Growing up in the UK and living in the US has given me the odd distinction of being strongly against online surveillance of private space, and strongly in favor of regulated visual surveillance of public space.
CCTV surveillance can protect the people I care about (especially women at night) from horrible violent crimes I'm actually scared of. It's surveillance of public space, so the privacy compromise seems kind of moot (though uses of the footage should be strongly regulated). It makes policing violent and petty crime extremely cheap and effective (ask anyone who's ever won or lost a fight outside a pub). CCTV makes me feel safe. It has utility.
On the Internet by contrast, the privacy trade-off (my thoughts, political opinions, contacts, location, in real-time) is extremely large, and the benefits largely hypothetical, and at least some part smoke and mirrors.
I find it extremely creepy to visit the UK because of all the cameras, sometimes actively pointed at me. It is one thing to not expect privacy in the public space, in the sense that others can see you. It is another to be actively targeted by a gigantic network of cameras connected to who knows what -- in an age where automatic face recognition is becoming trivial.
I would like to ask people who make the "you have no expectation of privacy in the public space" claim if they wouldn't mind if I hired a guy to follow them everywhere they go and then report to me.
In the end, I am aware that this is a losing battle, and that people who feel as strongly as me about not being constantly under surveillance will have to move out of big cities. Big cities are becoming highly controlled environment, where one doesn't feel like a sovereign human being anymore. In a sense they are an externalisation of corporate culture.
Probably mainly smoke and mirrors. I've lost count of the number of UK stories where some terrorist or criminal was known to authorities, or already on a watch list. They never manage to catch or prevent despite all these huge surveillance programmes. Then the news almost inevitably follows up that they've found out there were public exchanges of messages on Twitter 2 days before the incident or some such.
It would be comical were it not for people dying.
My take is it's utterly irrelevant. The chance, even with Daish and current events, of dying in a terrorist attack are less than by falling off a ladder. Something like 20 times less. It's firmly down there with the silly and odd causes of death. I see no war on ladders.
> CCTV surveillance can protect the people I care about (especially women at night) from horrible violent crimes I'm actually scared of.
One of the biggest problems with public surveillance isn't what you do in public, it's where you go. You don't have to see what's going on behind closed doors to get the picture when you see someone go into an oncologist's or psychiatrist's office, or an abortion clinic, or an AA meeting, or political party meeting etc. etc.
(Also FWIW males are the victims of violent crime significantly more often than females are.)
> strongly against online surveillance of private space, and strongly in favor of regulated visual surveillance of public space.
I share this view, largely because visual surveillance of public space is probably a technological inevitability, but under the condition that anyone is allowed to surveil public spaces and that the resulting data from government surveillance is made open source.
This is selective enforcement, not equality under the law.
I understand the load police tend to be under, but I really wish they would have some lottery enforcement style that grabbed one random instance of "common" crime like this at a time, and went whole-hog with it. They do it for speeding, so they can make a bit of money with fines, and have the hope of finding connected crimes; what's different about theft like this that they can't do the same?
But back to the all-seeing eyes, I'd far, FAR rather have surveillance footage in the hands of individually distributed private entities, than centralized and auto-analyzing anybody for behavioral pre-crime indicators. If your local McDonald's truly is just its own independent operator storing the footage, then IMO it can still be generally considered "lost in the crowd".
It's only when automatically aggregated and its contents cataloged that stuff like this truly becomes dangerous.
I had my car stolen a while ago in San Diego county. I was very low on fuel so I knew whoever did it would have had to fill up soon after the theft.
Fast forward two weeks and my car was found. When I got it back, a credit card receipt for fuel at a nearby gas station was sitting in a tray in the center console. The date and time were the same night as the theft, after I had parked for the night. I first rang the station to explain and they confirmed they had CCTV and would hold it for the police, then I rang the detective assigned to handle vehicle thefts locally. He seemed interested and said he'd send a uniformed police officer over to follow up.
While waiting, I checked the trunk and found some trash neatly tied up in plastic bags with more receipts. The officer showed up and could not have been more openly hostile and bored with the whole thing. Big sighs, complaining that he was wasting his time while he dusted for fingerprints and collected the receipts. I waited a few more days and rang the gas station to see if the police had followed up - nope.
