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

NSA tracking cellphone locations worldwide, Snowden documents show

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 297 posts

Re: NSA tracking cellphone locations worldwide, Snowden documents show

#261

Post by asabjorn »

onetwofiveten wrote: post #212
asabjorn wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that normal people are generally not evil, but sociopaths can very much be indistinguishable from some particularly evil movie-characters. I worked with a sociopath in the past and have studied it in literature, and a sociopath by definition sees meeting their own needs as a priority. Regardless of the effect on those around them. A sociopath is willing to inflict suffering on others for even minor gains of t…

You know, people talk about sociopaths a lot, and I get why, but I have a problem with the definition. The idea is that a sociopath is someone who lacks empathy (or, so I've read, is able to switch off their empathy) and prioritises their own needs. The behaviour is characterised as selfish, as in putting themselves first. This doesn't really make sense to me, because there's an implicit assumption about what actuall…

I would be very curious to see a study of what you point out. Are some people exhibiting negative sociopathic traits simply because of their upbringing or social context?

Although I find these points interesting, it does seem to me like this leads us into the age-old philosophy discussion on ethics. It seems like ethics can be argued to be based on intention, effect, something else, or all. I have read about sociopaths that are experienced by others as good people. However, a sociopath seem to have a stunted emotional life and I am sure this disability will always have numerous subtle negative effects on people that have an emotional relationship with them (e.g wife, kids, friends).

Re: NSA tracking cellphone locations worldwide, Snowden documents show

#262

Post by diminoten »

bmelton wrote: post #250
diminoten wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how would you rewrite the poem? First they came for the terrorists, and I didn't speak because I wasn't a terrorist. Then they came for the enemy combatants, and I didn't speak because I wasn't an enemy combatant. Then they came for the traitors, and I didn't speak because I wasn't a traitor. ? I'm just trying to see which part of this is not 200+ years old. Was there ever a time in the history of the US where the…

> Was there ever a time in the history of the US where the US government wasn't "coming" for terrorists, enemy combatants, and traitors? There were a couple hundred years in our nation's history where we weren't drone striking American citizens without due process for crimes they might have committed in the future. That should probably be in there somewhere.

Can you stop begging the question for just one moment so we can have a real conversation, instead of you just shoving platitudes down my throat?

A) drone strikes are just a means to an end, the end being "attack our enemies".

B) The people being attacked are classified as "enemy combatants". Do you realize what this means, as far as a "due process" conversation goes? We're not about to start trying enemy soldiers on the battlefield for breaking laws they're not even bound by (our laws). It's a perfectly reasonable conversation to talk about whether or not the people being attacked are actually "enemy combatants", but can we have that conversation, instead of you just ignoring the implications of what you're saying?

It's immensely hard to talk to people who speak in your terms, do you know that? Your cause is hurt by this behavior, not helped. If someone like me can't stand it, just imagine the feelings of someone in actual power, capable of doing something about it.

Re: NSA tracking cellphone locations worldwide, Snowden documents show

#263

Post by diminoten »

bmelton wrote: post #254
diminoten wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our nation was not founded on the concept that nobody is exempt from the law (see: Presidential pardons). That's an intellectually dishonest thing to say. What you suggest is quite simply stupid - should every enemy combatant be given the chance to take the lives of US citizens, just in the effort to give that combatant a trial? Hold trials on the battlefield? Your problem boils down to the fact that there are people…

I'll respond to the little bit of your post that isn't a baseless ad hominem. Presidential pardons have legal validity for purposes of righting wrongdoings, travesties of justice, and for preventing excessive punishment of those unjustly sentenced for political crimes, etc. It's stated intent is to correct injustice, not perpetrate it. I'm not suggesting that every enemy combatant deserves trial -- in an active war,…

There's so much wrong with what you've written (I've listed some of them below), I honestly don't know what to do. I think I might just have to accept people like you exist, but are in no way capable of impacting me.

