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

Barrett Brown sentenced to 63 months in prison

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 105 posts

Re: Barrett Brown sentenced to 63 months in prison

#81

Post by tptacek »

tedks wrote: post #80
tptacek wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment reads as if I thought torture should go unpunished.

I didn't read it that way, and I don't see why someone would. In fact, I don't see any critique of your views in this comment. The comment is entirely a rewording and expansion of the original comment. I think you're confusing the comment reading as if torture should be punished with the comment reading as if you think torture should be unpunished. That is, you're reading a comment that disagrees with you, and assumi…

You're not wrong to read it this way. I might be a little knee-jerk on threads like this. It is very, very apparent that skepticism about the Wired/Boing Boing narrative on this case is a minority view. Also, my current programming project involves advanced stat and calculus, two things I suck at, so I'm extra procrastinate-y today.

I guess my question is: so, we all agree that failure to prosecute CIA torturers and torture-preneurs is a travesty.

Now what? What does that have to do with Barrett Brown?

Is it just that we should militate for more prosecutions? I'll sign that petition. But I don't feel like that's a fringe issue; I hear that concern everywhere.

Re: Barrett Brown sentenced to 63 months in prison

#82

Post by [deleted] »

coldtea wrote: post #64
tptacek wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So then, what was the point of that comment? What was it trying to persuade the thread about? Serious question; I'm not asking so that I can rebut you.

> So then, what was the point of that comment? What was it trying to persuade the thread about? Serious question; I'm not asking so that I can rebut you. Well, for one the point is that you govern by example, and the example of giving the corrupt elit a "get out of jail free card" is bad for society. So, the comment could be read as: punish all guilty, don't selectively punish. Another point to be made reading the co…

[deleted]

Re: Barrett Brown sentenced to 63 months in prison

#83

Post by coldtea »

tptacek wrote: post #69
coldtea wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So then, what was the point of that comment? What was it trying to persuade the thread about? Serious question; I'm not asking so that I can rebut you. Well, for one the point is that you govern by example, and the example of giving the corrupt elit a "get out of jail free card" is bad for society. So, the comment could be read as: punish all guilty, don't selectively punish. Another point to be made reading the co…

This comment reads as if I thought torture should go unpunished.

Where does it read like that?

I wrote it as a response to how you framed the grant-parent's comment, as if it was analogous to advising not to punish lesser crimes because grand crimes like torture go unpunished.

I'm trying to show that his comment doesn't imply that at all, and should be read differently (and obviously, at least to me).

Re: Barrett Brown sentenced to 63 months in prison

#84

Post by tedks »

tptacek wrote: post #78
tedks wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it's falsifiable. The falsification test is that when the NSA/DEA/FBI are stormed by the citizenry in the same manner as their moral and spiritual predecessor, the Statsi, if those files contain no mention of doing such things, it is less likely that they occurred. There is always a possibility that the NSA could exchange information entirely covertly between itself and the DEA, but I think this is unlikely to b…

First, an argument that can only be falsified by running an experiment that involves the armed overthrow of the government is not really in the spirit of "falsifiability". More importantly, you've missed my point. Which was, to the extent you can make these NSA claims about the Brown case, you can make them about every criminal justice case. Which, fine, but I think it'd be more intellectually to lead off with the fa…

> First, an argument that can only be falsified by running an experiment that involves the armed overthrow of the government is not really in the spirit of "falsifiability".

I disagree entirely. Ideas are either falsifiable or not. An idea is not unfalsifiable because the experiment required to test it is expensive beyond some M. Real physicists discuss and publish theories that are impossible to test with current levels of technology, but they would never say such theories are unfalsifiable.

>More importantly, you've missed my point. Which was, to the extent you can make these NSA claims about the Brown case, you can make them about every criminal justice case.

Yes, this is true.

>Which, fine, but I think it'd be more intellectually to lead off with the fact that you don't believe it's possible that any criminal investigation in the US is conducted in good faith.

