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

Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists

salon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 186 posts

Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists

#41

Post by LekkoscPiwa »

brudgers wrote: post #19

"who haven't talked to the opposite sex in five or six years." This is the scariest aspect of the data collection. People like this have the data to identify homosexuals. Hell, I suspect that a lot of the rationale for the data collection was tracking Muslims. The potential this information has to facilitate genocide is astronomical and homophobes are in positions of power.

If you are a homosexual it is not about killing you from NSA/CIA perspective. It is rather a way to blackmail you to report on your friends if you are involved in hacktivism, OWS, devoted Muslim, etc. If they know your secrets they own you. They might not need you now, but they may in 5-10-15 years. They'll knock your door and tell you: you are married have 3 kids and are gay. If you don't want your family to find out here is what you do. That's why they need it brother. Because google knows more about us than probably anybody else in the world. To know and store this data regarding all Americans. There is no better deal in the world if you are the nsa/cia.

Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists

#42

Post by wmeredith »

hugofirth wrote: post #33
stablepeak wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understood the quote as an insult to nerds who are afraid to talk to women and not as homophobia.

Agreed - it is interesting that the phrasing in the article was deliberately gender agnostic. What is the relevance of political correctness in the context of a boorish and petty insult?

Political correctness in the context of a boorish and petty assault? That's politics 101.

Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists

#44

Post by deelowe »

digitalengineer wrote: post #24
weland wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it, will threaten those that question its legitimacy as that is only obvious. A government elected with a reasonable majority arguably represents the people who elected them. Not represents as in "represents their interests", implying that they act on their behalf in their best interest. No, represents as in "they are the…

>the legitimacy of the expressed vote is in question Like we had with the Bush v.s. Al Gore election?

Like that has any relevance. This shit has been going on at least since Nixon and perhaps before. They are all 2 sides of the same coin.

Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists

#45

Post by losvedir »

igravious wrote: post #12
kshatrea wrote: post #5

People need to start accepting that government != country; such people as such being called as "terrorists" or "communists" or other words that were bandied about as the bogeyman of the time are perceived as threats to the government by those most poised to profit from that government. A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it, will threaten those that question i…

Completely off-topic but I've this a few times now in different places. I'll come to the end of what I'm reading and there'll be a tl;dr at the frickin' _end_ of it! Isn't it supposed to be right up front so that if I am incredibly lazy and trusting I can just slurp the tl;dr and move on? When placed at the end is its meaning changed to something like "to summarize" or "in summation" ???

"tl;dr" goes at the end; that's just the way it is. The "d" is for "didn't", not, for example, "won't".

I first noticed it on reddit years ago, appended to a lengthy comment. However, it seems that it may have originated in Wikipedia article discussions (according to Wikipedia...) as a shorthand _response_ to a lengthy comment. Perhaps, there was a transition period where someone wrote a lot of text, realized that the response would be a "tl;dr", and then just added it themselves instead.

Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists

#49

Post by nicholassmith »

What's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? Which side of the argument you're stood on.

It's completely ridiculous in many ways, but it's often been the case that people who are passionate activists willing to stand up against perceived injustices are viewed as a menace. It just means that they now think hackers are a serious threat.

Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists

#50

Post by pessimizer »

threeseed wrote: post #39
brudgers wrote: post #19

"who haven't talked to the opposite sex in five or six years." This is the scariest aspect of the data collection. People like this have the data to identify homosexuals. Hell, I suspect that a lot of the rationale for the data collection was tracking Muslims. The potential this information has to facilitate genocide is astronomical and homophobes are in positions of power.

Can we all please just take a deep breath and stop with the hyperbole. The US government is not planning to commit genocide against gay people or whatever ridiculous premise you're insinuating.

What about whoever gets elected in 2028?
Post reply on HN