Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts • Hacker News Board

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#161

Post by kiba » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 3:53 AM UTC

tiredofcareer wrote: post #130

I've noticed this tack a lot recently (three arguments like this in 24 hours), and I'm concerned by it. There seems to be an inability on the part of some people, apparently Richard Stallman included, to realize that active intent to harm human beings is not in the same ballpark as passive intent to harm human beings. They're not even playing the same sport. A fertilizer plant has a chance of harming someone in an ac…

While intent does matter, the consequence is still the same. People die. Therefore, we should devote effort to reducing incidents of death, no matter what is the cause.

People who kill others intentionally are going to be treated differently than those who ignore basic safety precaution, as a matter of justice. But we must still pay attention to the magnitude of tragedy when it comes to allocating money to reduce probability of death incidents.

That mean, if car accidents kill more than terrorists each year, there should be more money on accident prevention.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#162

Post by NkVczPkybiXICG » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 3:53 AM UTC

tiredofcareer wrote: post #130

I've noticed this tack a lot recently (three arguments like this in 24 hours), and I'm concerned by it. There seems to be an inability on the part of some people, apparently Richard Stallman included, to realize that active intent to harm human beings is not in the same ballpark as passive intent to harm human beings. They're not even playing the same sport. A fertilizer plant has a chance of harming someone in an ac…

His point was that there are better things in life to worry about. An example is chemical plants.

To paraphrase his letter -- your actions should not change based on the events these past few days. Decisions should be made off of data and actual potential to harm, not on what happens to be scary at the time.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#163

Post by ucee054 » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 3:54 AM UTC

kanda wrote: post #101

tkahn6 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really surprising or disappointing it took 'so long'? I think your understanding of how easy it is to locate people is influenced by fiction and dramatization. One man is tiny compared to an entire city. What can you realistically do if that man decides to hide in a covered boat in someone's yard?

Pretty much what they did. Overwhelming force. That's how the justice system is supposed to work. The problem is that these kids were "organized" after a fashion. They were muslims, discontent, and grabbed up by some radical muslim and told that massacring random americans is the way to heaven. They're very unlikely to be the only ones that believe so. And what choice is there but to move against whatever persons and…

Do you actually believe this crap as stated, or were you going to go back and add "and Judaism and Christianity" to that "Islam is a terror religion" stuff you were spewing?

It's the Old Testament that's the terror religion, whether as practiced by Mohammed or by Moses or by the Crusaders.

And Moslems react when they think their religion is under attack just like Christians do. Have a look at some of the IRA types who were into butchering Irish Protestants. They were "defending" the Catholics in their minds.

It's not "kill the infidels to get into heaven". The religion is merely the language they use to frame the real motivation, which can be defensiveness, reaction, or even sheer prejudice.

And not all the bombers are loonies, by the way, not even the suicidal ones. If the official story so far is correct, the Boston two seem to be good planners with a healthy sense of self-preservation.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#164

Post by zanny » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 3:55 AM UTC

platz wrote: post #120

anon808 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of those rights is to avoid massive loss of life and limb in the long run. I think there's a reason the us has been relatively stable over a long period of time, and it has everything to do with civil rights that serve as another check to the power of the government. As the balance is tipped in the favor of government power over civil power, the chances for large scale loss of life and limb (civil war…

I'm not very convinced by by your slippery slope argument with regard to the US, at least in domestic affairs. (foreign is another matter) It's probably not a good idea to mix the emotional with the analytical, but when it happens, the emotional wins; we're human beings. I hate to get moral/philosophical, but utilitarian motives, in the eyes of societal norms, usually is the loosing position. The canonical example of…

Your example is situational, and also doesn't come close to his argument.

The super-parent argument is that the loss of life in the immediate is shallow compared to the inevitable loss of life from the loss of liberty and rise of tyrrany in the name of security.

If people are on the train, condemning many to die for one is never the right decision. If the train is unmanned (assumed if there is no conductor to manage it) you are trying to minimize loss of life, so of course you divert the train and just lose some resources in the crash. That example just doesn't make sense.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#165

Post by fnordfnordfnord » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 3:55 AM UTC

tiredofcareer wrote: post #130

I've noticed this tack a lot recently (three arguments like this in 24 hours), and I'm concerned by it. There seems to be an inability on the part of some people, apparently Richard Stallman included, to realize that active intent to harm human beings is not in the same ballpark as passive intent to harm human beings. They're not even playing the same sport. A fertilizer plant has a chance of harming someone in an ac…

making the case that the chemical plant owners willfully ignored employee safety in the name of profit;

