Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

To me (a UK citizen) this is like the government tracking the title and author of every book I read, "but don't worry, not the contents or page numbers you looked at". The idea this is any meaningful barrier to finding out what you're really up to is ridiculous. Phone metadata is one thing - and still highly revealing - but much of the web is public! It's enough to make me think twice about where I browse, wondering "if I ever got challenged over it, how will it look that I browsed to this site?". That seems pretty harmful to the web - possibly even in an economically measurable way?

Think about what happens when you hit theverge.com: 40-odd requests sent sites you've never heard of. So-called internet connection records are a huge mess of noise even without considering obfuscation.

It is trivial for anyone to embed hidden iframes or send silent ajax requests to child abuse and terrorist forums without giving the visiter the slightest clue what's happening. In the case of iframes, there would probably be cached 'evidence' left on the target's pc. Try explaining that as your defence in court when you get set up by some script kiddie.

If they want to frame you they don't need hidden iframes and stuff. They can just manufacture it. Because it's all secret/confidential, someone who has a friend or pays someone inside can incriminate someone and make his life a hell.

We were warned of PIDE in school for a good reason (PIDE was the Portuguese Stasi). People will abuse it.

This is known as the Chilling Effect[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

What you described is self-censoring, there are even scientific papers about it. Give this a read: https://www.rt.com/news/183040-study-social-media-politics/ http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-12/17/facebook-is-t...

Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact