" issues that the GOP weaponizes (guns,
| god, and gays).
|
| But, when you look at Feinstein's accomplishments, she
| has represent her constituents as well as anybody... She
| authored the Respect for Marriage Act (undoing the
| conservative Defense of Marriage Act). She's pursued fair
| pay for federal wild land firefighters. She's protected
| millions of acres of federal land in CA for recreation.
| The list is extensive, as it should be for somebody of
| her tenure.
|
| And with all that said, I do feel it's time for her to
| retire. I'm unconvinced on term limits, but I do dislike
| the tendency of long-time politicians to hang on well
| past their prime (and this applies equally on all sides
| of the aisle, and also to the courts).
| Alupis wrote:
| > I suspect that's because the Democrats, in recent
| times, haven't pursued "party purity" to the same extent
| as the Republicans. It's a more fractured electorate
| without the few "big ticket" issues that the GOP
| weaponizes (guns, god, and gays).
|
| The Republican Party of today is changing right before
| our eyes. Many hard-line issues are becoming soft -
| famously recently with Trump and his complete lack of
| religiousness.
|
| Many of the other hard-line issues were distorted by
| political opponents, such as your claimed "gay" issue
| (when viewed through a religious lens, the marriage issue
| makes more sense, it wasn't really about people's sexual
| preference, it was about a specific word. if anything,
| republicans are absolutely terrible at getting their
| message across, consistently... but I digress...).
|
| The point was, the younger generation of Republicans do
| not staunchly adhere to these "classical" Republican
| views - and the party is changing. The Republican Party
| seems to represent a lot more working-class people and
| minority groups today than a decade ago - voter segments
| that historically were under lock-and-key for Democrats.
|
| To that end, the Democrat party is also changing; getting
| pulled a lot more left-ward than most average Liberals
| are comfortable with. It's a weird world where the likes
| of John Stewart and Bill Maher sound more like
| conservatives than liberals.
|
| Both parties have found themselves within an identity
| crisis. My gut tells me there will be a course correction
| for the Democratic party not to distant in the future,
| and the Republican party will continue to "liberalize" as
| the younger generation takes over. We'll see where the
| road takes us all...
| mattnewton wrote:
| That makes more sense to me than Feinstein really. He
| looks after wealthy Kentucky interests, and is a very
| powerful senator shaping policy for the whole Republican
| Party; Feinstein seems unaware of Silicon Valley's
| interests and basically votes along party lines.
| saltcured wrote:
| I think you can say the same thing about California. Your
| mistake is conflating "Silicon Valley's interests" with
| "wealthy California interests". I imagine it is also true
| that Kentucky does not have one monolithic base of
| wealthy or elite agendas.
|
| I think it is more accurate to say that both of them have
| transitioned into iconic status. The political/marketing
| machinations have lofted their identities so high that it
| barely matters that they are humans at all. They are
| brands. There is also the basic senate rules mentioned
| elsewhere, which institutionalize seniority.
|
| Look at the list of longest serving US senators and ask
| yourself if Feinstein is really an anomaly:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Unit
| ed_...
|
| Edit to add: remember when we used to have this
| conversation about Strom Thurmond or Robert Byrd? It's
| idiomatic.
| cuttysnark wrote:
| A senator whose name isn't on this list--what's your
| point?
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| > or that she supports widespread data collection when it's
| not her data
|
| I know we shouldn't assume malice when incompetence explains
| things, but I genuinely do think a lot of people who run
| governments do actually think they should not be affected by
| the same rules they want to apply to everyone else.
| LocalH wrote:
| It's a base-level "us and them" viewpoint. The ruling class
| would _never_ stand to live under the same constraints they
| place everyone else. That is true for just about every
| nation that has ever existed, at some point.
| mhb wrote:
| _when incompetence explains things_
|
| Listen to her talk sometime.
| HeckFeck wrote:
| In the UK, we will have ministers say 'We need to force the
| evil big tech companies to break encryption so terrorists and
| perverts can be caught' and the next week they'll warn of the
| dangers of Russia hacking into vital infrastructure, and the
| urgent need for strong cybersecurity strategies.
