Keep in mind also that when someone submit the same URL as already submitted it increases the count. So someone reading that article and not checking that it's already been posted counts toward that 46. I'm only mentioning because I've done this and I've had stories upvoted to, say, 10 that never were commented on.
It's kind of interesting to witness the interaction between HN's overlapping circles of technologists, civil libertarians, and entrepreneurs.
To be fair, I agree that we need to avoid letting this discussion devolve into a frenzied mob of speculation. Misinformation can almost be worse than ignorance.
This is the most alarming thing I've seen in my adult life.
Actually they are.
>most people assume taht the government already has/had access to what you do on your cellphone/facebook/internet searches
I think that most people assume that email is just like mail: private, and protected by the 4th amendment. I think most people assume that their phone records are similarly protected. And I doubt that most people, possibly including people in Congress, know what is possible to infer from the data they are collecting.
I think that most people assume that email is just like mail: private, and protected by the 4th amendment. I think most people assume that their phone records are similarly protected.
The law has said otherwise for >30 years, and I think most people who think about it are aware that their email and phone records are stored by 3rd parties. Do you have evidence for your view, or are you just projecting what you think should be the case onto everyone else?
Projecting, mainly. Just like you. Pew did a phone survey that shows 56% of people believe it's okay to give up privacy to defeat terrorism. But even that doesn't really go to what people believe about their privacy right now.
No, I think we should have more robust privacy protections and that this would require a constitutional amendment, but I'm also aware that my view has little traction at present. I'm sanguine about monitoring of things like CDRs because it seems an inevitable result of technology, and it's unrealistic to expect the government to put itself at a legal disadvantage compared to individuals and businesses. On the other hand, this fact of modern technological life is why I choose not to put my life on services like Facebook, despite the significant social disadvantages that entails.
> most people assume taht the government already has/had access to what you do on your cellphone/facebook/internet searches so actual evidence of data manaing doesn't seem all that big of a revelation.
No, you're not projecting at all, are you.
Second, if the resolution doesn't go far enough to restore confidence in US cloud and telecom technology companies, it could have a large effect on the tech economy.
Third, the only practical solution may to adopt real security measures: End-to-end strong encryption. Encrypted storage. Audited open source systems.
Five. There are five crowds of people on reddit/HN. The commenters, the voters, the readers, the waiters, and the lazy. And also the submitters. Six. There six crowds of people on reddit/HN! And... ;-)
Given the subject matter, doesn't it seem reasonable that a lot of people would see more risk than benefit in commenting? If your primary goal in life is activism, then sure. But most of us have other primary goals.
This is sarcastic, right?