Do you have a Slack? I'm interested in OIDC and have some questions and interest in the user management component that is mentioned to be in the works.
They have Discord https://discord.gg/PAMQWkr
Show HN: Oathkeeper – Cloud-Native Identity and Access Proxy
71–80 of 89 posts
Re: Show HN: Oathkeeper – Cloud-Native Identity and Access Proxy
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is extremely important to be sensitive to extremism of any kind, condemn extremist practices, beliefs, and views and take a stance against extremist ideologies. We do not share nor endorse extremist views nor "values", nor have anything to do with extremist groups whatsoever. We have not heard about them (Oath Keepers) before. We'll discuss a name change internally & with the community. ps: It also shares the name…
Just to clarify, are you speaking for the team to condemn extremism in general, or the specific belief in upholding the U.S. Constitution within the U.S., or something else? Maybe I should pay attention to the discussion with the community when that occurs, but I'm interested in which "values" you take issue with. Care to share here?
"Upholding the Constitution", among the far right, is dogwhistle for supporting white supremacy or other regressive policies. There's even a fringe political party called the Constitution Party that draws its planks not from the Constitution, the Federalist papers, or other constitutional scholarship -- but the King James Version of the Bible.
Re: Show HN: Oathkeeper – Cloud-Native Identity and Access Proxy
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read the southern poverty law center's summary of why they dislike the oath keepers. The cases they touch upon in very one-sided ways, the Bundy ranch, the Malheur Standoff, the Oregon miners, are all cases well known to me, where the oath keepers acted commendably. I invite you to read about those events in more detail, from other sources.
If you have exculpatory sources, make with the URLs instead of casting pennies from the peanut gallery.
I am hardly the peanut gallery here. An accusation was flung at an honorable organization from out of the blue, and I responded to that accusation. Since this is your first appearance in the thread, I would suggest you are the peanut gallery here.
I will post a motherjones (not exactly conservative friendly site) that, while not complementary, at least highlights that oath keepers is composed of individuals of diverse backgrounds and beliefs, and that they do strive to weed out bad actors when they are identified, just like any other group would do. I found the reporting to be relatively unscathing, considering it's source, and I learned from it myself. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/02/oath-keepers/
Re: Show HN: Oathkeeper – Cloud-Native Identity and Access Proxy
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to clarify, are you speaking for the team to condemn extremism in general, or the specific belief in upholding the U.S. Constitution within the U.S., or something else? Maybe I should pay attention to the discussion with the community when that occurs, but I'm interested in which "values" you take issue with. Care to share here?
"Upholding the Constitution", among the far right, is dogwhistle for supporting white supremacy or other regressive policies. There's even a fringe political party called the Constitution Party that draws its planks not from the Constitution, the Federalist papers, or other constitutional scholarship -- but the King James Version of the Bible.
Upholding the Constitution can be a dogwhistle for various malign ideas. But there are also people who see, for example, the "living Constitution" jurisprudence as not actually upholding the Constitution, but rather just saying what you want and calling it the law. There are people who see executive orders (whether by Bush, Obama, or Trump) as not the way the country is supposed to be governed, and worry about the constitutional legitimacy of those orders. Probably the majority of the people who worry about such things are conservatives; my feel is that the majority (at a minumum) are not concerned about such issues as a cover for white supremacy.
Note well: I take no position on whether Oath Keepers is using "upholding the Constitution" as a cover for white supremacy.
Re: Show HN: Oathkeeper – Cloud-Native Identity and Access Proxy
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a really unfortunate tangent and not worthy of any time or trouble on your end IMHO. At the very most a footnote somewhere in the site to say that this project is not affiliated with any groups or organizations would be more than adequate. Any individuals that try to imply that the naming of a proxy server product within a larger software ecosystem indicate an endorsement of the position of an organization wi…
It's unfortunate but I wouldn't just dismiss it as a tangent. The second result from googling "oathkeeper" is the hate group and it's pretty well known in the US at least. I doubt anyone will think this product endorses the hate group but it could prove to be an unnecessary distraction.