Years later I was on a jury for a car thief and I was really impressed by the professionalism of the police in tracking down the thief, and the extra efforts they made. They were all over the CCTV footage and tracking the usage of a particular store's membership card that the victim had left in the car. Same county, different police department though.
I guess the point is that the tools are there for law enforcement when they need them. But there is still no technical solution for when someone is a lazy fuck and can't be bothered to do their job.
It's really the automatic aggregation and query-able database that is an issue, not the data itself. Like, it doesn't really matter if I'm seen walking into an adult store. It does matter if someone can look up the names, addresses, and employers of everyone who walked into an adult store. Or if someone could make a list of everywhere I've been photographed going in the last year and construct narratives based off of that.
Getting that sort of information about people and places needs to be expensive in order to protect people from casual violation of their privacy.
Would you consider the idea that if someone has murdered, they are more likely to murder again (compared to those who never have) an example of "pre-crime"?
I'm led to believe that all that surveillance isn't for thief-catching. Surveillance is valuable, otherwise so many cameras wouldn't watch streets all over. I counted 15 cameras between my bus stop and my office 3 blocks away last winter.
So what's the surveillance for? Probably preventing property damage, maybe keep hobos from whizzing in doorways and such. But please, let's stop pretending that the surveillance is for the benefit of those surveilled. It leads to pitiful narratives like this article.
To prove to insurance you had something stolen as well as to give you "warm and fuzzies". (On surveillance being there to protect property, note the comment in this thread about a surveilled garage being burgled [1].)
The difficulty of enforcing the law is actually a useful part of our overall system because it provides a check-and-balance against the overeager enforcement of bad laws. Imagine a world where ubiquitous automated cameras sent you a ticket every time you jaywalked, or if your car automatically reported you every time you exceeded the speed limit. Yes, it becomes annoying when criminals get away with things they really should not be able to get away with (like the theft in this article) but even in situations like that there are grey areas, like stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family (not the case here, but it does happen). That the law does not get enforced with 100% efficiency can be a feature as long as you don't go too far towards the other extreme.
Imagine a world where ubiquitous automated cameras sent you a ticket every time you jaywalked, or if your car automatically reported you every time you exceeded the speed limit.
I'm probably being naive, but I think having rules that are universally enforced would be much better than our current approach of selective enforcement. I'd expect that as soon as those with power to change the law are negatively affected by poorly written laws, those laws would soon be changed.
Should jaywalking itself always be illegal? No, it should depend on whether there is an actual danger and the degree to which it impedes traffic. A more sane law would differentiate between calmly crossing at midnight on an empty street and causing an accident by darting into busy traffic.
Should it be illegal to exceed the posted speed limit? I think so, otherwise why not just have "advisory speeds"? Rather than making it illegal to exceed a speed that drivers are expected to exceed and then enforcing selectively, a firmly enforced limit seems much saner. If the goal is fuel efficiency, then legislate that directly. If the goal is safety, then "reasonable and prudent" seems sufficient.
like stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family
I think this is better dealt with at the penalty phase than by selective prosecution. I feel the owner of the lost loaf of bread should have the right to prosecute or not prosecute entirely at their discretion, but once the police are involved I think they should be required enforce the law and leave the discretion to the judge. It it would seem terribly unfair to the property owner for the police on the scene to summarily decide that the theft was justified and the shop owner must absorb the loss.
A law should either be enforced close to 100% of the time (with exceptions at the discretion of a court), or 0% of the time (ie. the law should not exist).
If jay walking, pot smoking, or anti-sodemy laws are not really enforced, to me that's a sign that they should be taken off the books. In an over-legislated society, we should focus on having strong core legislations that everyone agrees with.
Crimes like murder and rape, on the other hand, should be enforced as close to 100% of the time as possible.
True, as things currently stand, but this is a misfeature of the system rather than an advantage. The combination of unreasonable nuisance laws with the lack of enforcement means the nuisance caused by the laws is largely mitigated, but it still leaves them open to abuse through selective enforcement.
If "laws that everybody breaks" were ubiquitously enforced then their true detriment would be brought to light and they'd have to be properly fixed.
If they always caught people speeding, they could lower the fine so it became more like a tax. The penalties for some crimes could be lowered as well if perpetrators were usually caught.
