Thread

1. rglover · 1790631242 · focus · HN ↗

   IMO, when they have to hide, that's the beginning of the end. Too many people are aware of the what/why now. And above all else, once the tables turn on elected officials and they realize they're under the same surveillance, I bet their tune will change (likely due to a public egg-on-face moment involving illegal or suspicious activity). If people keep the pressure on, this will be a "remember when" rather quickly.

   1. Cider9986 · 1790633427 · focus · HN ↗

      Government officials should be highly transparent. Privacy for the people, transparency for the government.

      1. awesome_dude · 1790634013 · focus · HN ↗

         There's a balance that needs to be struck, politicians are humans too

         1. atmavatar · 1790634638 · focus · HN ↗

            Politicians are humans who knowingly choose to enter public office for the sake of exercising power, whether for altruistic or nefarious reasons (or some combination thereof).

            The power is why politicians deserve greater scrutiny than the average person, and anyone who wants to keep their privacy intact can choose not to run for office. The loss of privacy (usually at the hands of the press) is already an implied cost of running for and holding office.

            1. analog31 · 1790634945 · focus · HN ↗

               I think there's a balance that needs to be struck, in proportion to actual power. A senator or cabinet member deserves more scrutiny than a small town city clerk. Also, there are private individuals who knowingly exercise more power than that clerk.

               1. everforward · 1790635992 · focus · HN ↗

                  I think you misunderstand the balance of power. If you're talking about power over you specifically, your local clerk almost certainly has more than your senator. If they both want to make your life suck, the clerk is the one with the relationship to the local PD, the ability to make your filings get lost in a pile for a couple days so they were technically filed late, etc. Your senator or representative is likely in 0 of the processes you are likely to engage in unless you're notable enough that you specifically get targeted by the state legislature.

                  > Also, there are private individuals who knowingly exercise more power than that clerk.

                  This is partially a pet peeve of mine, but again, almost certainly not. I struggle to think of someone with more ability to kill a project than a clerk that refuses to do their job.

                  Kim Davis was a clerk that refused a literal Supreme Court order. As best I can tell, she did 5 days in jail and launched a million dollar speaking career out of it. Bezos or Musk can be absolutely sidelined by a clerk who is pissed off enough to accept eventually getting fired as a result.

                  1. analog31 · 1790721513 · focus · HN ↗

                     Indeed, power over one person is different than power distributed over an entire country. Good to point that out.
            2. awesome_dude · 1790635183 · focus · HN ↗

               You are making a political statement there, does that not make you a politician?
            3. Hnrobert42 · 1790636806 · focus · HN ↗

               But then you only elect politicians who don't care about privacy. I'm not sure those are the people I want crafting policy.

               1. thot_experiment · 1790637171 · focus · HN ↗

                  Selection pressure sure, but obviously worth it. Public servants work for us and we should be able to see what they're up to.

                  1. awesome_dude · 1790638656 · focus · HN ↗

                     Is that how you want your employer to behave? You want them to surveil you all day every day in case you are doing something that is counter to their business?

                     1. nkrisc · 1790639351 · focus · HN ↗

                        How is that related?

                        1. awesome_dude · 1790640606 · focus · HN ↗

                           How is someone saying that public servants work for them different from that same person working for a private employer?????

                           1. thot_experiment · 1790642838 · focus · HN ↗

                              What? The public/private distinction? How is that confusing? It's literally in the name.

                              1. awesome_dude · 1790643844 · focus · HN ↗

                                 They're employees just like you and me, complaining that they work for you then refusing to allow the same rule to be applied to yourself by your employer is....

                                 1. thot_experiment · 1790646628 · focus · HN ↗

                                    ...normal and internally consistent because we do different jobs in different contexts and the impacts of oversight have a different cost/benefit analysis, do you think doctors should have the same oversight as your food delivery guy?

                                    1. awesome_dude · 1790649405 · focus · HN ↗

                                       No. Hypocrisy is when you refuse to have the same rules applied to yourself.

                                       The claim was that they worked for you therefore they should be subject to constant surveillance. Submit to the same from your employer to prove that that is a reasonable expectation.

                                       1. philipallstar · 1790666272 · focus · HN ↗

                                          It would be hypocrisy if the person you're replying to was a public sector worker who didn't want to be open.

                                          1. awesome_dude · 1790711162 · focus · HN ↗

                                             No - it's hypocrisy for anyone to demand one set of rules for others whilst demanding that those same rules do not apply to themselves.

                                             People in politics, as I said from the beginning, are still people. We can demand transparency in the decisions made (there are limits, because some of that information is sensitive - eg. National security, or commercial secrecy) but we cannot demand that people are surveiled every minute of their lives whilst at the same time complaining that it's a bad thing to happen to us.

                                             1. [deleted] · 1790759875 · focus · HN ↗

                                                [deleted]

                                             2. philipallstar · 1790759892 · focus · HN ↗

                                                > we cannot demand that people are surveilled every minute of their lives whilst at the same time complaining that it's a bad thing to happen to us.

                                                Well, those in power should be held to a higher standard in various ways, and it is tricky. Someone who works on a pharma regulatory board who then the next year gets a gloriously-salaried job at Pfizer should probably not have been able to do that, even though for most people a job at Pfizer would be fine.

                                 2. nkrisc · 1790683528 · focus · HN ↗

                                    The difference is one works for the public on public dollars and the other works for a private entity.

                                    Your mistake is thinking public and private are the same.

                                    1. awesome_dude · 1790711491 · focus · HN ↗

                                       No. The difference is you thinking that you, as the employer, have the right to surveil people, but then claim that you, as an employee, have the right to be free from such horrific conditions.

                                       There's no other explanation.

                                       1. stackbutterflow · 1790772423 · focus · HN ↗

                                          For one, in this analogy, we (the "employers") have no power but the "employee" (the government) has the power of the law and the power of the guns.

                                          In a private company the employer has the power over the employees.

                                       2. nkrisc · 1790851501 · focus · HN ↗

                                          We do not employ public servants. The government, which governs with our consent, does. They are paid with our tax money, but we do not employ them.

                                          Working for the government and wielding power over the general public is a privilege and comes with higher expectations than a private employee.

            4. marcus_holmes · 1790654359 · focus · HN ↗

               I generally agree, but want to point out that recently politicians have come under physical attack by supporters of their political enemies. In the USA there have been actual killings of politicians. Elsewhere there have been assaults.

               If exposing their data leads them to be attacked more, then we need to be careful with this.

               1. awesome_dude · 1790711277 · focus · HN ↗

                  See: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Murder_of_Jo_Cox" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Murder_of_Jo_Cox

                  See also: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Gabby_Giffords" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Gabby_Giffords

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.