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

Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

defcon.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 260 posts

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#131

Post by gizmo686 »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #124
foobarbazqux wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When is discrimination against an individual based on his or her employer detrimental to the good of humanity?

When is discrimination against an individual based on his or her employer detrimental to the good of humanity? Employers are kinda made up of the people that work for them. Any attempts to disassociate the two shall fail. So yes, humanity is better when people actually have experience consequences for their actions -- instead of hiding behind other people, or symbols even, like "employer". We're not talking about bei…

>What's next, not "discriminating" against people because they are running marathons for the Rapists Association, even though they're not rapists themselves? Boo-hoo, really.

Can you leave free speech out of this.

Returning to the main point, the bigger problem with discriminating based on employer is that employers are very large entities. We cannot expect everyone to know everything their employer is doing, let alone be responsible or actively contributing to it. Also, as dalke points out, there is legal precedent precident that discrimination based on employers is discrimination (specifically the ACLU kicked out a non-uniformed unannounced police officer). Granted this was only a violation of (California) state law, but the law had a specific list of protected classes, and employer was not on it.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#132

Post by zeckalpha »

msandford wrote: post #37
bittired wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whatever you thought about Ron Paul, his politics would have prevented all of this. All of the wars. All the foreign aid. And we would live in paradise ;) This made me laugh. Considering how much Republicans and Tea Partiers are ostracized for making cuts, just imagine how much people would come down on a fiscally conservative basically Libertarian candidate in 2016 (even if he runs as a Republican).

Ostracized by who? People in the media or regular working class folk who pay plenty but get little? My parents both work and make money and the only real benefits that they have gotten as a result of trillions spent on war is that they'll continue to pay taxes for the rehabilitation of the soldiers whose bodies and lives have been destroyed. They MIGHT collect on social security, etc but given that they're still at l…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Pau...

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#133

Post by Shivetya »

stefantalpalaru wrote: post #125
wwhitman wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which country would that be?

Switzerland.

considering how they rolled over with the banking issue I would not trust my data there anymore than some place else. What is to stop them from doing the same with any data should the US come knocking? Even your President seems to believe criminal investigation of Snowden may be warranted.

Now if your government finally does take a stand on the banking issue and tells US authorities to take a hike I would be more inclined to have similar faith in your nation as you do.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#134

Post by PavlovsCat »

gizmo686 wrote: post #131
PavlovsCat wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When is discrimination against an individual based on his or her employer detrimental to the good of humanity? Employers are kinda made up of the people that work for them. Any attempts to disassociate the two shall fail. So yes, humanity is better when people actually have experience consequences for their actions -- instead of hiding behind other people, or symbols even, like "employer". We're not talking about bei…

>What's next, not "discriminating" against people because they are running marathons for the Rapists Association, even though they're not rapists themselves? Boo-hoo, really. Can you leave free speech out of this. Returning to the main point, the bigger problem with discriminating based on employer is that employers are very large entities. We cannot expect everyone to know everything their employer is doing, let alo…

Can you leave free speech out of this.

Maybe, if you could kindly explain what you mean by that, because I don't get it.

the bigger problem with discriminating based on employer is that employers are very large entities. We cannot expect everyone to know everything their employer is doing, let alone be responsible or actively contributing to it

There are over a hundred hours of Adolf Eichmann trials on Youtube. Watch any one of them, provided it contains him defending himself. So if the bigger problem is a complete non-issue, what does that say about the smaller ones?

Also, as dalke points out, there is legal precedent precident that discrimination based on employers is discrimination (specifically the ACLU kicked out a non-uniformed unannounced police officer). Granted this was only a violation of (California) state law, but the law had a specific list of protected classes, and employer was not on it.

What is legal or not might be an issue for the organizers, granted, but personally I care more about what is right and what isn't. So if they break the laws for this, more power to them; if they can find a loophole, also fine. Private clubs can invite whoever they fuck they want, for example; this wouldn't be very practical, but there's nearly always a way.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#135

Post by jnbiche »

bittired wrote: post #130
asveikau wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always amusing watching people talk about Ron and Rand Paul on the internet. Usually they haven't quite figured out that they're basically fake libertarians. Ducks

Libertarians != libertarians. The difference is that Libertarians are a party and libertarians like to party. :) The Pauls are fiscally conservative which is only 1/2 of the Libertarian equation. The party stands for social liberalism and fiscal conservatism. Basically this just means less tax, more privatized government services, and to leave people alone if they aren't hurting each other. Small-"l" libertarians are…

First, I agree with many small "l" libertarians are not comfortable with the US Libertarian Party. But how is your paragraph 2 above at odds with paragraph 3? You don't say so explicitly, but are you suggesting that small "l" Libertarians don't believe in fiscal conservatism?

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#138

Post by PavlovsCat »

icebraining wrote: post #129
mcantelon wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NSA is made up on individuals like you or me and Edward Snowden has made the case that there's little preventing any insider from accessing what they want on whomever they want. As the surveillance state becomes an accepted part of modern society there will be those who seek involvement in it expressly for the purpose of abusing or exploiting their power.

They are individuals, yes (though they are certainly not random people), but they still operate within a structure that shapes their actions. For example, while I oppose it on philosophical grounds, I don't see an NSA operator exploiting my email credential for any personal purpose. But some random guy on HN - who knows? He might just post them on 4chan for the lulz. It's simply a facile argument that weakens the rea…

It's not a bad argument, there's just better ones.

For example, while I oppose it on philosophical grounds, I don't see an NSA operator exploiting my email credential for any personal purpose.

It's perfectly possible to be crushed by a system without any of those operating the levers knowing or feeling anything personally about you. Systemic exploitation, a corrupt system if you will, is hardly better than corrupt individuals within a system, and the most horrific things in history all were rather apersonal, that's kinda what allowed them to reach an otherwise impossible scale, ferocity and longevity.

People distrusting people while trusting faceless agencies is the problem, not the solution.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#139

Post by sigzero »

nknighthb wrote: post #46
fixxer wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm... forgive my ignorance, but do they have the right to not issue a badge to anyone based on occupation? Sounds like discrimination. Hope they don't sue. ;)

Defcon is not a government entity, it has freedom of association rights, and law enforcement officers are not a suspect classification.

It could probably be considered public though and therefore freedom of association wouldn't apply.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#140

Post by rfnslyr »

mcantelon wrote: post #105
foobarbazqux wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So ethical things can be illegal, unethical things can be legal. Would discrimination against the employees of a legal employer in one's own state (country) ever be unethical?

>Would discrimination against the employees of a legal employer in one's own state (country) ever be unethical? Of course. Feel free to skip the leading questions and make whatever point you're working towards.

He needs to stop playing devils advocate. It's painfully obvious you are right. Why on earth would you want someone to leech information from a hacking convention to be used against those very same people? Fuck that. Ban whoever you need to ban.
Post reply on HN