Let me try to rephrase this in a simpler way:

This is even more troubling because smart people are less likely to be caught.

At least, like Snowden's leaks, this is proof that privacy extremists aren't conspiracy nuts, and hopefully it will open a few eyes to the real danger of giving up privacy.

Other comments are right: stop using big words and write plain sentences.

"Some rando engineer stealing private images elicits a real disgust response that might be moving, as opposed to talk of the NSA"

Such a simple point, and look over how many heads it went.

Sure, if that's what it's saying.

I think it's pretty presumptuous to think a world salad went "over" any of our heads, when a simpler explanation is that the point was obscured by unnecessarily complex language.

English isn't even my first language, so if I have no problem parsing that, it's possible. Even if something is "unnecessarily" complex, what necessitates knee-jerk responses or downvotes?

> so if I have no problem parsing that, it's possible

That's still assuming your interpretation was what the writer intended. As a native English speaker, I can tell you that it's not 100% clear.

> what necessitates knee-jerk responses or downvotes?

The meaning of a down vote is not defined by HN itself, so it's personal. For me, I use it based on value. I up-vote comments that add to or improve the discussion. I down-vote comments that add nothing.

I did not down-vote the root comment here. I replied because I found the content to be locked away by the presentation, and the content seemed to be a worthwhile part of the discussion of the article.

> That's still assuming your interpretation was what the writer intended. As a native English speaker, I can tell you that it's not 100% clear.

I think your your summary of the comment doesn't really match the comment.

English is my third language and I had no problem parsing that either.

On the other hand, I was taught early on not to trawl the thesaurus for word substitutions. It’s just pretentious.

In response to the point - a random person isn't a concentrated menacing agency that can be politically targeted, so isn't that demotivating?

You removed some of the most important parts.

The word "engineer" is critical to the first sentence, and your version has no translation of "banal, lascivious panopticon".

The roundabout structure of the sentences is much more relevant than the use of a big word or two.

You got me. It wasn't a 100% faithful translation.

I removed "engineer" because it's not necessary to the broader premise that more highly skilled people tend to be both more trusted in our society and more likely to know how to get away with a crime.

I didn't translate "banal, lascivious panopticon" because it was it's one of those faux-profound images that adds very little.

It's hardly revelatory to tell HN readers that people are troublingly comfortable with constant tracking by corporations and governments.

> because it was it's one of those faux-profound images that adds very little

That's a very strange interpretation to me. It doesn't look at all profound or faux-profound to me, it's just imagery.

Just for the sake of feedback, I found your post confusing.

It's not really clear to me what you are saying exactly.

Presumably, this person is airing frustration with common responses to privacy oriented discussions he or she has experienced as participant and/or vicariously. He or she has characterized them ending in ad homenims, whereby the privacy minded individual is construed as politically or intellectually unmoored, similar to Alex Jones.

Spedru posits the covert and exposed deviants within companies, that we've exchanged our data with, are another style of entity (besides state actors) that we ought to strive to deprive of access to that data.

At least, that's as charitably as I can characterize the comment.

Yes. This is exactly what I meant. Didn't mean to come off as obscure, sorry, I'm a little out of it and English isn't my best language on a good day. I meant to tack a “distributed” onto that “panopticon”. A bunch of perverts scattered around tech companies might make for a convincing “actor” to bring up to ordinary people who think talking about government agencies is too crazy-sounding. As for the intelligence bit, I mean to say, “engineers are typically high-IQ, high-IQ people get away with crimes, imagine how many creeps have gotten away with this sort of thing and we'll never know”.

> At least, that's as charitably as I can characterize the comment.

That implies there's an uncharitable characterization. What would that be?

That how smart people can get away with these things and employees can see your images could be a wake up call for taking privacy concerns seriously I think

I think it's just an AI produced troll comment.