* Ad hominems would require I disqualify your argument based on who you are. Considering I don't know anything about you, that'd literally be impossible for me to do.

* Presidential pardons don't have any stated intents.

* The NDAA's sole purpose is not to vest a single person with the power to do literally whatever he wishes, whoever not whomever/

* Documents written over 200 years ago would have to be abstracted to the point of mootness to be relevant in the world we live in today.

* The Interstate Commerce Clause is part of the Constitution, so any usage of it is by definition constitutional.

* Same goes with the elastic clause. You're just repeating ancient complaints - people have been bitching about what you're complaining about here (abuse of these two clauses) since the dawn of the US, and yet somehow the US is still here today.

I'll say what I said before: you're not in power, and that scares you. Your reaction (a natural one) is to lash out at those who are in power, and come up with some kind of conspiratorial explanation of why the world is the way it is. Why? Because at least, if SOMEONE is in charge, then there's a plan, even if that plan is nefarious. To you, and people like you, the idea that events aren't being planned or orchestrated is a terrifying thought. No one in charge?! So you come up with these crackpot, "The US government is out of control!" theories to help sleep at night.

But that doesn't make them true.

It's no longer an ad hominem to say you're full of shit and don't know what you're talking about, as I've demonstrated that fact. It's merely a conclusion based on observation, at this point.

Re: NSA tracking cellphone locations worldwide, Snowden documents show

#264

Post by diminoten »

bmelton wrote: post #250
diminoten wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how would you rewrite the poem? First they came for the terrorists, and I didn't speak because I wasn't a terrorist. Then they came for the enemy combatants, and I didn't speak because I wasn't an enemy combatant. Then they came for the traitors, and I didn't speak because I wasn't a traitor. ? I'm just trying to see which part of this is not 200+ years old. Was there ever a time in the history of the US where the…

> Was there ever a time in the history of the US where the US government wasn't "coming" for terrorists, enemy combatants, and traitors? There were a couple hundred years in our nation's history where we weren't drone striking American citizens without due process for crimes they might have committed in the future. That should probably be in there somewhere.

Drone strikes may be new, but killing "Americans" isn't.

See: Trail of Tears, Civil War, and many, many, many other instances where the US government sponsored the killing of "Americans" (citizenship hasn't always been this cut/dry thing it is today).

Re: NSA tracking cellphone locations worldwide, Snowden documents show

#265

Post by diminoten »

eliasmacpherson wrote: post #255
diminoten wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't tell if you're being funny or not by linking to two YouTube videos, a New Yorker article, and a Wikipedia page that doesn't exist. Also, that's not the kind of silencing we're talking about. We're talking about the act of blackmail using data collected by spying programs.

I apologise for the quality of the sources of information. I can't find alternatives. It's interesting to note Obama's speech on NSL's from 2005 five minutes in to the first youtube video. As an authority on such issues he should be held in high enough regard for you. "Then they came for the blah, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a blah." In responding to the above, you said: "What group is no longer here beca…

200,000 people haven't been silenced, as there are ways of challenging an NSL in court.

Also, 192k requests were sent, not 200,000 people silenced.

Sensationalism ruins this debate. Please stop.

Re: NSA tracking cellphone locations worldwide, Snowden documents show

#266

Post by bmelton »

diminoten wrote: post #262
bmelton wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Was there ever a time in the history of the US where the US government wasn't "coming" for terrorists, enemy combatants, and traitors? There were a couple hundred years in our nation's history where we weren't drone striking American citizens without due process for crimes they might have committed in the future. That should probably be in there somewhere.

Can you stop begging the question for just one moment so we can have a real conversation, instead of you just shoving platitudes down my throat? A) drone strikes are just a means to an end, the end being "attack our enemies". B) The people being attacked are classified as "enemy combatants". Do you realize what this means, as far as a "due process" conversation goes? We're not about to start trying enemy soldiers on…

Some of those killed were designated enemy combatants. Many of those killed by drone strikes were not, and were simply nearby.

