Deafening Silence from the Cybersecurity Industry • Hacker News Board

Re: Deafening Silence from the Cybersecurity Industry

#191

Post by fooList » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 4:16 PM UTC

danaris wrote: post #185

fooList wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounded like you were going to disagree, but then I think you arrived at the same place more or less. Congress, on net, isn’t doing what it needs to be doing. Is that not a critical problem? If the executive who takes up that slack is Trump, suddenly people notice what a problem it is. But, it is not about Trump specifically, but rather an ongoing and systemic issue with our two party system, and it will predictab…

I was emphatically disagreeing with their first sentence. The idea that Congress shouldn't be delegating its power to regulatory agencies was a fringe one until very recently, with the obviously-corrupt SCOTUS ruling ending Chevron deference. Delegating power to regulatory agencies also has nearly nothing to do with Congress's recent gridlock and ineffectiveness, or the spate of executive orders that has prompted.

I think my mileage varies a bit. I was an Obama/Clinton supporter, and I have always felt strongly that the legislative branch was… less than efficient. Delegating away the hard non-glamorous stuff is incentivized and nothing changes because the DC system as a whole just works that way. Both parties want less accountability and more power, but citizens need the opposite. There has to be some reasonable amount of legislation coming from the legislature or what are they there for other than grandstanding, fundraising and performative outrage?

Re: Deafening Silence from the Cybersecurity Industry

#192

Post by yellowdrone » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 4:17 PM UTC

tpmoney wrote: post #181

alabastervlog wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, there has been a wolf. It's now eating us, and the time to stop it is gone. But sure, it's the fault of the people who correctly told you there was a wolf, and that it's been coming closer and looking hungrier and hungrier since the '70s.

You seem to have missed the point. For one, I’m not telling you this is a good thing or that this is how it ought to be. For two, even in the fable the wolf was real in the end. The problem is, the wolf wasn’t real the last time, or the time before that. Or the time before that. Or the time before that. You can quibble over whether prior politicians were heralds of the wolf or not, but that wasn’t the message. The me…

I think you misunderstood the prior poster. In the story the boy just made the wolf up the first couple of times, there were no signs beforehand. The prior poster seems to believe that the republicans were doing something bad beforehand, which is now escalating and thus a direct consequence of what came before. That would be more like if the boy found wolf droppings and pointed to those, which would not make him a liar anymore.

Re: Deafening Silence from the Cybersecurity Industry

#193

Post by sidewndr46 » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 4:20 PM UTC

danaris wrote: post #136

pclmulqdq wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress largely relinquished that power by creating bills that establish rule-making executive agencies rather than writing the rules themselves. That leaves congresspeople free to do things like trade stocks and raise money for their respective parties. They claim they would be too busy to read all the rules they would have to pass, but (1) that's the point and (2) they pass massive bills they don't read anyway. Th…

No, that's bullshit. Requiring Congress to get involved every time a regulatory agency needs to adapt to new circumstances or new technology would leave us at the mercy of unscrupulous corporations who can and will "move fast and break things." No; Congress relinquished their power when Congressional Republicans chose to become "the party of No" and just prevent anything from happening under Obama. That's when execut…

I'd call that the rule of law. If Congress is unable to perform that duty, it falls upon themselves to resign their position in favor of an fairly elected candidate who will.

Re: Deafening Silence from the Cybersecurity Industry

#194

Post by sidewndr46 » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 4:23 PM UTC

ANarrativeApe wrote: post #71

"The Constitution explicitly forbids Congress from issuing bills of attainder—laws that single out individuals for punishment without trial. While that restriction technically applies to the Legislative branch, the spirit of it clearly applies here. A president cannot simply declare someone an enemy of the state for contradicting a political narrative. That’s not national security—it’s authoritarianism, dressed up in…

The executive branch has the authority execute citizens that pose a threat, unilaterally. Deeming someone as a public enemy clearly shows a measure of restraint from that power. Thus it must be legal. Otherwise the executive branch would find themselves in a position where they cannot point out when something has been done to harm the US, but could in fact just kill that person without comment.

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/obama-administration-cla...

Re: Deafening Silence from the Cybersecurity Industry

#195

Post by wakawaka28 » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 4:26 PM UTC

ripe wrote: post #166

wakawaka28 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> The margins were extremely thin in 2020, and there were many sketchy things going on around mail-in ballots and stuff. These allegations from Trump supporters have been disproved in court many times. What will iy take for you to admit that he's misusing his power to target people who disagree with his election lies?

Considering how ill-treated Trump and his supporters have been and still are by courts, it is no wonder that they don't trust the courts. Regardless of what you or I think, he is going after people he believes are corrupt. The exact same people who targetted him unfairly for years, in some cases. I'm not losing sleep over this.

Re: Deafening Silence from the Cybersecurity Industry

#196

Post by wakawaka28 » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 4:29 PM UTC

grumio wrote: post #177

wakawaka28 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> there were many sketchy things going on around mail-in ballots and stuff. Just because Fox News repeats false claims over and over doesn't make them true. Do you have sources? 2000 mules was debunked. Fox News settled for their false claims against Dominion. Court awarded damages to that one victim who was accused of smuggling a flash drive of "fraudulent votes" or whatever. Don't fall for the firehose of bullshit.…

>She conceded. Trump did not concede when he lost the 2020 election. These are facts. Get real.