|
| A bewildering and curious lot our leaders are.
| willcipriano wrote:
| Clinton's emails, that are rightfully a matter of public
| record (unless they were classified, then she should've
| went to jail) get leaked, and it's the end of the world and
| calls the election into doubt.
|
| The same people want to read the communications of private
| citizens.
|
| They aren't even pretending that there isn't a double
| standard anymore.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| Glad it isn't just me that noticed this cognitive
| dissonance. It's exhausting.
| SimianSci wrote:
| It's important to point out that many of these senators are
| also members of the Intelligence committee and are receiving
| regular reports from intelligence agencies as part of their
| senatorial duties. It is logical to think that these agencies
| are using these briefings to lobby senators for changes that
| directly impact their performance.
|
| It's highly unlikely this comes from a place of malice, but
| rather is a second order effect of organizational incentives to
| do better work.
|
| Regardless, it's important for citizens to fight back against
| this pressure as it can be conceived as a potentially never-
| ending erosion of human rights.
| x86x87 wrote:
| Hahahahaha
|
| Of course. Of course Cruz and Hawley are actually angels that
| are a victim of circumstances. Collins? Fucking immaculate.
|
| I don't know how many times we have to "fight back" when they
| come uo with this BS. They should just cut it out and serve
| the people that elected them.
|
| PS: Mandatory "Think about the children!"
| d23 wrote:
| Unfortunately I see one senator on here I previously
| thought highly of (and yeah, not Cruz or Hawley).
| rnk wrote:
| They are serving lots of constituents. There's no absolute
| block across all the people in a state. People have
| different ideas. I hate all these "spy on you and disable
| encryption". But it's not like there's a uniform view of
| how to approach this. Plenty of people respond to "think of
| the children".
| switch007 wrote:
| It's almost like they intentionally trolled future generations
| by mixing sentences that sound like iron clad protections with
| weasel words like "unreasonable" which anybody could foresee as
| being debated ad infinitum for centuries
| gavinhoward wrote:
| Here is a link to send to politicians:
| https://everyoneneedsencryption.gavinhoward.com/ .
|
| Feedback welcome. I want it as short and as punchy as possible.
| barbariangrunge wrote:
| Gentle reminder: you can donate to the EFF to help them fight
| bills like this!
| rolph wrote:
| this has been done before:
|
| https://www.history.com/topics/colonial-america/salem-witch-...
| the88doctor wrote:
| That's a scarily good comparison. Children need to be
| protected, but it feels like there is a steady erosion of basic
| rights to privacy, free speech, free expression, and free
| choice that are being justified with "whatever it takes to save
| a child".
| adamsb6 wrote:
| Naturally this bill designed to strip our privacy is named after
| the song from Fifty Shades of Grey.
| galoisscobi wrote:
| I really appreciate that EFF has a convenient way to reach out to
| reps. If you're a US citizen and reading this thread, I highly
| recommend using EFF's tool to write to your reps. They have a pre
| written message and it takes 30 seconds to send it out.
| eagleinparadise wrote:
| Surely someone here will be encouraged to run for office
| EGreg wrote:
| And this time they'll probably get it passed. Seeing as what they
| have already done in Europe and California and Utah and...
|
| There is something We the People can do, as an industry, it is
| described at the bottom of this link. First it describes the
| massive extent of the problem, then links to the solution:
|
| https://community.qbix.com/t/the-coming-war-on-end-to-end-en...
|
| If you are thinking "why should I bother clicking on that random
| link?" It starts out by linking to all the stuff the US
| government has _already done_ , including defeating the EFF's
| challenges recently in court -- that's defeating the same guys
| who published this new piece.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| They keep trying to get rid of privacy.
| alexfromapex wrote:
| They're trying to get rid of everything that isn't somehow
| serving corporations.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Piracy and privacy are so difficult to distinguish.
|
| So few letters. Better to just get rid of both.
