[comfypotato]

Would be nice if I could respond to all of you in one place, because y’all are more or less saying the same thing.

In don’t appreciate the personal attacks on my character. It’s really a testament to my point, though. The internet is private enough that you feel comfortable commenting fighting words from behind a keyboard. Hypocrites the lot of you.

It’s perfectly reasonable to say that I have no moral commitment to improving the online privacy situation in light of your given example. State actors in Saudi Arabia are so far removed from a typical citizen that they’re completely irrelevant to the discussion.

[dang]

Can you please not post in the flamewar style to HN? It sounds like you have a lot of experience in this area and have substantive points to make, but you've been making them in an inflammatory way that is guaranteed to worsen the discussion. We're trying to go in the opposite direction here.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

[danShumway]

> The internet is private enough that you feel comfortable commenting fighting words from behind a keyboard.

With respect, nothing said by maxbond in this thread is what I would consider to be fighting words. If someone was talking face-to-face to me and dismissed human rights violations in Saudi Arabia by saying "f** around and find out", I'd feel extremely comfortable saying to them, "if that's your view of human rights we might not be able to see eye to eye."

Privacy violations in the US itself leading to human rights violations and attacks from the government are common. Since you are a privacy researcher, you should be aware of this stuff already. I don't want to insult you by suggesting you're not. However, if I assume you are aware of how online tracking has been used in the US proper to target marginalized groups, prosecute cross-state abortions, and dox and harass activists -- then the only conclusion I can draw is that you're aware of it and don't think it changes anything about your position.

In which case, if that's your view of human rights we might not ever be able to see eye to eye on this.

[comfypotato]

If you peruse down the flagged comment nearby you’ll see maxbond backhandedly agree that I only care about myself. I’m not one to punch people in the face, but that’s grounds to be punched in the face in any bar.

That being said, it’s perfectly reasonable not to see eye to eye regarding privacy, which is effectively what I said that started this entire thread. I personally don’t think that online privacy is the front on which discussions about abortion legislation should take place. Even Google, manufacturing Chromium, takes privacy into account to a reasonable extent [0], and I personally feel that it is enough.

[0] For example, if your machine has more than 16Gb of RAM, Chromium only reports 16 because there’s no browser application that needs to know you have more than 16, and it would instantly make your device fingerprint unique.

[SirSavary]

If your first instinct upon hearing that you're self-centered is to maim the other person, you might be proving their point.

Kashoggi was a US citizen lured to his death by a foreign regime -- not seeing eye to eye on privacy is one thing but imo it's strange to hand wave the incident away because the average person is unlikely to end up in the exact same situation. People are stalked by their employers, exes, strangers, etc every day -- deep privacy absolutely can be valuable to the average person.

[comfypotato]

Insults in person start fights. It’s only the privacy of the internet that lets you do it here.

Kashoggi was a journalist investigating government corruption. The context of reasonable internet privacy is completely irrelevant.

What does Tor have to do with stalking? Since when has someone’s internet browsing been affected by a stalker?

[danShumway]

> Since when has someone’s internet browsing been affected by a stalker?

I'm sorry, but you are (were) a privacy researcher though. You should know already that internet browsing can be influenced by and can contribute to stalking/doxing attempts.

[comfypotato]

An unrelated third party can’t surveil your browsing without malicious software or hardware intervening.

[danShumway]

> I’m not one to punch people in the face, but that’s grounds to be punched in the face in any bar.

This conversation is getting a little weird, but I feel like I should just kind of generally say, that would not be in any way an appropriate or reasonable reaction to being called self-centered. In general assault is not a reasonable reaction to insults period, but it's even less of a reasonable reaction to a passing insult that's as mild as "you only care about yourself."

[comfypotato]

Well, your discomfort makes it clear you’re not American poor. Verbal confrontations, even disagreements led along insults, are enough to get shot where I’m from. Obviously nothing about that is a good thing.

My point is that the internet is already an extremely private place. I started this in reply to someone proposing privacy evangelism in the wake of ignorant sheeple, and that’s stupid and insulting.

[danShumway]

> Well, your discomfort makes it clear you’re not American poor. Verbal confrontations, even disagreements led along insults, are enough to get shot where I’m from.

Okay that is a very weird response.

I feel like I need to state that shooting someone over a verbal disagreement is obviously wrong and obviously would be inappropriate and would obviously reflect negatively on the moral standards and character of the person doing the shooting, and it would obviously be appropriate to view someone who was willing to shoot someone over a passing insult negatively or at the very least to say they may have some issues.

And I don't like the vague insinuation here that lower-income Americans are inherently violent or that crime/violence within lower-income communities is culturally motivated.

> My point is that the internet is already an extremely private place.

Saying that you don't see a set of privacy violations as relevant or worth caring about is a lot different than saying that the Internet is private. The Internet is not private and you're not denying in any of these threads that the privacy violations people are bringing up exist -- you're saying they don't matter and that the Internet is private enough. Be careful not to confuse your personal standards about how private the Internet should be with more neutral descriptions about what risks do or don't exist online.

> and that’s stupid and insulting.

Be careful, I've been told that's apparently fighting words ;)

[comfypotato]

Your comments about violence in America are generally naive. I assume you’re a young person.

As I stated in another comment, yes, it’s ideological differences on which we differ.

[maxbond]

I'm sorry you feel I've attacked your character. That wasn't my intention. If I've misread or misjudged you, please do correct me, and I'll add a correction to each of the comments I've made in this thread. This offer does not expire, if you correct me tomorrow or next week or something I'll still get the comments fixed (at least, as long as I see it).

I'm genuinely sorry that you feel frustrated and insulted. Hope you have a good rest of your day.