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

It’s time for Silicon Valley to ask: Is it worth it?

pandodaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 329 posts

Re: It’s time for Silicon Valley to ask: Is it worth it?

#261

Post by michaelochurch »

Liberty needs a lobbyist, and that lobbyist has to be Silicon Valley.

So, liberty's lobbyist is to be a bunch of out-of-touch, arrogant billionaires who collect peoples' data and sell it to advertisers, and who can't even make a small city (San Francisco is not nearly the size or complexity of New York) a decent place to live?

There are (stating the obvious warning) major issues with governments, including ours, but I don't think for a second that the current SV elite would do a better or even adequately comparable job.

Also, is it just me, or is it hilarious that these one-big-hit-makes-wisdom billionaires who whine about government-- except, of course, when they're exploiting tax loopholes and using NIMBY regulations to keep Bay Area real estate expensive-- and talk about how wonderful the world would be if they were running it, then go ahead and get pwn3d by that supposedly inefficient, antiquated institution? The poetic justice here is powerful.

Re: It’s time for Silicon Valley to ask: Is it worth it?

#262

Post by mattlutze »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #255
mattlutze wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3 serious questions: How do you know the difference between a person who is a threat, and a person who is not a threat, before you look at that person a little to determine they are not a threat? How much looking is needed to determine "Not a Threat" and put them in the ignore pile? How long before you should look a little again to make sure they're still not a threat?

There is still a difference between checking someone out, and treating them essentially as second-class people. Or, say, torturing people then declaring said torture "classified becuz national security". Also, how does this not doubly so go for certain agencies and politicians? The transparency mostly goes one way, doesn't it? How deeply does the public need to be able to inspect these agencies before they can be sur…

What is that difference? Please be as precise as you can. Because in the popular usage today, saying people (how many, and who?) are being treated as "second-class people" carries a very derogatory connotation. And if the difference is very small, it feels like an inappropriate statement to make.

Re: your second sentence, my mind asks: "How many people have been tortured?"

My gut tells me that the percent of people alive today who have been tortured by the US intelligence community is nil. I don't even know how to guess. A few hundred? Divided by 6 billion? 5 X 10^-6 percent of the world's population, maybe?

Is the outrage is equal to the hazard in the situation, or is the outrage is artificially high compared to that hazard?

I am not arguing torture is good or bad, I'm specifically saying it as a supporting argument feels like a distraction.

Politicians live in the public eye. This has been shown time and again, in the US and elsewhere, that especially in the Internet age they get all the oversight needed. Obviously the same is becoming true for agencies, given the prevalence of leaks and whistle-blowing.

Re: It’s time for Silicon Valley to ask: Is it worth it?

#263

Post by vasilipupkin »

duairc wrote: post #179
vasilipupkin wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I agree with the article and I agree that NSA has gone too far. But your comment feels like you have bought a jump to conclusions mat from "office space". If, for example, during the process of obtaining clearance, you were to receive certain information that you don't have now, perhaps that would change your opinion of legitimacy of these programs from a binary 0 or 1 to a more nuanced probability distribution

This reminds me a bit of Russell's teapot[1]. Basically, you're saying, imagine if there existed “certain information”, which nobody can tell me about, but if they could, it would change my beliefs? Okay. Given what I do know, I think the chances of these programs being legitimate are about the same as the chances that there is “between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit”. [1]: http://…

You have heard Iranians chant "Death To America" at their official rallies right? How do you know that the chance that they don't mean it is zero ? Based on what information? Even at the height of the cold war nobody ever chanted "Death To America" in the Soviet Union.

Re: It’s time for Silicon Valley to ask: Is it worth it?

#264

Post by pitt1980 »

sharkweek wrote: post #36
mikeyouse wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone on HN acts like there's no possible reason for people to support these types of activities, but there could be very legitimate reasons these engineers choose to do what they do. It could just be a challenge for them. Where else can you not only get away with, but be rewarded with a good salary and a pension for hacking into the most secure systems on earth? It must be thrilling to be 'Competing' against the…

Don't get be wrong, I don't think for a second that it wouldn't be a ridiculously exciting job -- I mean even the thought about having a government security clearance is a thrilling thought (even though I'm sure it's less cinematic than I might hope) -- I also completely buy the competition angle -- especially considering I'm not going to pretend that Google is the "good guy" here, fighting perilously for our freedom…

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...

there is an account of an NSA employee thinking through the morality of his work

Re: It’s time for Silicon Valley to ask: Is it worth it?

#265

Post by X4 »

PeterisP wrote: post #260
dantheman wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a completely ridiculous statement. The lack of something doesn't imply it can't or won't exist, it just doesn't exist yet. The idea of liberty is relatively new and we're still learning. Up until recently you could have made all sorts of arguments about the rights of women or minorities and how another form of segregation will settle into place -- because it's "natural"

If you throw a bunch of mammals in a shared space, then generally a hierarchy and a 'ruling class' emerges. That is testable (and tested), and it is natural, literally, part of our nature. Now, wether it's unavoidable is a a different question, and wether its morally good is a yet different one; but it certainly is the natural order of things.

Orly, seriously? Find me the study that proves that for a group that is larger than a few million! Please just prove this point. It is sooo naive to just assume, "hey I saw 5 chick sand a hen, the hen ruled them, I think hundreds of millions of americans must be ruled by one hen too". Clever, clever... I am writing a scientific paper and just believe me (as you seem to believe easily, without proof) that Hierarchy is natural in small groups only, remember small groups. Absolutely NOT scalable!