| rahidz wrote:
| Our privacy. Which billionaire travels to which island while
| abusing which child, financed by what money, will remain
| happily hidden away.
| trackflak wrote:
| There is a Bible verse that says every deed done in darkness
| shall be named in the light. At times like these, I wish the
| deity who inspired it was a little more proactive.
| salemh wrote:
| [dead]
| gregw2 wrote:
| At times like these, I'd imagine that deity wishes we were
| more proactive too...
| https://www.openbible.info/topics/being_a_light
|
| (Verses the parent poster may be referring to:
| https://www.openbible.info/topics/all_shall_be_revealed )
| brobinson wrote:
| "We can't expect God to do all the work."
| yamazakiwi wrote:
| That is unfortunate
| throwaway5959 wrote:
| Maybe part of the problem is that people are waiting for
| some fictional entity to solve their problems.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| Here's the link to send an email to your local representative.
| It's a pre-filled form and takes less than 60 seconds to
| complete:
|
| https://act.eff.org/action/the-earn-it-act-is-back-seeking-t...
| pksebben wrote:
| everyone with an opinion in this thread ought to do this. It
| really doesn't take any time at all.
| colinsane wrote:
| some countries have a public policy of "don't negotiate with
| terrorists". it's so tempting for me to adopt the same policy
| in my own life. if a burglar showed up at my door demanding
| entry, i wouldn't debate them about why it's morally
| preferable that they don't enter against my will. but when
| it's some politician demanding entry, suddenly everyone
| thinks i ought to engage in that debate.
|
| no. better to dispel the myth: those who rule without consent
| are illegitimate rulers. the problem isn't us failing to
| persuade such rulers. it's us failing to reject such rulers.
| hackermatic wrote:
| The problem is that this line of thinking usually turns
| into just doing nothing and letting them roll over us
| anyway because they've taken our silence as consent.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| As I've said before, complaining about privacy will only take you
| so far because the issues are too abstract for many people. While
| right-wing attacks on abortion and contraception may seem
| irrelevant to tech issues, they also attack the legal basis for
| privacy, which is not explicitly written into the US
| constitution. It'd be wise to focus a little less on individual
| bills and a little more on the broader strategic picture.
|
| That should include a privacy-friendly counter-proposal for
| dealing with the trade in CSAM, which is a real problem no matter
| how much the tech community tries to wish it away by saying 'it's
| already illegal'. It's disingenuous to look at one issue and say
| 'scope creep, this will threaten our freedoms' while looking at
| another issue and saying 'we already passed a law, therefore the
| problem doesn't exist'.
| JPws_Prntr_Fngr wrote:
| By accepting their framing of "CSAM vs personal privacy" as the
| moral conundrum, you have already lost. You will be forced to
| compromise over and over, trading a little liberty for a little
| security, "for the children."
|
| As if the "intelligence community" that ran Jeffrey Epstein is
| going to use their shiny new surveillance powers to eradicate
| pedophilia.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| That's wrong. CSAM is a problem, the tech industry has failed
| to get to grips with how easily it facilitates CSAM sharing
| (not dissimilar to piracy, though I support the latter), and
| until the tech industry can point to a credible CSAM
| mitigation policy proposal it will keep looping back to the
| CSAM-v-privacy framing.
|
| Skip the rhetorical flourishes and come up with a proposal
| that addresses the issue. If you refuse to do so, then you
| can't complain about privacy-eradicating opponents offering
| their mediocre or bad policies. Refusing to acknowledge an
| issue exists is an automatic loser.
| pfoof wrote:
| If so, then every member of parliament, senator, judge, minister
| and other public officers should upload all their data and
| conversations for the public to see and regularly update it.
| After all it's for the "good of the society" right?
| bippihippi1 wrote:
| what can we do?
