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. 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]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.