News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Priv... by tabeth on Thursday January 11, 2018 @12:24PM (#16125684)
When has an average American been severely and personally harmed from surveillance? If you can't answer that without caveats then you have no chance of convincing her in my opinion.

In other words, you have to prove that the harms of surveillance outweigh the nebulous sense of protection an average person already has regarding survillance.

It's trivial to come up with examples of how survillance is good for an average person in regular life - - see public camera catching criminals, dash cams, etc.

Re:House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Priv... by bluGill on Thursday January 11, 2018 @12:54PM (#16125984)
[cynic] The public camera catching a random criminal doens't really matter to me unless that criminal actually stole from me.[/cynic]

Fortunately we don't have to look to that. More than once the public road surveillance cameras have aided my decision to work from home. They have also helped me decided to take/not take an alternate route around bad traffic.

Those are real benefits to surveillance that help me. I understand your worries, and they are real. However there are also benefits that you cannot discard.

Re:House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Priv... by seanp2k2 on Thursday January 11, 2018 @01:58PM (#16126658)
>public

This is a big part of the difference between traffic cameras and unchecked surveillance of individuals.

Re:House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Priv... by abecedarius on Thursday January 11, 2018 @01:31PM (#16126407)
How would we even know? Parallel construction, etc. The burden of proof should go the other way.
Re:House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Priv... by cryoshon on Thursday January 11, 2018 @01:02PM (#16126063)
when they stomped down their own curiosity by refusing to search for more information on the internet because it'd get them on a list.
Re:House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Priv... by chongli on Thursday January 11, 2018 @07:13PM (#16129321)
Requiring an average American is setting the bar a little too high. Ask almost any Jewish American and they're likely to have relatives who died in the Holocaust. How did the Nazis carry that out? They leveraged a large surveillance network and a central database built with census data. Was this personal harm from surveillance? I would argue yes.

Similarly, you could ask anyone who experienced life (or had a relative who did) in the Soviet Union or East Germany under the thumb of those overwhelming surveillance networks.

Finally, to prematurely head off an objection you might have: are these events (Nazi, Soviet, East Germany) outliers? Yes. Does that disqualify them? No. [0]

[0] http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/08/31/terrorists-vs-chairs-an...