|
| this is already happening in a lot of cases, we need to make sure
| this legal grey zone is closed and ruled in favor of privacy. as
| government powers are derived from the people, and I don't have
| any right to walk into your house and ask for your mail, the
| government has no right to invade our privacy. there are better
| ways to keep us safe. lots of private software does this already
| and has lots of problems. I see no reason to assume the
| government would be any better. I could maybe get behind less
| privacy for government programs interfacing with the American
| public and for corporations
| abvdasker wrote:
| To me what's so maddening about these attacks on Internet privacy
| is that they're extremely unpopular with actual voters across the
| political spectrum (it's just that awareness of these measures is
| very low). No politician would ever dare to campaign on a policy
| like this because nobody wants it. These persistent attempts to
| pass anti-privacy measures really highlight the corruption of
| American "democracy" given that there is zero popular mandate to
| do this but politicians keep trying anyway.
| throwawayzzo wrote:
| [flagged]
| vlovich123 wrote:
| Re "If you have nothing to hide" arguments. Pointing out abuses
| is one thing.
|
| I say we go the other way. All travel by government
| employees/officials is available to the public (can be historical
| to avoid security issues). Complete financial transparency by all
| government officials/senior staff and their family members
| enforced at the bank level - you must list all your accounts, a
| cumulative amount of assets, list of specific assets >10k in
| value. The financial institution is responsible for providing
| that directly to the IRS which then removed account numbers,
| institution names, round values to the nearest N to avoid
| identity theft, etc.
|
| The entire political apparatus in the US seems to shy away from
| any real transparency yet want to foist it on everyone else not
| in power. That's not really living your values.
| notRobot wrote:
| I'm so tired. I wish we didn't have to keep going through
| constant attacks on our privacy. I know they're hoping that
| people will give up after a point out of weariness, and I'm
| afraid when it comes to many people they're right.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| Part of it is that we buy into it, literally. If you want to
| stop it, stop buying into companies that are compliant and sell
| you out in their technology choices.
| sgjohnson wrote:
| And 3 steps after that you'll have to go live off grid in a
| cabin in the woods.
|
| As romantic as it sounds, the one single purpose for for-
| profit companies is to produce shareholder value, and very
| few of them see shareholder value in keeping a legal
| department specifically designed for fighting constant and
| endless attacks on our privacy.
|
| Much more profitable to do anything else instead.
| colinsane wrote:
| born too late for homesteading to be a skill exercised and
| shared by a meaningful portion of society; born too early
| for homesteading to be made accessible via better
| technology.
|
| but a hundred years from now i do think "have to go live in
| a cabin in the woods" will be more like "get to". because
| if that was something everyone could easily manage, i have
| no doubt i'd find myself in some cabin-in-the-woods
| community full of all the other wackos like me.
| JohnFen wrote:
| I refuse to believe that we are as powerless to stop
| oppression as your comment implies.
| HeckFeck wrote:
| Remember when major websites used to blackout over TTIP and
| SOPA? Those were good days.
|
| Now many of the same websites (eg Reddit) are owned by large
| entities who don't care. Probably because they've made their
| money, so who needs a free Internet?
| abracadaniel wrote:
| The walled gardens are so well established now, their
| business plans no longer rely on a free Internet. We were
| lucky at the time that our interests aligned, but it was
| worrying that we were only able to fight those with the help
| of our favorite corporations. Now we get to see how that
| plays out with that support.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| Cynically, I know each time these platforms do such a thing
| the response will be less and less effective. The bad-faith
| actors in government pushing for this know that and have
| demonstrated that they just need to wait a little while
| between attempts before resistance diminishes enough to make
| its passage viable.
| api wrote:
| I bet some of the big social media companies like this
| legislation because it'll make it harder to run a web site,
| social media company, or chat app, thus insulating them from
| competition.
|
| Onerous regulations are a kind of regressive tax on
| businesses, favoring very large firms with big budgets and
| lobbyists over upstarts and small business.
| lagniappe wrote:
| As each generation is born not caring about privacy and posting
| everything for likes, I fear more are being coached to not have
| privacy as a priority.
