So Hayden is playing bad cop, while Alexander plays god cop?
Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists
81–90 of 186 posts
Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understood the quote as an insult to nerds who are afraid to talk to women and not as homophobia.
The premises upon which you have concluded that the statement is not homophobia are: () It is an insult targeted at the named groups. () It is targeted at men. () Not trying to bed women is an insult to men. All three premises are dubious. Insults are directed at the person to be insulted. In so far as it is an insult, it was almost certainly targeted at members of the audience sympathetic to transparency and privacy…
It's quite obvious that he was referring to the societal stereotype that 'nerds' (of either sex) are socially inept and incapable of having anything other than an awkward conversation with the opposite sex (despite their desire for 'normal,' sexual relationships).
If you don't believe that stereotype exists, go watch _any_ episode of The Big Bang Theory.
Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Nevertheless, as shown in the Abu Grahib scandal and the blind eye turned to sexual abuse in domestic prisons, sexual humiliation as a form of punishment is alive and well in the US.
It's alive and well in all of humanity, and likely will be for the rest of our existence as a species.
Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists
#84I can't help but wonder if he's maybe exaggerating the security of .mil.
Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists
#85Earlier 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 A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it, will threaten those that question its legitimacy as that is only obvious.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…
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” H. L. Mencken
Democracy in Practice:
People elect representatives that were supposed to represent them, these representatives are, in reality, puppets fabricated and promoted by the corporate and elite's money, and once elected, the power and influence obtained are not being used to defend the common but the interest of those already in power.
So in practice Democracy has a backdoor that allows it to be hijacked and until it is fixed we will keep being represented by no one.
Maybe democracy would be "more real" if we forbid the corporate money in political campaigns and also limit the amount of money each individual can donate, bringing everybody to the same level could result in no masters of puppets.
Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists
#86People 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" ???
Only on HN would you get a bunch of hackers going off on a tangent about the proper use of tl;dr right in the middle of a discussion about whether hackers and activists should be considered potential terrorists. :-)
Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists
#87People 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…
Weird thing is: "Terrorism" originally referred to acts committed by a government . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
I still consider that to be the case...
Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is this post supposed to be? An junior high school Civics lesson? There was never any opportunity to "elect" anything to do with NSA. The NSA is a huge military-ish state security organization that was secretly and massively built up in the Cold War. It at least seems to outsiders that it served its purpose well[1]. But there is no more great enemy, and the whole lot are now struggling to remain relevant. People…
The NSA did not spring out of the ground, either, and the Cold War has arguably been over since 1991 or so. Indirect democracy makes it very easy to eschew responsibility in terms of "I had a choice between candidate X and candidate Y; they both supported decision D. I didn't support it, but since I had to vote between either X and Y, I didn't have a choice, did I?". If the actions of the NSA were seen by American ci…
>If the actions of the NSA were seen by American citizens as such a major concern that they would not vote for a candidate who supported it, then we'd see major votes against one of them. If all the candidates were to represent interests opposite to those of their voters, then we'd see no votes for any.
You've simplified this way too much, as if each voter only has one issue that they care about. Political strategists are experts at game theory. They build political platforms based on how to get the most people off their couches per dollar. It is a multi-dimensional problem.
>The fact that we keep seeing these votes is simply a proof of the fact that most people don't really care about it.
It is proof of no such thing. Most people are happy to leave well enough alone when they don't see a problem. NSA surveillance has never been a serious issue in a national campaign. Until recently, anyone who expressed too much interest in domestic surveillance of citizens was a tinfoil hat wearing crackpot.
> The handful of us who hang out on HackerNews aren't representative of the general populace.
So? The populace is a composite of many factions. Some people even have mixed political philosophies.
> Ask the audience of Toddlers and Tiaras, who are probably an order of magnitude more than we are, what they think about it, and 90% of them would probably tell you something similar to "NSA? Is that like, UUUUUUUM, some football league or something?"
The media is the reason for this. I wish I had some good idea that wasn't completely at odds with democratic principles.
>> People have been boycotting elections for years. That only makes it easier for the radical fringes to their their crap on the agenda and for politicians to focus on those low-hanging fruits. >People have been boycotting elections for years -- they're only valuable when they bring the turnout below the threshold of validity, which has happened in some countries.
Well, that isn't going to happen, ever, or at least until the "Toddlers and Tiaras" crowd has some political motivation other than ["ZOMG Abortion", "ZOMG Teh Gays", "ZOMG Illegal Mexicans in our jerbs"]
>If US citizens feel their political or electoral system is biased, whining about it won't help -- and it looks particularly hypocritical after readily applauding the Arab spring.
Whining about politics is as great an American tradition as Apple Pie.
Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists
#89The next major "terrorist" movement will come from transparency groups, but not for the reasons you think. Actually, most of you would probably be against such groups.
Instead of focusing on government transparency, they will seek total transparency. They will track everything, everywhere. They will collect information about you and me. They will install cameras and trackers everywhere (in a decentralised fashion). They will link your online profiles together. They will make your address and phone number public.
The next major "terrorist" movement will force societal transparency. They won't be personally motivated. They will do it for the well-being of society as a whole. Privacy is evil, and we should get rid of it before it's too late. Information should flow freely, and it will.
I predict that transparency will be forced upon us all, not just the government. But most of you can't see it.
Re: Cyberscare: Ex-NSA chief calls transparency groups, hackers next terrorists
#90People 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…
> A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it I guess it would surprise a lot of people that we have far more common "interests" with corporations and their success then we have opposing "interests". In other words, in most cases, the things that benefit corporations benefit the people (not everyone, always, and equally, of course). Corporations are owned by people…
> Corporations are owned by people like you and me, composed of people like you and me, run by people like you and me, and paid by people like you and me.
That's really sunshiny happy and everything, but corporations and I have entirely different motives and values. I could just as easily point out that murderers, pedophiles, and (yes) Nazis are people like you and me.