She "conceded" then continued smearing Trump for years and literally called him illegitimate. Not just her but the entire Democrat media machine that backed Hillary over other plausible candidates. The smearing and denial cancel out any good will she gained by "conceding". Shall we talk about the Russiagate hoax that went on for years, that Hillary herself started by commissioning the Steele Dossier? I suggest you go educate yourself on all of that and how she paid a fine for election interference (and how Trump did not).

Re: Deafening Silence from the Cybersecurity Industry

#197

Post by wizzwizz4 » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 4:30 PM UTC

josefresco wrote: post #97

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flipside of the "states' rights" movement is that the Federal Government is much weaker: so while it's easier to strip away rights and dismantle federal institutions, it's also easier for individuals to oppose the concrete harm that'd cause by working the levers of their local government. https://plush.city/@scarlet/114355949314782873 gives a few concrete things that individuals (not even groups) can do, which mi…

You're right in normal situations, but masked federal agents (HOURS FROM MY HOME) are kidnapping and sending US citizens to foreign gulags. As what point does "states rights" extend to the physical protection of its citizens? Will my local police protect me from the gestapo?

That's the topic of section 9 (quoted below, with minor formatting changes). I recommend reading the whole thing, since it also explains how to raise things, how to follow up in a way that gets them addressed…

---

If you're concerned about ICE, then you'll want to show up at your City or County council and hit the following points -

* Are local police cooperating with ICE?

* Are they following due process?

* What happens when due process isn't followed?

* If ICE isn't following due process, and local police are still coordinating, then how will they keep residents safe?

Re: Deafening Silence from the Cybersecurity Industry

#198

Post by wakawaka28 » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 4:33 PM UTC

titaphraz wrote: post #167

wakawaka28 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> He is a self-made multi-billionaire HAHAHA! No he's not. He inherited his dad's empire. Tanked it and the Russians bailed him out. He's a charlatan, fraudster and a con artist.

Prove that Russians bailed him out, please. I've got to hear this.

He did inherit money, like $10M if I recall correctly. But he made the rest of his money. Even if not literally a rags-to-riches case (I never said he was, either), he does not need money. Compare that to, say, AOC who is suddenly worth millions of dollars after a few years on a salary of $180k. Who is more suspicious?

Re: Deafening Silence from the Cybersecurity Industry

#199

Post by tzs » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 4:34 PM UTC

wakawaka28 wrote: post #163

chairhairair wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please, some reasonable Trump voter explain how this is acceptable. How can the sitting president still be openly claiming that a previous election was fraudulent after all this time?

[flagged]

> But ask yourself: "Which party supports actual election integrity more? The one that insists on US citizens voting in person with valid id (nothing special, just the id that we all need to get by in society),

You mean the ID that around 21 million US citizens who are eligible to vote do not have and don't have the time and/or money to get that ID? Here's a comment that contains links to a whole bunch of articles covering this, many of which contain extensive links to sources [1].

It is cute how some people can simultaneously believe that (1) you need the type of ID that Republican voter ID laws require for voting in order to get by in society (and so everyone already has the ID they need), and (2) there are tens of millions of illegal aliens who have been living in this country long term (and hence are obviously getting by).

This implies either that you don't actually need such ID to get by or that illegal aliens can easily obtain such ID (which makes the ID law ineffective at preventing fraud).

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42116609

Re: Deafening Silence from the Cybersecurity Industry

#200

Post by pclmulqdq » Fri, Apr 18, 2025, 4:37 PM UTC

danaris wrote: post #185

fooList wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounded like you were going to disagree, but then I think you arrived at the same place more or less. Congress, on net, isn’t doing what it needs to be doing. Is that not a critical problem? If the executive who takes up that slack is Trump, suddenly people notice what a problem it is. But, it is not about Trump specifically, but rather an ongoing and systemic issue with our two party system, and it will predictab…

I was emphatically disagreeing with their first sentence. The idea that Congress shouldn't be delegating its power to regulatory agencies was a fringe one until very recently, with the obviously-corrupt SCOTUS ruling ending Chevron deference. Delegating power to regulatory agencies also has nearly nothing to do with Congress's recent gridlock and ineffectiveness, or the spate of executive orders that has prompted.

> The idea that Congress shouldn't be delegating its power to regulatory agencies was a fringe one until very recently

Between about 1985 (Chevron) and 2010 (the populist movements in both parties), this idea was at its nadir of popularity. For the entire rest of US history from 1776-1980 and 2010-2025, a distrust of a large executive branch was very popular, and pretty much bipartisan most of the time. Just because you do not remember a time when this idea was popular, it does not mean that it was a fringe one only until very recently.

Congress is designed to be gridlocked. That's its natural state. We are now learning why it's a good idea to have a relatively ineffective government.