| candiodari wrote:
| In Europe this was actually done in most countries because of
| the absurdly incredible damage the (even very limited)
| information governments had during WW2 did to millions of
| people. That illustrated that even extremely basic
| information, including merely a list of all citizens, was
| abused by governments. And not just for racist reasons,
| equally to force people into occupying forces (like Russia is
| doing now in Ukraine)
|
| Today we're back to pointing to governments abusing data to
| target minority children or immigrants to show this. And of
| course, governments oppose any limiting of the scope of their
| data collection by pointing out "security issues" (we can't
| have CHILDREN communicate privately! Look! 3 out of 5 million
| children got seduced with drugs to go into prostitution!).
|
| Of course, governments' collection of data is not even
| effective, the government GOT it's data collection wishes
| from 10 years ago that it said was going to use for
| prevention (police can now access both comments from teachers
| AND medical reports on any kid) ... and yet the number of
| children ... went up, not down.
|
| And of course, nobody wants to point out that 3 out of 3 of
| those children ran away from government help first chance
| they got. Nobody seems to feel this might indicate that
| perhaps something is wrong with the government, and the
| government's reputation, that needs to be fixed first. They
| are of course arguing the solution to their reputation
| problem is to collect more information on EVERYONE, and use
| more violence against children for less and less reasons,
| where any small excuse can be found (because 3 children were
| actually confirmed to have this happen to them ... the
| government locked up over 300 children, generally against
| both their own _and_ their parents wishes. Somehow this didn
| 't make any difference in the numbers at all, and frankly I
| find it very, very hard to believe the number would have
| risen 100 TIMES without them doing this)
| Dalewyn wrote:
| Strong men make good times.
|
| Good times make weak men.
|
| Weak men make bad times.
|
| Bad times make strong men.
| p_j_w wrote:
| If this little bit of so-called wisdom were true, one would
| expect Russia to be going through some good times now given
| the state of the Soviet Union in the late 70s until its
| dissolution. It seems about as realistic as one should
| expect such a simplistic reduction of an insanely complex
| world to be: not at all.
| gherkinnn wrote:
| Rubbish. Why can't this idiotic meme die already?
| kipchak wrote:
| While the above is overly simplistic, the basic concept
| has historical precedent under the general umbrella
| Social Cycle Theory which is likely why it persists. The
| same basic idea is described in Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah
| as "Asabiyyah", for example. There is also the Greek
| kyklos, or the more recent Cyclical Theory[1], Strauss-
| Howe generational theory or Secular cycles theory,[2]
| which roughly maps on to the meme's cycles.
|
| [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclical_theory_(United_
| States...
|
| [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cycle_theory#Secu
| lar_cy...
| hanniabu wrote:
| Because it's not a meme, it's an actual social cycle
| rdlw wrote:
| It's a meme. It comes from 9GAG.
| https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/hard-times-create-strong-
| men
|
| _Those Who Remain: A Postapocalyptic Novel_ is not an
| academic work of sociology.
| krainboltgreene wrote:
| I can't imagine actually posting this publicly for people
| to mock, and not even under a throw away. Incredible.
| alexfromapex wrote:
| People need to realize that every good thing the government
| steals is done through a war of attrition.
| at-fates-hands wrote:
| Sometime in the early aughts (sometime right after 9/11), I
| remember an interview with a group of three NSA whistle blowers
| who were coming forward trying to raise the alarm the US govt
| was using the tools they had developed to stop terror attacks
| on the US and had turned those tools back on the US population
| and were gathering unimaginable amounts of data for that
| purpose on private citizens.
|
| Shortly after they came forward, I read an article stating
| gathering so much data on so many people essentially allowed
| any _real_ terrorist (domestic or foreign) to essentially hide
| in plain view because of the amount of data being collected
| could not be sifted through fast enough to flag any person or
| group before they were able to carry out an attack.
|
| Yes, I'm very much on your side in terms of the constant
| attacks on our privacy and rights. While at the same time, I
| acknowledge that there is some inherit defense to them
| gathering _too much_ data which in some sense allows us to
| maintain some level of privacy in the meantime.