An Uber driver told me about the time he picked up a credit-card thief. The guy just asked to be driven around (in his SUV) from one side of New York to the other. As the fare ended, he'd hail the driver with a new credit card and start a new one. At one point, he stopped at a house and walked out with a new stack of cards.
The driver [EDIT: said he] was prohibited, by law, from kicking the passenger out mid-trip. Right afterwards, he went to the police station and tried to report the crime. He was told he was free to report it, but it was a low-priority crime that was unlikely to get investigated.
I had over $5,000 worth of stuff stolen from my garage (also in SF) a few weeks ago. The police were not concerned in the least. I had cameras, documenting the entire thing with clear faces; it doesn't matter.
Unless you're caught red handed or something, you can basically steal whatever you want in SF. It almost makes me want to turn into a thief myself (if I know I can get away with it), except there's that little thing that my parents saddled me with called morality.
I'd feel too bad afterwards, although sometimes I wish I wouldn't. There's something to be said about just taking whatever the hell you want in this life.
It really depends on where you are. In some smaller cities near SF such as Campbell or Los Gatos the police absolutely take residential burglaries seriously. They have closed a number of cases recently based partially on surveillance camera footage.
I'm surprised that SF residents are willing to put up with this crap. Why don't they stand up and demand better service from their city government? Perhaps it's an example of learned helplessness.
Why do you feel that the police were not concerned? And what did you expect them to do?
To be fair, there is not much they can do for individual cases but burglary rings are broken all the time by police. They usually consist of several addicts orchestrated by a stolen-goods broker selling to one or more pawn shops or craigslist.
You images may be used in the future to snatch the perpetrator(s).
> After two visits and three calls to the Mission district station, and three calls and two emails with San Francisco Police Department public affairs (a route not open to most civilians), the police assigned someone to my case. That was well over a month after the theft. Walgreens gave them some video, which has been circulated, but Target had already junked its footage.
OK, it sounds like someone did some substantial work. They got video from one source, and queried another, and then did something with the video.
> Uber, which over its four rides obtained route information and the person’s address, was not contacted.
And yet, the investigator didn't request data from Uber, which apparently learned the suspect's address. I wonder what's up with that? Do they consider it too unreliable? Something akin to hearsay? Or maybe they don't want to violate the suspect's privacy? Very strange.
Perhaps you've seen The Big Lebowski. "Leads? Leads?"
The odds of the SFPD "investigating" a mere wallet theft are even lower than the Malibu PD trying to figure out who stole Jeff Bridges' car.
For one thing, after Prop 47, stealing anything under $950 is a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor is basically a traffic ticket for anyone already involved with the criminal justice system. Misdemeanors basically do not result in any kind of custodial sentence in CA today.
Only a reporter could get them to care at all. ("Journalist privilege" is real.) Even then, they can only care so much.
I once had a bank card fall out of my pocket at a movie theater. My mistake, should've put it in the wallet but was in a hurrry.
Most likely someone on the cleaning crew stole it. Same pattern, tiny fast food purchases followed by lots of several hundred dollar purchases. My bank (Huntington), did not catch it at all. They drained the entire checking account.
They mostly went to Meijer, three times spending over $300 each time, all on the same night. And every time, they paid with credit and no cashier there asked for ID. (Yeah, I didn't have a lot of money back then, this was around 2008? or so, I believe.)
Filed a police report, went to the bank. Took about two weeks to get the money back, barely made rent that month as a result. A detective called me one time, asked me to call him back. I called him back probably five times leaving messages for him, he was never there, and he never called me again. I never heard anything more on it.
They can easily catch these guys if they want to, they just apparently don't give a shit, as there's nothing really in it for them. Better to go after revenue-generating pursuits like civil forfeiture, I guess. Maybe they just have too many cases, but by not resolving them, all that does is embolden thieves to keep doing this shit because they know they'll get away with it.
Moral of the story: keep separate checking and savings accounts, don't ever carry around cards that can ring up more than you're comfortable losing. Nowadays I keep less than $1,000 in my checking account (which isn't as much for me anymore), the rest in savings. If I want to make a big purchase, I'll bring my credit card along with me that one time only. I wanted to do a debit-only card to require a PIN#, but those are far too restrictive. Way too many places are credit only (fast food, restaurants, parking lot ticket machines, etc.)
Also, wallet chains. They look tacky as hell, but they've saved me more than once. If you wear khakis, they're essential.
