[codingthewheel]

Not only that, but there are legit reasons to include a keylogger as part of a laptop build out. Every computer has, or should have, this kind of auditing capacity. The question is a) whether it's turned on by default and b) whether any information is being transmitted on the sly. In all likelihood, this was either some sort of mistake, or the keylogger is intended for use by the computer's owner -- not by Samsung.

EDIT: Sorry for scaring people. Listen, I HATE keyloggers and other invasive software. Here:

http://bit.ly/2U3iAH

My point was that I can see a legit need for low-level auditing by whoever owns the PC. Including such a package that's turned off by default, might be better than forcing a worried parent to sift through 12 keyloggers on Google, half of which are malware, a quarter of which don't work, in order to find out if her 12-year-old is composing YouTube dances and uploading them to 4chan.

[Xurinos]

Hey guys, I disagree with codingthewheel's idea, too, but we need to get a little meta here:

His comment is not spam.

His comment caused discussion.

His comment is an opinion, not a false fact.

There are no personal attacks of any kind in his comment, and his language is fine.

His argument is simply unpopular.

None of your responses indicate any of the usual legitimate reasons for downvoting.

So why the downvotes? Do you really want HN to be an echo chamber instead of an arena of civil discussion?

[jedsmith]

Great point, but I wasn't aware that there are "usual, legitimate" reasons for downvoting, and that these are well-known enough that you can call them the usual reasons. Seems like everybody just uses their best judgment.

That said, I didn't downvote him, I simply didn't vote. I don't feel a need to vote on everything, and that extends to downvoting.

[paulitex]

> but I wasn't aware that there are "usual, legitimate" reasons for downvoting

Yup, there are. Here: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

(A clear deviation of the guidelines deserves a downvote, a clear compliance does not. Like any law, there is a grey area in between requiring some amount of judgement. But these guidelines still stand to ground the discussion around what is/isn't a "usual, legitimate" reason for downvoting.)

[lwhi]

I think the downvoting in this case is equivalent to saying 'your point of view is dangerous'.

[oconnore]

No, the equivalent would be to click reply, and then type "I think that your point of view is dangerous."

[lwhi]

Meaning can be inferred from the down-voting. I think that was probably the meaning behind most of the negative votes.

I actually believe that it's okay to use voting to express whether you agree or disagree with a point. Where's the harm?

I think that the experience of reading HN is enhanced when there's contrast between popular and unpopular ideas. If a post is unpopular, it doesn't mean that I don't read it. If anything, I might pay more attention to it.

In some cases its lack of popularity might spark more debate; like it has in this case.

[kls]

I actually believe that it's okay to use voting to express whether you agree or disagree with a point. Where's the harm?

This is a bad point of view and is what is leading to the degradation of HN as a place for people who see the world through a different lens. We have already lost a lot of beautiful minds due to heard voting. Downvoating is for items that do not belong on HN, nothing more nothing less. If you downvote because you do not agree with an idea you are actively suppressing discussion, no matter how strongly you disagree. Many time from people more brilliant that ourselves.

[lwhi]

The voting mechanism is a tool. People choose to use tools in whichever way they see fit. A culture will develop and form according to the norms which are set around group usage.

On HN people I've found that many people use voting to signal whether they agree (or disagree) with something. If that wasn't the case, I'd see my karma rise - rather than rise, fall and fluctuate.

As far as I can tell, if something shouldn't be on HN, we have the ability to flag a post.

I can agree that a post shouldn't needless be hammered into negative space, just as a person's point of view shouldn't be needlessly trampled on in meat-space. But I think that down-voting in general has found a place.

We can say that it might be better to never down-vote - but many users have the ability, and it's a regular practice. Neglecting the fact is a little like ignoring the fact the emperor is wearing no clothes.

[Sandman]

PG would disagree with you: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171.

For the record, I personally believe that you're right.

[tedunangst]

Downvoting discourages future posts. Then there won't be any posts that disagree with the prevailing sentiment.

[lwhi]

If I believe something, I'll post it even if it is going to prove unpopular. I'd hope most people would do the same.

I don't believe down-voting discourages discussion .. I'd argue it often provokes it.

[waqf]

The harm is that the voting system is designed as a step towards hiding (or at least not highlighting) posts which get downvoted. So downvoting prevents the experience which you yourself agree is desirable, that of seeing both popular and unpopular ideas represented.

That being said, I strongly believe that if a system is being misused, it is the system not the users which are at fault. In this case, my first suggestion (doubtless in need of refinement) is that there should be prominent agree/disagree buttons on every post to allow everyone to express their opinion, and then a separate "flag" link for people to mark spam or useless comments.

[Xurinos]

I think this is a promising line of thinking, the idea that there should be more than one kind of vote. There is confusion as to what the single up/down means, and this is not helped by the fact that the single karma value actually matters for things (the ability to downvote at all or the level of obscuration of the comment). It is certainly not helpful if everyone has a different opinion of what that arrow should mean.

From a UI perspective, there are tradeoffs. Multiple vote options means better sorting, more thorough meaning. It also means more confusion and more work.

Also, instead of single vote tallies, has there been social experimentation with preferential voting systems on comments? (This still has the problem of needing more than one flavor of preference.)

[lwhi]

I don't believe the system does hide posts. It creates differentiation between low ranking and high ranking posts.

