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

Anonymous Cancels Operation Cartel as Los Zetas Track Hacktivists

idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 162 posts

Re: Anonymous Cancels Operation Cartel as Los Zetas Track Hacktivists

#101

Post by r0s »

dylangs1030 wrote: post #88
r0s wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bullshit. As if criminals simply avoid other vice because it's less profitable, totally false. Dangerously false. There are not open markets just floating around waiting for criminals to suddenly discover them.

I disagree. I believe there are plenty of avenues of criminal activity. Trouble is, most criminals aren't visionaries, and why would they have an incentive to fond other profitable crimes of they can practically earn money doing what they do now?

By that logic they will all suddenly take up investment banking.

Re: Anonymous Cancels Operation Cartel as Los Zetas Track Hacktivists

#102

Post by Fliko »

robotresearcher wrote: post #71
dylangs1030 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not obviously false either - it's at least arguably true. When I said fiscally lucrative, I was admitting there may be a certain profit to legalizing these substances. However, it's socially irresponsible. I don't think a society will function as well with a government making clearly adverse narcotics freely available because people want them.

"clearly adverse narcotics" How are they clearly adverse? Why was it not clear before the middle of the 20th century? Why is it not clear in other countries? Why was alcohol "clearly adverse" in the early 20th century in the US? What's the evidence that making drugs illegal has net benefits to society? It is very, very expensive and unhealthy to lock up so many young people for drug offenses. Illegal drugs do a lot o…

Can't imagine ever comparing heroin to obesity or cigarettes

Re: Anonymous Cancels Operation Cartel as Los Zetas Track Hacktivists

#103

Post by cpeterso »

hugh3 wrote: post #27
cpeterso wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we know this op was announced by the "real" Anonymous? How long until the CIA is posing as Anonymous to incite rebellion in other countries (and/or make Anonymous look bad)?

Since when is there a "real" Anonymous? Heck, I went to an anti-scientology protest one time, surely that gives me as much of a right as anybody to claim to be Anonymous.

That's why I used scare quotes around "real".

Re: Anonymous Cancels Operation Cartel as Los Zetas Track Hacktivists

#104

Post by cpeterso »

sliverstorm wrote: post #50
hugh3 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when is there a "real" Anonymous? Heck, I went to an anti-scientology protest one time, surely that gives me as much of a right as anybody to claim to be Anonymous.

It's heavy with irony, but it is suspected there are a few masterminds with the "keys to the kingdom" of Anonymous- for example, the twitter feed- and anything not publicly endorsed by those sacred sources is not considered to be "the true Anonymous". Again, yes, I see the irony in that.

Well, those masterminds would be anonymous.. :)

Re: Anonymous Cancels Operation Cartel as Los Zetas Track Hacktivists

#105

Post by robotresearcher »

dylangs1030 wrote: post #87
robotresearcher wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"clearly adverse narcotics" How are they clearly adverse? Why was it not clear before the middle of the 20th century? Why is it not clear in other countries? Why was alcohol "clearly adverse" in the early 20th century in the US? What's the evidence that making drugs illegal has net benefits to society? It is very, very expensive and unhealthy to lock up so many young people for drug offenses. Illegal drugs do a lot o…

Legalizing something harmful because there are other harmful things that are ALSO legal isn't sensible. It just means more things should be illegal. And they are adverse because they are unhealthy for consumption. That a prison is unhealthy says more about the American prison system than the comparative health of narcotics. There are a lot of responses I can't cover individually, so here is a thought experiment to ex…

"they are adverse because they are unhealthy for consumption"

Like rocks, thumbtacks, shampoo, too much aspirin, bacon-double-cheeseburgers and daytime TV. We do not ban everything that's unhealthy. The question is whether, on balance, the benefits of prohibition are greater than the costs. I think we agree on that, though we might disagree when we estimate the balance when it comes to narcotics. Unfortunately, statistics for both sides are limited. This scarcity of data makes the Portugese experience really valuable.