We are not many years away from facial recognition cameras tracking everyone in public spaces in real time with updates to a centralized database system.
Anyone hiding their face, or not being recognized by the system would be flagged for investigation by on-the-ground units.
At this point, almost all non white-collar crime would be prevented, or the culprits quickly caught - which leads to prevention.
>At this point, almost all non white-collar crime would be prevented, or the culprits quickly caught - which leads to prevention.
As others have stated, it depends entirely on how seriously the police takes these crimes. If the police actually get the footage and investigate, sure, crime can be stopped. But, at this point, the limiting factor isn't collecting the footage. It's getting police resources to find the crime, and publicize the various film and video footage.
I assume everyone understands a large portion of mass survellience boomed under Bush after 9/11 starting with FISA [0] and continuing under Bush......and will continue to grow under every future president considering there is very little push against it except a minority of people who value their privacy (my opinion), blaming either side is a bit silly.
I am a millenial and I consistently observe many of my peers who do not work in IT having the attitude "I have nothing to hide they can collect whatever they want on me" an attitude spawning from Zuckerberg pointing out people will not care about their privacy in the future[1]...turns out he is mostly right
Nowhere in the article is it even implied that "mass surveillance wasn't such a good idea". The author mostly seems bemused that despite a large number of video (and other data) recording systems being available, no one in the local police department was interested in seriously pursuing the case.
[+] [-] confounded|9 years ago|reply
CCTV surveillance can protect the people I care about (especially women at night) from horrible violent crimes I'm actually scared of. It's surveillance of public space, so the privacy compromise seems kind of moot (though uses of the footage should be strongly regulated). It makes policing violent and petty crime extremely cheap and effective (ask anyone who's ever won or lost a fight outside a pub). CCTV makes me feel safe. It has utility.
On the Internet by contrast, the privacy trade-off (my thoughts, political opinions, contacts, location, in real-time) is extremely large, and the benefits largely hypothetical, and at least some part smoke and mirrors.
[+] [-] dumb-saint|9 years ago|reply
I would like to ask people who make the "you have no expectation of privacy in the public space" claim if they wouldn't mind if I hired a guy to follow them everywhere they go and then report to me.
In the end, I am aware that this is a losing battle, and that people who feel as strongly as me about not being constantly under surveillance will have to move out of big cities. Big cities are becoming highly controlled environment, where one doesn't feel like a sovereign human being anymore. In a sense they are an externalisation of corporate culture.
[+] [-] anexprogrammer|9 years ago|reply
It would be comical were it not for people dying.
My take is it's utterly irrelevant. The chance, even with Daish and current events, of dying in a terrorist attack are less than by falling off a ladder. Something like 20 times less. It's firmly down there with the silly and odd causes of death. I see no war on ladders.
[+] [-] AnthonyMouse|9 years ago|reply
One of the biggest problems with public surveillance isn't what you do in public, it's where you go. You don't have to see what's going on behind closed doors to get the picture when you see someone go into an oncologist's or psychiatrist's office, or an abortion clinic, or an AA meeting, or political party meeting etc. etc.
(Also FWIW males are the victims of violent crime significantly more often than females are.)
[+] [-] 3131s|9 years ago|reply
I share this view, largely because visual surveillance of public space is probably a technological inevitability, but under the condition that anyone is allowed to surveil public spaces and that the resulting data from government surveillance is made open source.
[+] [-] billyjobob|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tn13|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] morgante|9 years ago|reply
If I'm in public, I by definition should not expect privacy.
[+] [-] h4nkoslo|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] white-flame|9 years ago|reply
I understand the load police tend to be under, but I really wish they would have some lottery enforcement style that grabbed one random instance of "common" crime like this at a time, and went whole-hog with it. They do it for speeding, so they can make a bit of money with fines, and have the hope of finding connected crimes; what's different about theft like this that they can't do the same?
But back to the all-seeing eyes, I'd far, FAR rather have surveillance footage in the hands of individually distributed private entities, than centralized and auto-analyzing anybody for behavioral pre-crime indicators. If your local McDonald's truly is just its own independent operator storing the footage, then IMO it can still be generally considered "lost in the crowd".
It's only when automatically aggregated and its contents cataloged that stuff like this truly becomes dangerous.
