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

Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 147 posts

Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)

#131

Post by coldtea »

rnentjes wrote: post #98
coldtea wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know if you are right or wrong, but your statement sounds to me almost exactly like the one that I hear from religious zealots about atheists: "No one to answer to, therefore, no morals or ethics". Which is not far from true. Morals one makes for themselves ("personal moral code") are not morals proper. They could just as well include that's its ok to kill kittens for fun (to give a silly example) -- that t…

Actually I would argue that the only "morals proper" are those that one makes for themselves. Externally enforced behavior is not "morals".

>Externally enforced behavior is not "morals".

That's a new definition then, because for millennia morals were derived from exactly those "externally enforced behaviours": from religion, society, culture, etc.

The personal codes someones makes on their own can be anything and everything ("shit on everybody to get rich" is a perfectly valid code that millions use). Nobody would call that "moral" though -- because precisely morals are those beyond the individual whims (though whether an individual follows them its their choice).

Personal principles someone follows are only fit to be called morals if they follow an extended, external, moral code. Which might change over time, and be culture-specific, but it's not "whatever I say".

Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)

#133

Post by Sunset »

AimHere wrote: post #61
Sunset wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we ever come to live in such a dystopian society I'm going to use our new found peeping power to mark political enemies and remove them all in a night of the long knives stile ordeal then overthrow the government and burn everything to the ground.

But the panopticon also stares right back at you. Your political enemies can also use it to google you up, find what you're up to, and night-of-the-long-knives you first. You've already blown it by writing this post, so it's on Your Permanent Record For All To See. Once the panopticon's switched on, YOUR first priority, Sunset, is to make sure you don't have any enemies who care enough to check out your posting histo…

>See how this works?

Not quite. My opinions aren't a secret IRL. I am surrounded by like minded individuals and am not afraid to voice my ideas freely.

There is a serious difference in the way I approach weapons training/survival and the way my ideological opponents do. So I am not that concerned.

But this is not the point. The point is, people will rebel if you put them into a corner.

Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)

#135

Post by JadeNB »

wayn3 wrote: post #108
TeMPOraL wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Terrorist code of conduct. "Thou shall not claim casualties you didn't cause." That's because if you are ever disproved, you lose credibility for future claims. That's orthogonal to the merit of using such "mundane-looking" tactics and then rightfully claiming involvement.

youd think that its incredibly easy for a terrorist to regain lost credibility. duh? remember what happened last time nobody took them seriously? a generation of conspiracy nutters was born.

> remember what happened last time nobody took them seriously? a generation of conspiracy nutters was born.

I think that it's my fault, but I honestly don't know what you're referring to. 9/11? The Kennedy assassinations? In any case, how does not taking terrorists seriously create conspiracy theorists?

Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)

#136

Post by beagle3 »

pfisch wrote: post #81
beagle3 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no horse in this race, but you are not more logical than your brother. First of all, "conspiracy theory" is often taken to mean one of the tinfoil variety ("government and gay aliens experiment with mind control beams" style, or "immortality treatment hidden by pharma for the last 100 years in attempt to increase profits and for eugenic purposes"). But a "conspiracy" simply means an act of collusion done secre…

A conspiracy theory typically involves a pretty large group of people doing something big to deceive a massive group of people. Like a faked moon landing, a large false flag operation like 9/11, or a hillary clinton/democratic party death squad murdering leakers. Has anything like this ever happened in all of history? The whole snowden thing is the best example I can think of but I don't remember actually being surpr…

> A conspiracy theory typically involves a pretty large group of people doing something big to deceive a massive group of people.

> ... death squad murdering leakers.

Two people are enough to conspire. And to claim (as you did, if I understand correctly) that you need a "large group of people" to hire an assassin to take out one person is irrational, and I believe contradicts a lot of well documented court cases involving organized crime.

> Has anything like this ever happened in all of history? The whole snowden thing is the best example I can think of but I don't remember actually being surprised when that came out.