| whitemary wrote:
| This is why the Chinese pity western "democracy," and it's
| quite easy to see where they're coming from. Of course, it's
| well established that the US is merely an oligarchy with a
| massive domestic propaganda operation.
| JPws_Prntr_Fngr wrote:
| Upvoted because the first sentence might be true, and the
| second one definitely is.
|
| I would say that the US and China are both fantastic examples
| of why you don't want to allow the construction of a
| surveillance infrastructure - privatized and public,
| respectively. We pity each other partially thanks to the
| propaganda - but I think more importantly because we really
| are pitiable.
| beauHD wrote:
| > I know they're hoping that people will give up after a point
| out of weariness
|
| This is just yet another attempt at Lawful Interception[0],
| only this time, on steroids. They will continue to try and
| erode privacy, and therefore, erode democracy. But we do have
| tools to combat this at our disposal. My only worry is the
| outright banning of such tools, then we're royally fucked.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawful_interception
| guy98238710 wrote:
| It's a mistake to just protest these proposals. Counter-
| proposals that push the balance in opposite direction should be
| made and pushed through, including some that cut down on
| existing legislation. A lot of good arguments can be made to
| support them.
| Kerrick wrote:
| Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Eternal is the key word, too. That's the problem with doing
| this in law: It will just get introduced over and over
| perpetually until finally it slips through, and then it's
| pretty much with us forever. The bad guys only have to win
| once. The good guys have to win every time.
| duxup wrote:
| I donate to the EFF, is that enough, I don't know but I feel
| like I'm doing something.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| Well, what quantifiable benefit is the public gaining from
| the EFF? Do you know where your money goes? Does what they
| publish reach anybody new? Or is it just preaching to the
| choir?
| menus wrote:
| Can't give up like this.
|
| If there is anything I have learned is that persistence
| will eventually pay off. Louis Rossmann [1] has been
| fighting the good fight for right to repair for so many
| years and while it isn't quite there yet and there have
| been lots of downs, there have also been lots of ups [2].
| Nothing's infallible.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/@rossmanngroup [2]
| https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/11/apple-announces-
| self-...
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| Nobody's talking about giving up, they're talking about
| whether an organization is effective in its existing form
| (unsure).
|
| E.g., I stopped giving money to Mozilla because I was
| dissatisfied by where that money was going, what it
| wasn't being spent on, what it was being spent on
| instead, and how ineffective they were.
|
| Great that Rossmann got results, but is the methodology
| that the EFF is using the same as what Rossmann has used?
| Is it even an appropriate comparison when one is a threat
| from government, and the other is a matter of anti-
| consumer ethics with corps?
| duxup wrote:
| I don't know.
| rdiddly wrote:
| I just keep wondering what the hell is wrong with the people
| who think junk like this is a good idea. And why there are any.
| Theory: They're child-molesters themselves?
| pksebben wrote:
| I feel like we just have to hold out for another couple of
| decades - until there aren't any boomers left in government.
|
| This whole clusterfuck is a result of old people not knowing
| their ass from a pihole.
| betaby wrote:
| I EU and Canada such laws are pushed by relatively yang folks
| as well, like ones in their 40s.
| bregma wrote:
| And you know, the boomers felt exactly the same about the
| generation they were replacing. At least some things don't
| change.
| somenameforme wrote:
| You may want to check out the list of the sponsors of this
| bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-
| bill/120...
|
| And that's just the sponsors, not the people who will vote
| for it. Some on that list do belong in nursing homes, but age
| is not a factor. It's mostly just the political establishment
| and newcomers hoping to join that establishment.
| JohnFen wrote:
| If history is any guide, the people who will replace the
| boomers will not be any different. The root cause is not
| related to age or generation, it's related to power.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
| pksebben wrote:
| You know, you're probably right and that makes me sad. That
| said, it's easy for the bad apples to spoil the bunch right
| now because most congress critters don't actually know what
| encryption is or how it works - I suppose my hope is that
| at some point, the Evil Ones(tm) will have a much harder
| time convincing the Dumb Ones(tm) that they're trying to
| 'protect children' with this kinda nonsense.
