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

3.3 million e-mails between the most powerful men are about to be released.

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 145 posts

Re: 3.3 million e-mails between the most powerful men are about to be released.

#31

Post by funkah »

DevX101 wrote: post #7

900 upvotes and 92 comments on the reddit thread, yet not one comment that is critical of this action. To release the emails of private individuals and firms without any a priori evidence that they have committed any sort of crime is distasteful to me. It would be unethical if the tables were turned and ordinary citizens were getting their emails released. And its unethical in this case as well, regardless of whether…

That's the thing about leaks like this -- they happen without regard for your sense of propriety. Or anyone's.

Re: 3.3 million e-mails between the most powerful men are about to be released.

#32

Post by jonhendry »

earbitscom wrote: post #19
angersock wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright, so, anyone care to put effort into a reply as opposed to solely downvotes?

The post was clear that they did not do this to prove the security flaws. They did it because they believe this information should be made public for the good of the public. Nearly everyone in this forum opposes SOPA's attempt to shut down websites without a trial. Effectively subpoenaing private communication between suspected criminals without a court order and making those emails public requires much the same infr…

" "Do I approve of private citizens and organizations taking actions such as these if they believe they're helping fight crime?""

Crime? If every fringe nutcase gets to decide what is crime, and act on that, then it's likely you've committed somebody's idea of a crime, and so has everyone else.

So far the accusations of Stratfor's evil have been about as meaningful as the British people who threatened a pediatrician, ignorantly thinking she was a pedophile.

I don't see anyone railing against the crimes of Jane's, or the Economist Intelligence Unit. Probably because they know nothing whatsoever about the industry and don't even know those organizations exist.

Re: 3.3 million e-mails between the most powerful men are about to be released.

#33

Post by danilocampos »

angersock wrote: post #20
danilocampos wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would be unethical if a company properly secured their servers. My guess is that this is the root. It's unethical for you to walk into my house and read my mail regardless of whether I locked the door that morning or not. I'm not losing any sleep over this particular leak, just saying, what I quoted is probably their beef.

I mean, that's an interesting question, right? I've copied the information in your mail to myself without harming the original. If I burned your letter, I've absolutely committed a wrong, but I didn't do that. If you fail to lock your door, you are in effect allowing this possibility. If you communicate over a "clear" channel, without taking steps to encrypt that data, you are again allowing this. That's why I don't…

That may be true, but most jurisdictions recognize an inherent right to physical privacy which isn't lost based on how securely the premises are sealed.

So, the truly problematic part is the trespassing and/or burglary (illicitly entering a building, regardless of destruction or theft of property, meets the test).

The law around extracting information from a physical place is something I don't really know about.

But either way, we have a parallel in the unlawful access of shit that isn't yours.

Re: 3.3 million e-mails between the most powerful men are about to be released.

#34

Post by jonhendry »

garethsprice wrote: post #22
angersock wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright, so, anyone care to put effort into a reply as opposed to solely downvotes?

It's pointless, causing a lot of people a lot of trouble with no clear upside. Even the Pastebin admits that Stratfor doesn't seem to be involved in anything shady, but they're going to release all their e-mails anyway just in case. It's a witch hunt. There is no best case scenario from releasing this data. The point that even security companies can't guarantee security has been made, all that releasing the data can…

"The point that even security companies can't guarantee security has been made"

But in their nerd rage tunnel vision they still haven't figured out that not all security is internet security, and not all security-related companies are internet security companies.

There are valid non-computer matters of security, such as "Is the Lord's Resistance Army active around this particular village at this time?" which would be crucial if, say, you're sending some doctors in to work in that village. Or "How active are the Maoist militants in India?"

Basically, the Anonymous people don't have the faintest clue what Stratfor does, or why you would turn to them or similar firms for information.

"It's a witch hunt."

And a publicity stunt.

Re: 3.3 million e-mails between the most powerful men are about to be released.

#35

Post by JonnieCache »

earbitscom wrote: post #28
danilocampos wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm. You know what? Your position, on paper, makes a lot of sense. At the same time, there are times where you say "eh, fuck it." And this, for me, is one of them. Assume we live in a world where those who have power exist in a sphere of privilege. They enjoy protections from the consequences of their actions. Their influence and connections exempt them from the standard costs of citizenship. If that's the case, if t…

So funny, I feel the same way about things like TPB, and yet I bet you think shutting them down without a trial is immoral.

and yet I bet you think

That seems slightly unfair. Unless of course you've performed a comprehensive background check on danilocampos' comment history. But I bet you haven't ;)

Re: 3.3 million e-mails between the most powerful men are about to be released.