You seem here to convert a probabilistic claim to an absolute claim. The claim was not that all criminal investigations are conducted in bad faith, but that there is a possibility any given investigation is conducted in bad faith.

But this is not the focus of my comment, which was to say that it is very reasonable to point out that this possibility exists for all criminal investigations, and that the fact the experiment to test whether the possibility is justified (by observing illegal evidence being used in a specific criminal case) is not in fact unfalsifiable.

>Here, the argument that NSA secretly tipped the FBI off is especially outlandish because Hector Monsegur ratted Brown out. The FBI had a gold-plated criminal informant. Why would they jeopardize their case with tainted SIGINT?

Please see:

>>It's not likely to have been used in this case, because Brown seems to have indeed made real threats and probably plead guilty because of that. But that doesn't change the unreasonability in the general form of argument the comment grandparent makes.

By "the general form of argument the comment grandparent makes," I was referring to this request:

""" Do you have any cases where NSA illegal wiretaps were used as evidence in court in a standard trial like this against a U.S. citizen? """

Re: Barrett Brown sentenced to 63 months in prison

#85

Post by tedks »

tptacek wrote: post #81
tedks wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't read it that way, and I don't see why someone would. In fact, I don't see any critique of your views in this comment. The comment is entirely a rewording and expansion of the original comment. I think you're confusing the comment reading as if torture should be punished with the comment reading as if you think torture should be unpunished. That is, you're reading a comment that disagrees with you, and assumi…

You're not wrong to read it this way. I might be a little knee-jerk on threads like this. It is very, very apparent that skepticism about the Wired/Boing Boing narrative on this case is a minority view. Also, my current programming project involves advanced stat and calculus, two things I suck at, so I'm extra procrastinate-y today. I guess my question is: so, we all agree that failure to prosecute CIA torturers and…

>Now what? What does that have to do with Barrett Brown?

Governments are seen as evil when they are seen as the large bullying the small.

This is an example of that pattern.

Re: Barrett Brown sentenced to 63 months in prison

#86

Post by coldtea »

tptacek wrote: post #81
tedks wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't read it that way, and I don't see why someone would. In fact, I don't see any critique of your views in this comment. The comment is entirely a rewording and expansion of the original comment. I think you're confusing the comment reading as if torture should be punished with the comment reading as if you think torture should be unpunished. That is, you're reading a comment that disagrees with you, and assumi…

You're not wrong to read it this way. I might be a little knee-jerk on threads like this. It is very, very apparent that skepticism about the Wired/Boing Boing narrative on this case is a minority view. Also, my current programming project involves advanced stat and calculus, two things I suck at, so I'm extra procrastinate-y today. I guess my question is: so, we all agree that failure to prosecute CIA torturers and…

>I guess my question is: so, we all agree that failure to prosecute CIA torturers and torture-preneurs is a travesty. Now what? What does that have to do with Barrett Brown?

One connection is that what Barrett Brown did before he got punished was basically hurt the same military-industrial-intelligence complex that put those torturers in place.

(Regardless of if one can find 10 other technical legal violations in his actions to hypocritically punish him for. So yes, I'm saying that the "justice system" cares more for threats of that kind than what he supposedly was sentenced for. It's not like its unconceivable for the law to be hypocritical, as some assume).

I don't even agree that the "CIA torturers" should be prosecuted (well, they should, but only as mere cogs doing their job). It's not like they were some "rotten apples", activing on their own. And it's that seeing of this as a more general phenomenon that connects it with cases like Barrett Brown's (and Mannings, et al).

Re: Barrett Brown sentenced to 63 months in prison

#87

Post by tptacek »

coldtea wrote: post #86
tptacek wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not wrong to read it this way. I might be a little knee-jerk on threads like this. It is very, very apparent that skepticism about the Wired/Boing Boing narrative on this case is a minority view. Also, my current programming project involves advanced stat and calculus, two things I suck at, so I'm extra procrastinate-y today. I guess my question is: so, we all agree that failure to prosecute CIA torturers and…

> I guess my question is: so, we all agree that failure to prosecute CIA torturers and torture-preneurs is a travesty. Now what? What does that have to do with Barrett Brown? One connection is that what Barrett Brown did before he got punished was basically hurt the same military-industrial-intelligence complex that put those torturers in place. (Regardless of if one can find 10 other technical legal violations in hi…

Uh, what? Stratfor is not the military-industrial complex. The military-industrial complex, along with serious foreign policy journalists, made fun of Stratfor. And, of course, neither is its subscriber base.

