Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter discloses national security letters

blog.twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 160 posts

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#121

Post by apatters »

oneubauer wrote: post #116
Domenic_S wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Howcome?

I think it's unfair to expect that. Anyone who risks their own wellbeing for the greater good is usually applauded, for good reason: it is not expected. Edit: if you'll pardon the expression, it takes serious balls to put your entire way of life on the line. Yes, history sometimes venerates the brave...sometimes posthumously....so it all might seem glamorous. But it's a lot harder than that in real time, when you don…

That's why disclosure needs to start at the top and come from someone big enough to survive the fallout. If (for example) Zuckerberg genuinely wanted to do good and grew a pair, he'd do it. He's too busy exploiting your data to get rich and virtue signaling via acquisitions though.

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#123

Post by morgante »

apatters wrote: post #121
oneubauer wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's unfair to expect that. Anyone who risks their own wellbeing for the greater good is usually applauded, for good reason: it is not expected. Edit: if you'll pardon the expression, it takes serious balls to put your entire way of life on the line. Yes, history sometimes venerates the brave...sometimes posthumously....so it all might seem glamorous. But it's a lot harder than that in real time, when you don…

That's why disclosure needs to start at the top and come from someone big enough to survive the fallout. If (for example) Zuckerberg genuinely wanted to do good and grew a pair, he'd do it. He's too busy exploiting your data to get rich and virtue signaling via acquisitions though.

Do you think the government wouldn't throw Zuckerberg in jail?

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#124

Post by kodablah »

dgrealy wrote: post #45
smoothgrammer wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know, right? Who could possibly judge one way or the other?

Do you think it might be a judge? Upon a completed investigation? One which is effective and protects the identities of the investigated prior to any criminal prosecution? Do you think there should maybe be an oversight board and a congressional committee? Because these things exist. Do you propose something different? These are the functions which these authorities serve in society.

Why all of these rhetorical questions? There have been hundreds of thousands of these, with only a handful released upon completed investigation. I think a transparent judge, a transparent oversight board, a transparent congressional committee, etc is what is proposed. This is how we know these functions are even being served by authorities in society. Or not being served, such as up until recently where the gag was interminable making your "upon a completed investigation" comment misinformed at the least and your blind faith misplaced.

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#125

Post by apatters »

morgante wrote: post #123
apatters wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why disclosure needs to start at the top and come from someone big enough to survive the fallout. If (for example) Zuckerberg genuinely wanted to do good and grew a pair, he'd do it. He's too busy exploiting your data to get rich and virtue signaling via acquisitions though.

Do you think the government wouldn't throw Zuckerberg in jail?

They might, but he'd have better odds than your average Joe (and certainly a better legal team).

"With great power comes great responsibility" isn't just a line from a movie. Of course we can choose not to hold our leaders to high expectations, but that leads to a markedly worse world for the rest of us.

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#126

Post by MichaelBurge »

vkou wrote: post #117
MichaelBurge wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Twitter outright stated "We did not shadowban Scott Adams or otherwise place any restrictions on him, and do not intend to do so in the future", that would be sufficient for me. Usually corporations and people don't outright lie.

Do they also need to assure you that their board of directors is not composed of reptilians? Do they need to respond to every accusation and conspiracy theory, or just the ones without supporting evidence?

It seems like they'd owe it to their investors to at least comment on the ones that make it into news articles, and appear to be worrying a small percentage of their userbase.

Keep in mind, they have a Privacy Policy, a Terms of Service, and dozens of pages on their support site that cover all sorts of issues in great detail. Surely it's at least worth a sentence in their ToS and a tweet from a middle-manager, even if the accusations are completely bogus?

Personally, I put the probability at around 30%, so I think it's more likely to be false than true.

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#127

Post by ensiferum »

And Americans think that they have freedom.

In general for anyone conscious about freedom of speech and press it should alarming how certain agencies breach people's data and then put gag orders in place. This isn't freedom, this is tyranny.

The citizens of North-Korea probably have more freedom that then the citizens of USA.

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#128

Post by benevol »

oneubauer wrote: post #116
Domenic_S wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Howcome?

I think it's unfair to expect that. Anyone who risks their own wellbeing for the greater good is usually applauded, for good reason: it is not expected. Edit: if you'll pardon the expression, it takes serious balls to put your entire way of life on the line. Yes, history sometimes venerates the brave...sometimes posthumously....so it all might seem glamorous. But it's a lot harder than that in real time, when you don…

> Anyone who risks their own wellbeing for the greater good is usually applauded, for good reason: it is not expected.

Except for Snowden. America gave him the middle finger.

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#129

Post by argonaut »

apatters wrote: post #121
oneubauer wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's unfair to expect that. Anyone who risks their own wellbeing for the greater good is usually applauded, for good reason: it is not expected. Edit: if you'll pardon the expression, it takes serious balls to put your entire way of life on the line. Yes, history sometimes venerates the brave...sometimes posthumously....so it all might seem glamorous. But it's a lot harder than that in real time, when you don…

That's why disclosure needs to start at the top and come from someone big enough to survive the fallout. If (for example) Zuckerberg genuinely wanted to do good and grew a pair, he'd do it. He's too busy exploiting your data to get rich and virtue signaling via acquisitions though.

> virtue signaling via acquisitions though.

This makes no sense.

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#130

Post by brokenmachine »

benevol wrote: post #128
oneubauer wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's unfair to expect that. Anyone who risks their own wellbeing for the greater good is usually applauded, for good reason: it is not expected. Edit: if you'll pardon the expression, it takes serious balls to put your entire way of life on the line. Yes, history sometimes venerates the brave...sometimes posthumously....so it all might seem glamorous. But it's a lot harder than that in real time, when you don…

> Anyone who risks their own wellbeing for the greater good is usually applauded, for good reason: it is not expected. Except for Snowden. America gave him the middle finger.

He's applauded by many.
Post reply on HN