Regardless, the protocol for declaring someone enemy combatant should not be opaque to all but the executive branch. I don't necessarily have a problem with our government interceding to prevent a terrorist attack, but the taking of a life that might be innocent should be more informed than just adding a name to a list -- we've seen the efficacy of that with the No Fly List, where someone whose name was only similar to an actual terrorist was disallowed the ability to fly (to hilarious results).

The ability of a single person to add someone's name to a kill list that will be carried out with zero Congressional oversight is a cessation of ultimate power to the Executive Branch. There is simply no arguing that point whatsoever. The only 'check' on that power is that we trust the Executive to be forthright. Perhaps that's good enough for the current administration, perhaps it isn't, but it certainly bodes poorly for the future.

> If someone like me can't stand it, just imagine the feelings of someone in actual power, capable of doing something about it.

I interact with people in power, and demagoguery is the norm, even behind closed doors. That I happen to actually believe the points that I'm making is probably the only distinction between what I'm saying here and the words of the average politician.

That you, in particular, find it infuriating isn't terribly surprising. Having looked through your comment profile, the pattern I've noticed isn't one terribly indicative of someone tolerant or especially well-mannered.

In the interest of community preservation, I'm happy to just agree to disagree, and suggest that we should discontinue further conversation.

Re: NSA tracking cellphone locations worldwide, Snowden documents show

#267

Post by bmelton »

diminoten wrote: post #263
bmelton wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll respond to the little bit of your post that isn't a baseless ad hominem. Presidential pardons have legal validity for purposes of righting wrongdoings, travesties of justice, and for preventing excessive punishment of those unjustly sentenced for political crimes, etc. It's stated intent is to correct injustice, not perpetrate it. I'm not suggesting that every enemy combatant deserves trial -- in an active war,…

There's so much wrong with what you've written (I've listed some of them below), I honestly don't know what to do. I think I might just have to accept people like you exist, but are in no way capable of impacting me. * Ad hominems would require I disqualify your argument based on who you are. Considering I don't know anything about you, that'd literally be impossible for me to do. * Presidential pardons don't have an…

> you're not in power, and that scares you.

> Considering I don't know anything about you, that'd literally be impossible for me to do.

Let's compare and contrast those, for a moment, shall we?

> The Interstate Commerce Clause is part of the Constitution, so any usage of it is by definition constitutional.

The Interstate Commerce Clause has a definition, and whatever its definitions where, judicial precedence precludes it from trumping a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Also, just because something is "in" the Constitution does not mean that one can apply any contrived definition of its terms as justification for an action.

> people have been bitching about what you're complaining about here (abuse of these two clauses) since the dawn of the US, and yet somehow the US is still here today.

False. There is document stare decisis on record indicating a massive shift in these interpretations under FDR's reign. While I can't factually defend against the assertion that I'm rehashing old business (which I'll agree that I am), I can factually assert that it has not in fact 'always been this way', which falsifies your argument.

> It's no longer an ad hominem to say you're full of shit and don't know what you're talking about, as I've demonstrated that fact. It's merely a conclusion based on observation, at this point.

You haven't actually illustrated any points that are supported by fact. You've levied accusations, which you've supported with more accusations, none of which are provable.

In short, I shouldn't have responded to this post, but for some odd reason, I took poorly to being referred to as "full of shit" on a subject I've studied a good portion of my life by someone who is literally countering factual arguments with untruth.

This is the last topic I'll post on the matter, and I apologize to you and everyone else on HN for not having quit some time ago.