No, that's not what he said. He said more people were killed in the "Texas explosion" he hasn't mentioned anything about the cause other than maybe imply that it was not related to terrorism. He also hasn't maligned the plant owners, but rather suggested that technology might be employed to prevent it from occurring in the same manner again, and that the resources we spend on terrorism and the freedom we've sacrificed might be better spent in other ways.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#166

Post by illuminate » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 3:56 AM UTC

zobzu wrote: post #112

grinich wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really do not get all the celebration and back-patting, it's disturbing. This is way less about a real accomplishment, and more about what people need to feel. After the bombings, people felt vulnerable and scared. And for the police, I'm sure also embarrassed and angry. Catching this kid is the vindication they all needed emotionally. I'm just glad they didn't get overzealous and kill him, as most manhunts end.…

I'm also a little surprised at the "WE GOT HIM" and the "its the suspect". Pretty obviously everyone behave with this as 'hes guilty', so he's not a suspect anymore. While he very well may be, everyone is supposed to be innocent til proved otherwise by trial and judgement . That goes for everyone. Murderers, thieves, rapists, politicians and rich dudes alike. Oh, and you and I. Hopefully.

You're confusing law for the court of public opinion. They are two entirely separate (and mostly unrelated) things.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#167

Post by spitfire » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 3:57 AM UTC

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #83

ck2 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do we bother to have laws at all if people are going to break them? I mean look at all the silencers people have to get away with murder - oh wait, they don't - because they are illegal and highly regulated.

I mean look at all the silencers people have to get away with murder - oh wait, they don't - because they are illegal and highly regulated. Murderers rarely use such things A silencer is cheap and trivial to manufacture from common materials. I think you overestimate the deterrence of an additional felony charge. "Q. What are you in for? A. Murder... and an unlicensed weapon accessory."

Often these trivial laws are passed in order to be catch alls. You might get off on a technicality of a murder charge, but they get you for the illegal silencer.

Remember, they got Al Capone on income tax violations.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#168

Post by iamjustin » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 3:57 AM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #55

HarryHirsch wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to say it, but Stallman has a good point. Plant safety cuts into profits, left to itself management will not encourage safe working practice - there must be meaningful oversight by an outside agency. Thanks to regulatory capture oversight is weak, and this is not an accident but an intended outcome of the political system.

Plant safety cuts into profits, left to itself management will not encourage safe working practice - there must be meaningful oversight by an outside agency. Yes, because it's obviously good for business to have your plant blow sky high, destroying the entire surrounding neighborhood and killing most of your employees. If I were a plant manager, I'd make sure to put doing all that right at the top of my TODO list. Or…

Nobody ever said that we will regulate our way to a perfect society. Nobody said that every business owner is a greedy, evil, soul-sucking bastard.

But maybe, just maybe, added regulation doesn't need to hurt the honest business owners, and can be used to keep those whose ethics may be a little more sketchy in check.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#169

Post by zanny » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 3:58 AM UTC

tkahn6 wrote: post #35

> 4 people killed in a week is not a lot compared with the background level of deaths in the US It's not every day that people have their legs blown off while enjoying a public social event. There's an expectation of danger while driving a car. There is no expectation of danger while spectating at the Boston Marathon. It's not complicated.

> There is no expectation of danger while spectating at the Boston Marathon.

You are in the presence of many other human beings. You are always in a present state of danger around everyone, ever. It is naive to think you can predict the actions of others.

I'm not saying be paranoid, I'm saying treat people like people and not faces in a crowd. You don't know their intentions with rare exception to those you actually know.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#170

Post by rictic » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 3:58 AM UTC

tiredofcareer wrote: post #130

I've noticed this tack a lot recently (three arguments like this in 24 hours), and I'm concerned by it. There seems to be an inability on the part of some people, apparently Richard Stallman included, to realize that active intent to harm human beings is not in the same ballpark as passive intent to harm human beings. They're not even playing the same sport. A fertilizer plant has a chance of harming someone in an ac…

Yet here's rms doing his thing, making the case that the chemical plant owners willfully ignored employee safety in the name of profit.

That is an argument that's not supported by the text.

The point that Stallman is making, as I see it, is to be concerned about overspending (and sacrificing freedoms) on rare salient threats, while neglecting more commonplace but more dangerous sources of danger like chemical plants and car accidents.

As a matter of public policy I could not agree more with Stallman here. For more information on this line of argument I'd recommend reading Bruce Schneier, who makes the point passionately and with authority.