#36

Post by danilocampos »

jonhendry wrote: post #29
danilocampos wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm. You know what? Your position, on paper, makes a lot of sense. At the same time, there are times where you say "eh, fuck it." And this, for me, is one of them. Assume we live in a world where those who have power exist in a sphere of privilege. They enjoy protections from the consequences of their actions. Their influence and connections exempt them from the standard costs of citizenship. If that's the case, if t…

"On the other hand, because of Strafor's mission" The dissemination of information? What's wrong with that?

> The dissemination of information? What's wrong with that?

...Nothing at all?

It's a simple matter of the type of information they disseminate. A type of information of particular interest to people with skin in the game of world politics.

That is, a guy on Stratfor's secret client list probably has much more interesting email to read than a guy working at a Radio Shack in Sarasota, Florida.

Re: 3.3 million e-mails between the most powerful men are about to be released.

#37

Post by noahc »

angersock wrote: post #20
danilocampos wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would be unethical if a company properly secured their servers. My guess is that this is the root. It's unethical for you to walk into my house and read my mail regardless of whether I locked the door that morning or not. I'm not losing any sleep over this particular leak, just saying, what I quoted is probably their beef.

I mean, that's an interesting question, right? I've copied the information in your mail to myself without harming the original. If I burned your letter, I've absolutely committed a wrong, but I didn't do that. If you fail to lock your door, you are in effect allowing this possibility. If you communicate over a "clear" channel, without taking steps to encrypt that data, you are again allowing this. That's why I don't…

You're argument is essentially the "She deserved to be raped" argument. I understand that your argument is a bit more nuanced than this because of the idea of harm you introduced.

But at it's simpliest core you argue that "Hey, you made it easier and the possibility exists..." It's the same way with rape. "Hey she was wearing a short skirt and was drunk, the possibility exists."

We should be able to to agree that because I make something easier for you to do that doesn't mean you are free and clear to do it.

If you want to have this debate it shouldn't be about the ease of which someone allows another to take a particular action. Instead, we should debate about if we believe we should secure in papers and from who. In a world in which non-political actors have more power than political actors that's an interesting question!

Re: 3.3 million e-mails between the most powerful men are about to be released.

#38

Post by danilocampos »

earbitscom wrote: post #28
danilocampos wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm. You know what? Your position, on paper, makes a lot of sense. At the same time, there are times where you say "eh, fuck it." And this, for me, is one of them. Assume we live in a world where those who have power exist in a sphere of privilege. They enjoy protections from the consequences of their actions. Their influence and connections exempt them from the standard costs of citizenship. If that's the case, if t…

So funny, I feel the same way about things like TPB, and yet I bet you think shutting them down without a trial is immoral.

> So funny, I feel the same way about things like TPB, and yet I bet you think shutting them down without a trial is immoral.

You feel as though "things like the Pirate Bay" are run by people who are so wealthy and powerful that they've completely subverted criminal justice and international law?

I had no idea Dick Cheney was running torrent sites. The bit where he sent those stooges to sit in a Swedish court was a nice touch, I guess.

Re: 3.3 million e-mails between the most powerful men are about to be released.

#39

Post by jonhendry »

danilocampos wrote: post #36
jonhendry wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"On the other hand, because of Strafor's mission" The dissemination of information? What's wrong with that?

> The dissemination of information? What's wrong with that? ... Nothing at all? It's a simple matter of the type of information they disseminate. A type of information of particular interest to people with skin in the game of world politics. That is, a guy on Stratfor's secret client list probably has much more interesting email to read than a guy working at a Radio Shack in Sarasota, Florida.

"It's a simple matter of the type of information they disseminate. "

And that type of information is? You seem to be one of the people assuming Stratfor is some kind of Blackwater intelligence company. They aren't.

Re: 3.3 million e-mails between the most powerful men are about to be released.

#40

Post by earbitscom »

danilocampos wrote: post #38
earbitscom wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So funny, I feel the same way about things like TPB, and yet I bet you think shutting them down without a trial is immoral.

> So funny, I feel the same way about things like TPB, and yet I bet you think shutting them down without a trial is immoral. You feel as though "things like the Pirate Bay" are run by people who are so wealthy and powerful that they've completely subverted criminal justice and international law? I had no idea Dick Cheney was running torrent sites. The bit where he sent those stooges to sit in a Swedish court was a n…

No, I feel "They enjoy protections from the consequences of their actions," and, "if these people exist outside of due process, what's left?"
Post reply on HN