I rarely ignore the comments at the bottom of a page - in fact, sometimes the least interesting comments are those that are highest ranked.

What's the difference between having upvote / downvote buttons and agree / disagree buttons?

[po]

In my view, it's ok to downvote something you something disagree with until it gets back down to 1 point. Then downvotes start to censor it and I think it harms discussion unless that comment is one of the things the grandparent commenter was talking about.

[illumin8]

I respectfully disagree. Notice how I'm replying instead of downvoting. Downvoting something you disagree with is just pure laziness. You're too lazy to reply so you just downvote, which contributes to burying the opinion of someone else.

You should focus on upvoting. Downvotes should be reserved for abusive, trolling, or spam comments.

[lwhi]

That sounds really reasonable - I agree. Although, I think I'd probably bring a point that I personally find abhorrent into negative points.

[wtracy]

A downvote is a vote to remove a post from the discussion. (Or at least make it less visible.)

Downvoting posts you disagree with amounts to an attempt to suppress contrary opinion.

[lwhi]

If down-voted comments were unavailable to view, I'd definitely agree with you.

[seabee]

Then that's what someone should say, and then promptly get upvoted. Some questions need to be asked, alternative points of view made, and then shown to the world why it's a bad idea; we shouldn't hide them from view to be missed so someone else can make the same mistake.

[wladimir]

As I misunderstood him, I'd like to undo my downvote. It sucks that it's not possible to undo votes on this site.

[guelo]

I downvoted your comment. Meta comments are useless and distract from the on-topic discussion. Yes, I realize this is also a meta comment.

[unwind]

Why should my computer have auditing capability, without my explicit knowledge or me making the decision to put it there? Who is it good for?

[sonnekki]

> Who is it good for?

Someone who desires to keep track of a user's key strokes, for example a corporation. This is coming from someone who consents to monitoring every day.

While I agree it is not good for the singular, non-ignorant person, I'm sure there's a massive market for "Corporate Consumers" who'd like to save a buck instead of spending effort configuring a system.

About having the capability of auditing, I suppose it saves production costs to have one laptop with a switch, as opposed to two laptops with slight hardware or software differences.

[kls]

Right I could see this being part of some child usage monitoring package. It may be part of some crapware that comes with the computer. I bet Samsung is scrambling right now to find out which crapware vendor included it and will find out it part of a net monitoring suite.

[IgorPartola]

Yeah, and your house should have cameras too. Just in case you are up to no good.

[heyitsnick]

The only people who don't want cameras in their house are those with something hide.

[jedsmith]

Or those who fancy sex on the dinner table without spectators? That's a relatively crass example (sorry), but the privacy implication is clear when you put it in those terms. My home is my home, and what I do behind my door is my business.

I'm surprised you're getting voted up. As much as I disagree with most of the privacy agenda, a lot of their fights are the only thing stopping us from turning Orwellian.

Nothing to hide is pretty arbitrary, too; you mean you have nothing to hide under our current laws. So sure, let them bring the cameras in. Then they'll rewrite the law and you'll suddenly have something to hide.

[aristidb]

^ Presumably, heyitsnick meant this sarcastically.

[jedsmith]

Maybe, and if that were the case, the number of people the sarcasm is missing means it could have been communicated better. Watch his karma swing around -- I'm not the only one that missed it, apparently. It certainly wasn't a good spot for it, because he's responding to sarcasm.

[heyitsnick]

Ha, I posted that I wondered if I was going to come back to a -4 or a +4 karma :)

Yes it was sarcastic. As other commenters said, it's a very common and senseless rhetoric used by anti-privacy politicians. Applying it to an extreme example (like camera in your home) was meant to demonstrate how daft such a stance is.

But I disagree, I think it was a very good spot for it: In my mind, some of the best irony is when it's nearly indistinguishable from truth. So I will take the swinging karma as a complement :D

[caf]

It's also a worrying illustration of how far the anti-privacy agenda has progressed, when people can think you're seriously advocating surveillance cameras in private homes.

[jedsmith]

Fair enough! This crow is delicious, want some?

[klochner]

I thought it was brilliant.

[dc2k08]

It's a popular mantra made by politicians any time they want to introduce a new anti-privacy measure. This mantra and his version especially is so farcical, I think it's obvious to the majority of readers that his tongue is firmly in his cheek.

[rhizome]

Nobody is scared, don't flatter yourself. Your attitude is simply invasive and pointy-haired. Couple that with using a URL-shortened blind link where you are supposedly establishing some kind of safe-computing credibility, and I can only LOL.

Worried parents?! Now you're really getting dangerous. I hope you think long and hard before having children if this is the kind of treatment you expect to give them. If you have a 12 year old who is already uploading "dances" (?) to YT/chans, you have much bigger problems than a computer or the internet (hint: mirror).

[codingthewheel]

I had a chuckle at this. The use of "pointy-haired" was at least creative. And yeah, I believe parents have the right to spy on their kids, especially when it comes to the net. Largely, I'd add, because of people like you (trolls).

[rhizome]

Keylogging your children is an admission that you've lost the parenting game.

[Panoramix]

Please don't use URL shorteners.

[codingthewheel]

I've never (almost never) posted a link to one of my sites in an HN comment. I'd rather not have naked links in this venue. Apologies.

[allending]

Uhm. No.

[codingthewheel]

We will backtrace you.