[+] [-] tombrossman|9 years ago|reply
Fast forward two weeks and my car was found. When I got it back, a credit card receipt for fuel at a nearby gas station was sitting in a tray in the center console. The date and time were the same night as the theft, after I had parked for the night. I first rang the station to explain and they confirmed they had CCTV and would hold it for the police, then I rang the detective assigned to handle vehicle thefts locally. He seemed interested and said he'd send a uniformed police officer over to follow up.
While waiting, I checked the trunk and found some trash neatly tied up in plastic bags with more receipts. The officer showed up and could not have been more openly hostile and bored with the whole thing. Big sighs, complaining that he was wasting his time while he dusted for fingerprints and collected the receipts. I waited a few more days and rang the gas station to see if the police had followed up - nope.
Years later I was on a jury for a car thief and I was really impressed by the professionalism of the police in tracking down the thief, and the extra efforts they made. They were all over the CCTV footage and tracking the usage of a particular store's membership card that the victim had left in the car. Same county, different police department though.
I guess the point is that the tools are there for law enforcement when they need them. But there is still no technical solution for when someone is a lazy fuck and can't be bothered to do their job.
[+] [-] ThrustVectoring|9 years ago|reply
Getting that sort of information about people and places needs to be expensive in order to protect people from casual violation of their privacy.
[+] [-] bcook|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bediger4000|9 years ago|reply
So what's the surveillance for? Probably preventing property damage, maybe keep hobos from whizzing in doorways and such. But please, let's stop pretending that the surveillance is for the benefit of those surveilled. It leads to pitiful narratives like this article.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|9 years ago|reply
To prove to insurance you had something stolen as well as to give you "warm and fuzzies". (On surveillance being there to protect property, note the comment in this thread about a surveilled garage being burgled [1].)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13217539
[+] [-] lisper|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nkurz|9 years ago|reply
I'm probably being naive, but I think having rules that are universally enforced would be much better than our current approach of selective enforcement. I'd expect that as soon as those with power to change the law are negatively affected by poorly written laws, those laws would soon be changed.
Should jaywalking itself always be illegal? No, it should depend on whether there is an actual danger and the degree to which it impedes traffic. A more sane law would differentiate between calmly crossing at midnight on an empty street and causing an accident by darting into busy traffic.
Should it be illegal to exceed the posted speed limit? I think so, otherwise why not just have "advisory speeds"? Rather than making it illegal to exceed a speed that drivers are expected to exceed and then enforcing selectively, a firmly enforced limit seems much saner. If the goal is fuel efficiency, then legislate that directly. If the goal is safety, then "reasonable and prudent" seems sufficient.
like stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family
I think this is better dealt with at the penalty phase than by selective prosecution. I feel the owner of the lost loaf of bread should have the right to prosecute or not prosecute entirely at their discretion, but once the police are involved I think they should be required enforce the law and leave the discretion to the judge. It it would seem terribly unfair to the property owner for the police on the scene to summarily decide that the theft was justified and the shop owner must absorb the loss.
[+] [-] bcherny|9 years ago|reply
A law should either be enforced close to 100% of the time (with exceptions at the discretion of a court), or 0% of the time (ie. the law should not exist).
If jay walking, pot smoking, or anti-sodemy laws are not really enforced, to me that's a sign that they should be taken off the books. In an over-legislated society, we should focus on having strong core legislations that everyone agrees with.
Crimes like murder and rape, on the other hand, should be enforced as close to 100% of the time as possible.
[+] [-] taneq|9 years ago|reply
If "laws that everybody breaks" were ubiquitously enforced then their true detriment would be brought to light and they'd have to be properly fixed.
[+] [-] arikrak|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|9 years ago|reply
The driver [EDIT: said he] was prohibited, by law, from kicking the passenger out mid-trip. Right afterwards, he went to the police station and tried to report the crime. He was told he was free to report it, but it was a low-priority crime that was unlikely to get investigated.
[+] [-] GavinMcG|9 years ago|reply
That would really surprise me. And he certainly could have declined the subsequent hailings.
[+] [-] iamleppert|9 years ago|reply
Unless you're caught red handed or something, you can basically steal whatever you want in SF. It almost makes me want to turn into a thief myself (if I know I can get away with it), except there's that little thing that my parents saddled me with called morality.