I wasn't surprised either; but I do remember tens of people I interact with changing, practically overnight, from telling me "you are paranoid, they only listen to bad guys" to "of course, we've always known that". Most people remember always being on the right side of history, even when they demonstrably weren't.

It has happened countless times. The Enigma code breaking story involved tens, perhaps hundreds, deceiving hundreds of millions, for over 30 years; When the secret did get out (officially; no leaks involved), it was a huge surprise.

Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

There are tens of others if you care (I don't have time to list), but ... do you really believe that whatever Snowden informed the world of ONLY started with the things documented in his leaks, and that it ONLY concerned the NSA? That would be the irrational position. (Stated another way: the snowden leak might be unprecedented in depth and breath. But the operations it exposes aren't)

Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)

#137

Post by beagle3 »

sametmax wrote: post #60
beagle3 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being secret means there is no way you need to follow any standards or reviews. So your work ethic must not be very high. I don't know if you are right or wrong, but your statement sounds to me almost exactly like the one that I hear from religious zealots about atheists: "No one to answer to, therefore, no morals or ethics". There is a point of view from which this makes sense: Since there is no standard code, eve…

Except you are mixing individuals with groups. The NSA is not an individual. It's an entity that has no moral, composed of thousand of people with their own agenda, and nothing to check what's going on.

No, I was talking about the individuals working for the NSA, for which my statement is not confused at all.

And I took "they" in the GP post to mean "the people who work for the NSA" although it possibly refers to the NSA itself - in which case, it is also true of any large corporation -- composed of thousands of people with their own agenda, no morals and very little to check what's going on in many respects -- see, e.g. pharma pricing.

Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)

#138

Post by beagle3 »

coldtea wrote: post #131
rnentjes wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I would argue that the only "morals proper" are those that one makes for themselves. Externally enforced behavior is not "morals".

> Externally enforced behavior is not "morals". That's a new definition then, because for millennia morals were derived from exactly those "externally enforced behaviours": from religion, society, culture, etc. The personal codes someones makes on their own can be anything and everything ("shit on everybody to get rich" is a perfectly valid code that millions use). Nobody would call that "moral" though -- because pre…

As far as one can tell, social animals show something equivalent to morals in every experiment we can devise -- and in the vast majority of cases, it is not a learned trait (elephants being the best known counterexample in that their cultural norms and morals are indeed learned).

We can't really experiment with humans, but the few experiments that have cleared ethical committees, it appears that babies as young as 6 months have a sense of equality and justice, see e.g. [0]

[0] http://www.wired.co.uk/article/babies-understand-hero-action...

Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)

#139

Post by marcus_holmes »

mistermann wrote: post #121
appleflaxen wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's certainly what they'd have you believe.

Perhaps, do you have certainty that that isn't the case though? You seem to, but based on what?

Based on the utter certainty that if an American succeeds at anything, they will broadcast it loudly and repeatedly.

*yes, I'm making a joke. Mostly.

Re: Bugger: Maybe spies aren't very good at their jobs (2013)

#140

Post by pfisch »

beagle3 wrote: post #136
pfisch wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A conspiracy theory typically involves a pretty large group of people doing something big to deceive a massive group of people. Like a faked moon landing, a large false flag operation like 9/11, or a hillary clinton/democratic party death squad murdering leakers. Has anything like this ever happened in all of history? The whole snowden thing is the best example I can think of but I don't remember actually being surpr…

> A conspiracy theory typically involves a pretty large group of people doing something big to deceive a massive group of people. > ... death squad murdering leakers. Two people are enough to conspire. And to claim (as you did, if I understand correctly) that you need a "large group of people" to hire an assassin to take out one person is irrational, and I believe contradicts a lot of well documented court cases invo…

> Two people are enough to conspire. And to claim (as you did, if I understand correctly) that you need a "large group of people" to hire an assassin to take out one person is irrational, and I believe contradicts a lot of well documented court cases involving organized crime.

No this coverup would have to include the DC police with his laptop and many others to bury all the other connections that would exist with wikileaks.

Post reply on HN