|
| Of course, then the posts just get kicked down the line to
| the next new tech that nobody groks, but at least perhaps
| we can stop fighting this specific one so hard and so
| frequently.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| > The bill also makes specific allowances to allow the use of
| encryption to constitute evidence in court against service
| providers.
|
| So if you enable iCloud advanced protection, that is "evidence".
| We really really need a younger congress.
| sroussey wrote:
| Soon they will ask to scan your car computer so they can ticket
| you for speeding.
| lysozyme wrote:
| I'm reminded by a speech by Frederick Douglass [1] that
|
| >This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one,
| and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle.
| Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it
| never will. _Find out just what any people will quietly submit to
| and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong
| which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till
| they are resisted_ with either words or blows, or with both. The
| limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom
| they oppress. (Emphasis mine)
|
| 1. https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-
| history/1857-fred...
| GalenErso wrote:
| Well, what do you suggest? For HN SWEs to storm the Capitol,
| MacBook Pros in hand?
|
| I fight for nothing. I have no struggle against anyone or
| anything. I don't have a cause. And neither do 99% of people.
| carimura wrote:
| Nobody asked you to fight. You have the luxury of not
| fighting and not struggling because so many before you fought
| and so many around you choose to fight now, as uncomfortable
| as that might be.
| jutrewag wrote:
| Most people have a cause, especially now, either actively or
| passively.
| [deleted]
| aendruk wrote:
| You could start with the big red call to action in TFA.
| motohagiography wrote:
| No, you're just part of the third of people that one third
| can depend on to do nothing while they try to destroy the
| reamining third. Discouraging others is just a bonus.
| pjmorris wrote:
| "Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful
| and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to
| be neutral." - Paulo Freire
| GalenErso wrote:
| I'll admit I would rather this bill doesn't pass but don't
| care if it does to do anything about it.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _don 't care if it does to do anything about it_
|
| This is most people. Which, frankly, makes governing
| possible. I understand the civic detachment. (I don't
| care about most fights enough to get involved.) What I
| suppose I don't is still wanting to comment on it.
| devindotcom wrote:
| Douglass was such a mind. I need to actually read through his
| various memoirs and essays/correspondence.
| vrglvrglvrgl wrote:
| [dead]
| celtoid wrote:
| Marcus Raskin's 1976 paper "Democracy Versus the National
| Security State" [0] is a good backgrounder on how we've gotten to
| this state of affairs. If politicians want to continue with their
| careers in Congress, they'll either serve the national security
| state or have to pretend to their constituents that it doesn't
| exist.
|
| "The national security state emerges from war, from fear of
| revolution and change, from the economic instability of
| capitalism, and from nuclear weapons and military technology.It
| has been the actualizing mechanism of ruling elites to implement
| their imperial schemes and misplaced ideals. In practical terms
| its emergence is linked to the rise of a bureaucracy that
| administered things and people in interchangeable fashion without
| concern for ends or assumptions. This state formation matured
| during a period in which the office of the President be- came
| supremely powerful as a broker and legitimating instrument of
| national security activity."
|
| "...The society is at a turning point. And in this regard so is
| the legal profession. Either we will surrender representative
| democracy, embracing instead different forms of corporate fascism
| and bureaucratic control (military, police, and social) which
| cannot be halted through citizen action and democratic pro-
| cesses, or we (including the legal profession) will begin the
| difficult task of dismantling the national security apparatus. It
| does not seem likely to me that those who struggled in the
| sixties to develop a new meaning of democracy will settle for
| bureaucratic or corporate fascism. And those who are neutral on
| the question will be less likely to acquiesce in fascist or
| bonapartist deformations once it is clear that they are
| inefficient, and that they provide only insecurity, unemployment,
| imperial wars, a deepening arms race, and a pro- cess of
| repressive exclusion which reduces politics to an empty game."
|
| [0] https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol40/iss3/7/
|
| Plain text at:
|
| https://archive.org/stream/democracy-versus-the-national-sec...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-21 23:00 UTC)