[deleted]
The guy who ordered the body scanners now works for the company that makes them
21–30 of 46 posts
Re: The guy who ordered the body scanners now works for the company that makes them
#22The issue is one of privacy. These corruption accusations detract from the heart of the matter. Would it be a "win" if the scanners were all removed because of corruption? No, the point is the acknowledgement of the rights of the individual to a certain level of privacy. By the way, it's not weird for a man to switch to a company he's dealt with personally and whose products he presumably respects.
> By the way, it's not weird for a man to switch to company he's dealt with personally and whose products he presumably respects. I think its troubling that you don't see anything wrong with this.
The reverse would be troubling, but this direction is extremely common.
Re: The guy who ordered the body scanners now works for the company that makes them
#23The issue is one of privacy. These corruption accusations detract from the heart of the matter. Would it be a "win" if the scanners were all removed because of corruption? No, the point is the acknowledgement of the rights of the individual to a certain level of privacy. By the way, it's not weird for a man to switch to a company he's dealt with personally and whose products he presumably respects.
A friend and I were just talking about a "Career Pattern" in which an executive who brought in a 3rd party (often a startup) winds up working for them after leaving his BigCo. It's all too common.
Oh, you mean like this: http://current.com/news/92009377_obama-appoints-monsanto-man...
Re: The guy who ordered the body scanners now works for the company that makes them
#24This "article" is just a nasty, shrill, highly political and vitrolic commentary. Can't we find more thoughtful content for HN? Yes I think it's significant that Chertoff's new company works for the body scanner folks, but this has already been dealt with on HN with links to much saner content.
Re: The guy who ordered the body scanners now works for the company that makes them
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
> By the way, it's not weird for a man to switch to company he's dealt with personally and whose products he presumably respects. I think its troubling that you don't see anything wrong with this.
The reverse would be troubling, but this direction is extremely common.
common is uncorrelated with troubling.
Re: The guy who ordered the body scanners now works for the company that makes them
#26Why are people randomly picked to go through the scanner? Wouldn't something more comprehensive be a lot more effective?
Re: The guy who ordered the body scanners now works for the company that makes them
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be a huge win if the scanners were removed because of corruption. It would be an even bigger win if people went to jail because of it, but I'm not holding my breath. "The heart of the matter" is restoring our rights at the airport. Exposing the corruption that's part of the surveillance-industrial complex can play a big role in this. Privacy, effectivness, civil liberties, impact on business, and kids rights…
How short-sighted. If they were removed because someone wrote a bad check would that be acceptable to you as well. The devices are an invasion of privacy and that should be confronted head-on, otherwise, there will just be the next invasive device to deal with.
Short-sighted is not understanding that the example in this article is just a symptom of a much bigger problem, possibly the single greatest problem facing the US at this time, and needs to be opposed not only everywhere it occurs, but also at the root. Lawrence Lessig, the expert, can explain it more detail:
Re: The guy who ordered the body scanners now works for the company that makes them
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is that our privacy is being violated not just for vague promises of 'national security' but for his personal gain.
The debate should be about the ethics of privacy and HOW it is being violated, not WHY. Suppose it was proven to help national security, suppose it was scientifically proven safe, would its use be palatable? There is a question over what privacy needs to be protected. If this issue gets too into WHY these devices were purchased, we may lose the next privacy debate.
>The debate should be about the ethics of privacy and HOW it is being violated, not WHY.
It should clearly be about both. Both are huge, existential problems.
Re: The guy who ordered the body scanners now works for the company that makes them
#29This is one of the first times I've ever flagged an article. This is definitely NOT hacker news: Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I do sympathise but
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups.
There is no doubt that people find this relevant and interesting. It'll pass.
Re: The guy who ordered the body scanners now works for the company that makes them
#30The issue is one of privacy. These corruption accusations detract from the heart of the matter. Would it be a "win" if the scanners were all removed because of corruption? No, the point is the acknowledgement of the rights of the individual to a certain level of privacy. By the way, it's not weird for a man to switch to a company he's dealt with personally and whose products he presumably respects.
How quaint.
You're curiously naive, or willfully ignorant, of how the USA's system of political patronage works.
Since when is right and wrong a factor in decision making?
As for revolving door promotions (e.g. civil server to lobbying and back again), you seem blissfully unaware, or myopic, of the notion "conflict of interest".
Before I let you go, tell me: What flavor of candy covered unicorns inhabit your fantasy world?
Please. Continue.