I'd feel too bad afterwards, although sometimes I wish I wouldn't. There's something to be said about just taking whatever the hell you want in this life.
[+] [-] nradov|9 years ago|reply
I'm surprised that SF residents are willing to put up with this crap. Why don't they stand up and demand better service from their city government? Perhaps it's an example of learned helplessness.
[+] [-] crispyambulance|9 years ago|reply
To be fair, there is not much they can do for individual cases but burglary rings are broken all the time by police. They usually consist of several addicts orchestrated by a stolen-goods broker selling to one or more pawn shops or craigslist.
You images may be used in the future to snatch the perpetrator(s).
[+] [-] 0xfeba|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mirimir|9 years ago|reply
OK, it sounds like someone did some substantial work. They got video from one source, and queried another, and then did something with the video.
> Uber, which over its four rides obtained route information and the person’s address, was not contacted.
And yet, the investigator didn't request data from Uber, which apparently learned the suspect's address. I wonder what's up with that? Do they consider it too unreliable? Something akin to hearsay? Or maybe they don't want to violate the suspect's privacy? Very strange.
[+] [-] kapitza|9 years ago|reply
The odds of the SFPD "investigating" a mere wallet theft are even lower than the Malibu PD trying to figure out who stole Jeff Bridges' car.
For one thing, after Prop 47, stealing anything under $950 is a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor is basically a traffic ticket for anyone already involved with the criminal justice system. Misdemeanors basically do not result in any kind of custodial sentence in CA today.
Only a reporter could get them to care at all. ("Journalist privilege" is real.) Even then, they can only care so much.
[+] [-] eeZah7Ux|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] byuu|9 years ago|reply
Most likely someone on the cleaning crew stole it. Same pattern, tiny fast food purchases followed by lots of several hundred dollar purchases. My bank (Huntington), did not catch it at all. They drained the entire checking account.
They mostly went to Meijer, three times spending over $300 each time, all on the same night. And every time, they paid with credit and no cashier there asked for ID. (Yeah, I didn't have a lot of money back then, this was around 2008? or so, I believe.)
Filed a police report, went to the bank. Took about two weeks to get the money back, barely made rent that month as a result. A detective called me one time, asked me to call him back. I called him back probably five times leaving messages for him, he was never there, and he never called me again. I never heard anything more on it.
They can easily catch these guys if they want to, they just apparently don't give a shit, as there's nothing really in it for them. Better to go after revenue-generating pursuits like civil forfeiture, I guess. Maybe they just have too many cases, but by not resolving them, all that does is embolden thieves to keep doing this shit because they know they'll get away with it.
Moral of the story: keep separate checking and savings accounts, don't ever carry around cards that can ring up more than you're comfortable losing. Nowadays I keep less than $1,000 in my checking account (which isn't as much for me anymore), the rest in savings. If I want to make a big purchase, I'll bring my credit card along with me that one time only. I wanted to do a debit-only card to require a PIN#, but those are far too restrictive. Way too many places are credit only (fast food, restaurants, parking lot ticket machines, etc.)
Also, wallet chains. They look tacky as hell, but they've saved me more than once. If you wear khakis, they're essential.
[+] [-] SeanDav|9 years ago|reply
Anyone hiding their face, or not being recognized by the system would be flagged for investigation by on-the-ground units.
At this point, almost all non white-collar crime would be prevented, or the culprits quickly caught - which leads to prevention.
[+] [-] quanticle|9 years ago|reply
As others have stated, it depends entirely on how seriously the police takes these crimes. If the police actually get the footage and investigate, sure, crime can be stopped. But, at this point, the limiting factor isn't collecting the footage. It's getting police resources to find the crime, and publicize the various film and video footage.
[+] [-] pasta|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chillingeffect|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kutkloon7|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dsfyu404ed|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dang|9 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13217110 and marked it off-topic.
[+] [-] dmfdmf|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] fosco|9 years ago|reply
I am a millenial and I consistently observe many of my peers who do not work in IT having the attitude "I have nothing to hide they can collect whatever they want on me" an attitude spawning from Zuckerberg pointing out people will not care about their privacy in the future[1]...turns out he is mostly right
[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance...
[1]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/6966628/Faceb...
EDIT: typos...on phone
[+] [-] adambatkin|9 years ago|reply