It has already been an unnecessary distraction, so you're right about that.
I hope for a future where ideas are toxic, not sequences of letters.
Re: Show HN: Oathkeeper – Cloud-Native Identity and Access Proxy
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Upholding the Constitution", among the far right, is dogwhistle for supporting white supremacy or other regressive policies. There's even a fringe political party called the Constitution Party that draws its planks not from the Constitution, the Federalist papers, or other constitutional scholarship -- but the King James Version of the Bible.
Upholding the Constitution can be a dogwhistle for various malign ideas. But there are also people who see, for example, the "living Constitution" jurisprudence as not actually upholding the Constitution, but rather just saying what you want and calling it the law. There are people who see executive orders (whether by Bush, Obama, or Trump) as not the way the country is supposed to be governed, and worry about the co…
>But there are also people who see, for example, the "living Constitution" jurisprudence as not actually upholding the Constitution, but rather just saying what you want and calling it the law.
And those people are incorrect. It's incorrect to believe that all modern Constitutional law and Supreme Court decisions are the result of judges and lawmakers simply making up whatever interpretation they like without any basis in, study of, or respect for the Constitution.
The alternative would be to pretend to know in all cases what an eighteenth century philosopher would decide about an issue of law in the context of modern society.
Re: Show HN: Oathkeeper – Cloud-Native Identity and Access Proxy
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Upholding the Constitution can be a dogwhistle for various malign ideas. But there are also people who see, for example, the "living Constitution" jurisprudence as not actually upholding the Constitution, but rather just saying what you want and calling it the law. There are people who see executive orders (whether by Bush, Obama, or Trump) as not the way the country is supposed to be governed, and worry about the co…
>But there are also people who see, for example, the "living Constitution" jurisprudence as not actually upholding the Constitution, but rather just saying what you want and calling it the law. And those people are incorrect. It's incorrect to believe that all modern Constitutional law and Supreme Court decisions are the result of judges and lawmakers simply making up whatever interpretation they like without any bas…
If you'll re-read my post a bit more carefully, you'll see that the word "all" is nowhere in it. Nobody (that I know) believes that " all modern Constitutional law and Supreme Court decisions are the result of judges and lawmakers simply making up whatever interpretation they like without any basis in, study of, or respect for the Constitution." I suppose that bit of hyperbole might serve to make my original statement seem less reasonable; if you did it deliberately, you're putting words in my mouth to try to discredit me, which is pretty scummy.
> The alternative would be to pretend to know in all cases what an eighteenth century philosopher would decide about an issue of law in the context of modern society.
No, the alternative would be to know what they said the rules are.
(Now, I will admit that deciding how the rules they agreed on apply in a specific situation can be very complicated. But I trust "let's look at the rules and see how they apply" more than I trust "interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary"[1]. The former view makes the Constitution the final law; the latter makes policy the master over the Constitution.)
[1] From the Wikipedia article on "Living Constitution". The quote was marked "citation needed". If you don't think it's an accurate statement of how some judges view the Constitution, make your case.
Re: Show HN: Oathkeeper – Cloud-Native Identity and Access Proxy
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
>But there are also people who see, for example, the "living Constitution" jurisprudence as not actually upholding the Constitution, but rather just saying what you want and calling it the law. And those people are incorrect. It's incorrect to believe that all modern Constitutional law and Supreme Court decisions are the result of judges and lawmakers simply making up whatever interpretation they like without any bas…
If you'll re-read my post a bit more carefully, you'll see that the word "all" is nowhere in it. Nobody (that I know) believes that " all modern Constitutional law and Supreme Court decisions are the result of judges and lawmakers simply making up whatever interpretation they like without any basis in, study of, or respect for the Constitution." I suppose that bit of hyperbole might serve to make my original statemen…
>No, the alternative would be to know what they said the rules are.
Problem is, parts of the text are maddeningly vague, and they didn't exactly agree in their politics, so a single, simple, objective and provably correct interpretation of those rules is not always possible.
>If you don't think it's an accurate statement of how some judges view the Constitution, make your case.