Re: NSA tracking cellphone locations worldwide, Snowden documents show

#268

Post by diminoten »

bmelton wrote: post #267
diminoten wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's so much wrong with what you've written (I've listed some of them below), I honestly don't know what to do. I think I might just have to accept people like you exist, but are in no way capable of impacting me. * Ad hominems would require I disqualify your argument based on who you are. Considering I don't know anything about you, that'd literally be impossible for me to do. * Presidential pardons don't have an…

> you're not in power, and that scares you. > Considering I don't know anything about you, that'd literally be impossible for me to do. Let's compare and contrast those, for a moment, shall we? > The Interstate Commerce Clause is part of the Constitution, so any usage of it is by definition constitutional. The Interstate Commerce Clause has a definition, and whatever its definitions where, judicial precedence preclud…

> Also, just because something is "in" the Constitution does not mean that one can apply any contrived definition of its terms as justification for an action.

> While I can't factually defend against the assertion that I'm rehashing old business (which I'll agree that I am), I can factually assert that it has not in fact 'always been this way', which falsifies your argument.

> You've levied accusations, which you've supported with more accusations, none of which are provable.

> I took poorly to being referred to as "full of shit" on a subject I've studied a good portion of my life by someone who is literally countering factual arguments with untruth.

The first quote is in response to me saying, "The Constitution is, by definition, constitutional."

The second quote is you saying, "I could prove this but I won't." It reminds me of the schoolyard habit of claiming to know what a big word means, but then saying, "I'm not telling you!"

The third quote is exactly the kind of thing you've been railing against in our correspondence - that is, the focus on self rather than content.

The fourth quote is functionally an appeal to authority ("I've studied this for a long time, therefore I must know what I'm talking about!"). In reality, you may just a) suck at studying, or b) have caught yourself up in a feedback loop where your confirmation bias prevents you from actually learning anything.

Are you proud of yourself here? Have you presented the best form of your argument? What do you think I believe, at this point? I know your argument, but what is mine?

I just don't understand how a human being who thinks as much as you apparently do on this topic can write so little about it when asked explicitly to elaborate.

Re: NSA tracking cellphone locations worldwide, Snowden documents show

#269

Post by diminoten »

bmelton wrote: post #266
diminoten wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you stop begging the question for just one moment so we can have a real conversation, instead of you just shoving platitudes down my throat? A) drone strikes are just a means to an end, the end being "attack our enemies". B) The people being attacked are classified as "enemy combatants". Do you realize what this means, as far as a "due process" conversation goes? We're not about to start trying enemy soldiers on…

Some of those killed were designated enemy combatants. Many of those killed by drone strikes were not, and were simply nearby. Regardless, the protocol for declaring someone enemy combatant should not be opaque to all but the executive branch. I don't necessarily have a problem with our government interceding to prevent a terrorist attack, but the taking of a life that might be innocent should be more informed than j…

> The ability of a single person to add someone's name to a kill list that will be carried out with zero Congressional oversight is a cessation of ultimate power to the Executive Branch.

According to the Constitution, that's how it works. Congress can pass laws to require the executive branch pass these lists through congress, but they haven't, so the executive branch doesn't have to. That's how the Constitution was designed.

Want to change it? Petition your congressman/woman.

Re: NSA tracking cellphone locations worldwide, Snowden documents show

#270

Post by diminoten »

dllthomas wrote: post #259
diminoten wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then what he was saying is immensely broad and basically useless as guidance for today. "Bad thing happened at some point in history" is worthless, as a sentence. And we're not swinging towards authoritarianism. That's absolutely a lie. Want to know the irony in you saying that? That you can say that, and not fear your door being knocked down and you being questioned. You don't know authoritarianism if you think the…

Your argument is invalid. That there are features of "authoritarianism" currently missing doesn't in any way show that we're not "swinging towards authoritarianism", any more than not seeing redwoods outside your car windows means you're not driving towards California. Being in a place where "authoritarianism" is one bad actor away is not a good place to be. If you feel that we 1) are not in that such a place, and 2)…

Which bad actor would it take to put us into an authoritarian state? The president? No, congress would impeach him. Congressional leaders? No, the supreme court would overrule them. The chief justice? No, congress would constitutionalize a law if it's important enough. Checks and balances still exist.

I don't see any position of power that could act in such a way so as to gain unilateral control of the US government.

Post reply on HN