Re: Barrett Brown sentenced to 63 months in prison

#88

Post by coldtea »

tptacek wrote: post #87
coldtea wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I guess my question is: so, we all agree that failure to prosecute CIA torturers and torture-preneurs is a travesty. Now what? What does that have to do with Barrett Brown? One connection is that what Barrett Brown did before he got punished was basically hurt the same military-industrial-intelligence complex that put those torturers in place. (Regardless of if one can find 10 other technical legal violations in hi…

Uh, what? Stratfor is not the military-industrial complex. The military-industrial complex, along with serious foreign policy journalists, made fun of Stratfor. And, of course, neither is its subscriber base.

>Stratfor is not the military-industrial complex.

No, it's just a tool it uses and with ties to governments, foreign diplomacy, policy makers etc. And it's not only about Statfor, it's about sending a message against this kind of journalism and against meddling with this kind of institutions and interests.

Whether "serious foreign policy journalists, made fun of Stratfor" doesn't say much. They also make fun of the CIA as incompetents who couldn't predict things like the fall of the Soviet Union and so on...

Re: Barrett Brown sentenced to 63 months in prison

#89

Post by tptacek »

tedks wrote: post #84
tptacek wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, an argument that can only be falsified by running an experiment that involves the armed overthrow of the government is not really in the spirit of "falsifiability". More importantly, you've missed my point. Which was, to the extent you can make these NSA claims about the Brown case, you can make them about every criminal justice case. Which, fine, but I think it'd be more intellectually to lead off with the fa…

> First, an argument that can only be falsified by running an experiment that involves the armed overthrow of the government is not really in the spirit of "falsifiability". I disagree entirely. Ideas are either falsifiable or not. An idea is not unfalsifiable because the experiment required to test it is expensive beyond some M. Real physicists discuss and publish theories that are impossible to test with current le…

I'm a little lost. If it's unlikely to have happened here, why was it brought up in the first place? What's the relevance to this thread?

The request you're referring to isn't mine; it's 'specialp's. It's in response to this comment (in its entirety):

My guess is he plead guilty under advisement his case was hopeless. There's a significant likelihood evidence necessary to aide his case is locked away deep inside the FBI.

A very a la NSA illegal wiretaps putting people in prison under guise of "confidential informant".

Which is an even less falsifiable argument than the specific one we're debating!

Re: Barrett Brown sentenced to 63 months in prison

#90

Post by tptacek »

coldtea wrote: post #88
tptacek wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, what? Stratfor is not the military-industrial complex. The military-industrial complex, along with serious foreign policy journalists, made fun of Stratfor. And, of course, neither is its subscriber base.

> Stratfor is not the military-industrial complex. No, it's just a tool it uses and with ties to governments, foreign diplomacy, policy makers etc. And it's not only about Statfor, it's about sending a message against this kind of journalism and against meddling with this kind of institutions and interests. Whether "serious foreign policy journalists, made fun of Stratfor" doesn't say much. They also make fun of the…

You don't think it's dangerous to suggest that we should decriminalize attacks on private journalism outlets simply because we don't like their perspective on our issues? That's what people who bomb abortion clinics think.

The military-industrial complex did not "use Stratfor as a tool". The military-industrial though Stratfor was a bunch of tools.

Here's ex- Atlantic and WaPo writer Max Fisher (now at Vox) on Stratfor:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/str...

Here's Daniel Drezner from Foreign Policy:

http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/future-imperfect

http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/02/27/wake-me-when-wikileaks-p...

Post reply on HN