We can know the cost of imprisoning all these people though. The US has the highest imprisonment rate in the world: 738 per 100,000. The UK, which has similar societal attitudes to drugs, though very different judicial policies, has 148 per 100,000, which is still above the median globally. US taxpayers are spending too much money on food, lodging and security for drug offenders.

Imprisonment data:

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/downloads/worl...

edit: in case you think the cultural differences with the UK make the comparison poor, Canada has 107 prisoners per 100,000 population. That's one seventh the rate of their neighbor.

Re: Anonymous Cancels Operation Cartel as Los Zetas Track Hacktivists

#106

Post by robotresearcher »

Fliko wrote: post #102
robotresearcher wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"clearly adverse narcotics" How are they clearly adverse? Why was it not clear before the middle of the 20th century? Why is it not clear in other countries? Why was alcohol "clearly adverse" in the early 20th century in the US? What's the evidence that making drugs illegal has net benefits to society? It is very, very expensive and unhealthy to lock up so many young people for drug offenses. Illegal drugs do a lot o…

Can't imagine ever comparing heroin to obesity or cigarettes

Which of these kills the most people and costs the most money to deal with?

Re: Anonymous Cancels Operation Cartel as Los Zetas Track Hacktivists

#107

Post by davekinkead »

sliverstorm wrote: post #44
gyardley wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decent evidence often isn't. Remember those 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq? 4,482 dead American soldiers and counting. I'm not saying these gangs aren't full of horrible people, and I'm not saying all branches of the US government and military aren't perfectly good intentioned and well-meaning people, but mistakes do get made - which is why we need some judicial oversight here. We've already got one war on an…

Well, on the other hand what are the costs of doing nothing in Mexico? What price do the Mexican people pay? This situation is a little different than the twin towers.

Wouldn't it be safer & a hell of a lot cheaper if drugs were regulated according to their harm? Grass is no worse than alcohol or tobacco, while cocaine doesn't cause any more social issues than those.

The cartels only exist because the illegality of those drugs creates massive profit margins. Remove that and many of the problems are solved.

Re: Anonymous Cancels Operation Cartel as Los Zetas Track Hacktivists

#108

Post by robotresearcher »

sliverstorm wrote: post #79
robotresearcher wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of these things is as profitable as drugs. Tens of dollars per gram, of stuff that grows in the forest and requires but a little processing. There's nothing so profitable to move on to.

Are you suggesting that the lower profits mean a crime ring can't be organized around them? Because history would disagree with you.

Of course not. Just that a less profitable but still high-risk business is less attractive and likely to be pursued less vigorously and by fewer people. Which is the outcome we want. Zero tolerance is not eliminating crime, and it is extremely expensive.

Re: Anonymous Cancels Operation Cartel as Los Zetas Track Hacktivists

#109

Post by Karunamon »

dylangs1030 wrote: post #38
handelaar wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For values of 'worked for alcohol' that include 'moved world's largest criminal organisation into non-alcohol-related activity without impacting its organisational capacity one jot'.

Exactly. Crime would adjust itself, or find a new market. Compromising by legalizing something which has a purpose in being illegal is detrimental to solving the problem.

Thing is, there is no real purpose for many/most controlled substances to be illegal, unless you choose from the following list:

* Excuse for government overstep of constitutional provisions * Money to the prison-industrial complex (i know, trite, but it's true) * One more step in the notion that you don't own your own body

And those aren't legitimate reasons, IMAO.

Re: Anonymous Cancels Operation Cartel as Los Zetas Track Hacktivists

#110

Post by mojotoad »

dylangs1030 wrote: post #21

The trouble with movements like Anonymous is that there is no centralized authority. Further, a group pushing for anarchy is either hypocritical if it's effective (because it will be organized) or ineffective because it's anarchical and disorganized. Anonymous is not a serious threat to large corporations. It may cost them a minor inconveniencr, but without centralized authority, the group has no real internal integr…

What does anonymity have to do with anarchy? I realize that they often go hand in hand, but that's a sad generalization.
Post reply on HN