I do think that's an accurate statement. I disagree with 'people who see, for example, the "living Constitution" jurisprudence as not actually upholding the Constitution, but rather just saying what you want and calling it the law.'
One can disagree with the doctrine of a 'living Constitution' but there is more nuance and thought put behind the rationale than some conservatives want to admit. Both sides believe, in good faith, that what they're doing is upholding the Constitution.
>The former view makes the Constitution the final law; the latter makes policy the master over the Constitution.)
I prefer to see it as the former making the Founding Fathers the master over the Constitution, the latter making the people the master over it. The Constitution is a legal document, not the word of God, and nothing in the Constitution explicitly requires that it be interpreted according to strict originalist intent, so interpreting it either way is equally valid, and equally a matter of politics.
Re: Show HN: Oathkeeper – Cloud-Native Identity and Access Proxy
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you'll re-read my post a bit more carefully, you'll see that the word "all" is nowhere in it. Nobody (that I know) believes that " all modern Constitutional law and Supreme Court decisions are the result of judges and lawmakers simply making up whatever interpretation they like without any basis in, study of, or respect for the Constitution." I suppose that bit of hyperbole might serve to make my original statemen…
>No, the alternative would be to know what they said the rules are. Problem is, parts of the text are maddeningly vague, and they didn't exactly agree in their politics, so a single, simple, objective and provably correct interpretation of those rules is not always possible. >If you don't think it's an accurate statement of how some judges view the Constitution, make your case. I do think that's an accurate statement…
Well, the former makes the people of the Founding Fathers' generation the master over the Constitution (they ratified it). The latter makes the people of this generation the masters over it.
> Problem is, parts of the text are maddeningly vague, and they didn't exactly agree in their politics, so a single, simple, objective and provably correct interpretation of those rules is not always possible.
True.
>>If you don't think it's an accurate statement of how some judges view the Constitution, make your case.
I do think that's an accurate statement. I disagree with 'people who see, for example, the "living Constitution" jurisprudence as not actually upholding the Constitution, but rather just saying what you want and calling it the law.'
The original statement was "interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary". Deciding that "the original meaning is unacceptable" is exactly "deciding what you want and calling it the law". It's deciding, on the basis of what you think policy should be, what the Constitution should have said.
Let me put it this way: Trump may, before he's done, nominate three Supreme Court justices. Do you want those justices to decide based on what they think is "acceptable as a policy matter"? Or do you want them to be bound by what the text says?
> One can disagree with the doctrine of a 'living Constitution' but there is more nuance and thought put behind the rationale than some conservatives want to admit.
I will admit that - for at least some of those who hold that position. Others... their behavior seems to indicate that they want to rule over the Constitution, not to faithfully interpret it.
> so interpreting it either way is equally valid
Is it? We don't accept that reasoning with contracts, why should we with the Constitution?
(That is, if you have a contract, and you try to interpret the terms in ways that are outside the bounds of the words of the contract, a court isn't going to care how much you see the contract as a living document. They also aren't going to care how much you care about original intent. They're going to care about the words on the paper. I've seen it happen in court, with one side arguing creative meaning plus intent, and the other destroying them with the actual words.)
Nice discussion. I'll leave you the last word; I'm out for the next two days.
Re: Show HN: Oathkeeper – Cloud-Native Identity and Access Proxy
#80The idea of the ory ecosystem ( https://github.com/ory / https://www.ory.am ) is to build a reliable, cloud native suite of tools which allow you to solve simple and complex IAM (identity and access management) use cases. Each service works standalone, but you can obviously combine them all. The Oathkeeper proxy is one piece of the puzzle which basically takes incoming HTTP requests, evaluates them on a set of rules…
Where is the ORY Security Console hidden? I can't see it on GitHub and all links lead to a running instance of it? Is this how you're hoping to monetise all your hard work? I don't begrudge that at all :-) It's just a little unclear? If there's going to be a security console, I wouldn't want it hosted by anyone else. Especially if I'm the type of person to deploy all the other components I'll undoubtedly want to depl…
Thanks for bringing this up, I would not have looked for it.