I am sorry for my tone, sir. I didn't want to educate you or spray my opinion in your face. But please understand me, it drives me mad when people still believe that it's natural that the World, the Country, or the Cities must be ruled by one leader. To me it's as if somebody is truly believing that the earth is flat and want's to convince everybody else about that.

Re: It’s time for Silicon Valley to ask: Is it worth it?

#266

Post by X4 »

mattlutze wrote: post #249
TelmoMenezes wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two points: - The evidence seems to be that the bigger the government, the wider the gap between the rich and the poor. This might sound counter-intuitive, but that's the date we have. The rest is pure speculation. It could be that there is some hidden variable that makes the rich/poor gap and government grow at the same time, but it's not enough to just repeat some dogma; - I am for communities, but the only point o…

> I am for communities, but the only point of communities is to make the individuals that compose them happy. If a community is thriving by some metric but the individuals that compose them are unhappy, the community is pointless of even counter-productive. I think there has been a very pernicious, detrimental focus in recent history on ensuring "happiness." Life is not about being happy. Communities do not exist to…

I would agree, but the wealth gap exists here too and it's growing bigger. There are only a handful people who have earn a big percentage of what's earned in total in the country. Sorry, but had to make this clear. I am from Europe.

     Countries with most Billionaires:
     1) USA – 409
     2) China – 317
     3) Russia – 88
     4) Germany – 61
     5) England – 56
     6) India – 53
     7) Switzerland – 41
     8) Brazil – 33
     9) Taiwan – 32
     10) France – 31
     10) Turkey – 31
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Germans_by_net_worth

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_500_reichsten_Deutsch...

Re: It’s time for Silicon Valley to ask: Is it worth it?

#267

Post by duairc »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #263
duairc wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me a bit of Russell's teapot[1]. Basically, you're saying, imagine if there existed “certain information”, which nobody can tell me about, but if they could, it would change my beliefs? Okay. Given what I do know, I think the chances of these programs being legitimate are about the same as the chances that there is “between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit”. [1]: http://…

You have heard Iranians chant "Death To America" at their official rallies right? How do you know that the chance that they don't mean it is zero ? Based on what information? Even at the height of the cold war nobody ever chanted "Death To America" in the Soviet Union.

I feel like you're assuming that I'm American and that I don't want America to die. I think most people in the world will be delighted when the American empire inevitably collapses. Not just “Iranians” — as if there are “official rallies” for an entire country of people.

Re: It’s time for Silicon Valley to ask: Is it worth it?

#268

Post by jnbiche »

nashequilibrium wrote: post #77
angersock wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extensive surveillance didn't do a thing to save that man, and future surveillance won't bring his legs back. More people have suffered in Gitmo than were injured in the Boston attack, and more people died from drone strikes than when the towers fell.

Did you see the guys youtube videos? Russia contacted the U.S. about one of the brothers, also the FBI did track that he was going to Russia and also interviewd him. They failed in not being able to act on the intelligence they had. The question is what are you willing to give up to go to that LA Laker game without worrying about terrorism or whether your parents will get home safely from the game. I am not trying to…

You believe that Obama, when he started his first term, intended to "give the U.S. a conscience"? That's exactly what I believed when I voted for him first term, but by the second term, I had realized he was just another ambitious pol with easy morals, eager to represent himself as whatever was needed to win the election. So I did not vote for him (or anyone else) last election.

It is possible that he wasn't lying about certain other issues, and concede that he has long been reasonably concerned with poverty in the U.S., but it's clear that the whole "civil liberties crusader" persona he adopted as a senator was nothing more than a facade -- this despite the fact the he taught constitutional law!. It's become apparent (to me, at least) that to Obama, liberty comes in a very distant third after security and prosperity. That's a legitimate position to hold, but the lies he told about this issue to get elected make him just another lying pol.

I do admit the possibility, namely that Obama did hold these civil libertarian beliefs prior to being elected, but gave them up as a practical measure once he learned of the threats we are confronted with. To me, that approach is even more contemptible (you know the Franklin quote "those who would give up liberty..."), so I prefer to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and assume he was simply misleading us with quotes like these:

“This (Bush) administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no short-cuts to protecting America.” --Barack Obama (Aug. 1, 2007)

Re: It’s time for Silicon Valley to ask: Is it worth it?

#269

Post by radicaldreamer »

hipsters_unite wrote: post #252
TelmoMenezes wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two points: - The evidence seems to be that the bigger the government, the wider the gap between the rich and the poor. This might sound counter-intuitive, but that's the date we have. The rest is pure speculation. It could be that there is some hidden variable that makes the rich/poor gap and government grow at the same time, but it's not enough to just repeat some dogma; - I am for communities, but the only point o…

> The evidence seems to be that the bigger the government, the wider the gap between the rich and the poor. This might sound counter-intuitive, but that's the date we have. Could you please link to this evidence? Certainly that doesn't seem to be the case in Europe, and in terms of relative equality in the 20th Century United Kingdom, I think it's the reverse, thanks to big government expansions such as the NHS.

Scandinavian countries don't exhibit this quality either.

Re: It’s time for Silicon Valley to ask: Is it worth it?

#270

Post by X4 »

jlgaddis wrote: post #148
jamoes wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could also be that they're former "hackers" that were caught and turned into informants/employees/slaves in exchange for their eventual freedom. An example of this is Sabu ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabu_%28hacktivist%29 ), who would have been sentenced to 124 years in prison, but instead decided to work for the FBI.

Sabu, for example, would almost certainly not be granted a clearance, even at the classified (lowest) level.

How can he be an asset for the FBI then?
Post reply on HN