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

Cowards

uncrunched.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 240 posts

Re: Cowards

#101

Post by vorg »

mtgx wrote: post #64
jmduke wrote: post #2

There's a meme on Reddit that revolves around 'so brave': basically calling people/posts/comments out for obvious pandering. This reads like a pastiche of Keith Olbermann, all bravado and empty gusto. Arrington writes: What has these people, among the wealthiest on the planet, so scared that they find themselves engaging in these verbal gymnastics to avoid telling a simple truth? and then acknowledges that doing so,…

His point is basically this: “All it takes for evil to succeed is for a few good men to do nothing...” ― Edmund Burke That's so true. If they came out now, the country would be better for it. But they are deciding to be accomplices of the out of control and abusive government. I thought Google, at least, would be better than this, after the whole China situation.

Yes, if Google don't stand up to the US government over this blanket gag order, it sort of invalidates their efforts over censorship with the Chinese government.

Re: Cowards

#102

Post by yaix »

primitur wrote: post #89
jmduke wrote: post #2

There's a meme on Reddit that revolves around 'so brave': basically calling people/posts/comments out for obvious pandering. This reads like a pastiche of Keith Olbermann, all bravado and empty gusto. Arrington writes: What has these people, among the wealthiest on the planet, so scared that they find themselves engaging in these verbal gymnastics to avoid telling a simple truth? and then acknowledges that doing so,…

>to have an actual conversation both about privacy Let us have a conversation about that: Why should Mark Zuckerberg, et al., know things about you that the government shouldn't? Or, to put it another way, shouldn't the very thing which represents You, the People, have as much information about you as, "They", the Corporations, do? After all, Mr. Z, et al., can quite easily tell you things about yourself which, 3 wor…

> Why should Mark Zuckerberg, et al., know things about you that the government shouldn't?

1. Because the user decided to give their own info to FB, but not to the gov.

2. The gov has many more powers than FB. If FB knows something about you that "may be suspicious" they can't put you in jail for it, maybe even without a trial.

3. If some FB employee is able to steal data, it would have bad consecuences for the FB stock, so there is probably all kinds of barriers in place to stop employees to do just that. If some bureaucrat manages to sell off you data there is no consecuene for them.

etc.

Re: Cowards

#103

Post by fijal »

scythe wrote: post #41
sage_joch wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What the hell does this even mean? It means that if telling the truth is illegal, they should have the courage to break the law.

Y'know, I'd like to believe I'd do that in this situation, too. But people are more generous in theory than in practice. You have to realize: Mark Zuckerberg isn't just looking out for Mark Zuckerberg by posting what he did. He has a family, a social life, and a whole lot of people at Facebook who depend on him. To whom, perhaps, it would not be fair for Zuck to martyr himself on the great gallows of the United State…

   "First they came for the communists,
   and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

   Then they came for the socialists,
   and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

   Then they came for the trade unionists,
   and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

   Then they came for me,
   and there was no one left to speak for me."

Re: Cowards

#104

Post by nraynaud »

milkshakes wrote: post #27
hamburglar wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I especially liked the fake incredulity: why would some of the richest people on earth not want to be turned into the next Bradley Manning? Well gee, I simply can't imagine their motivations!

I, for one, would love to see the government try to Bradley Manning Mark Zuckerberg for telling the truth. It would at least be more interesting than the current Orwellian dialogue we are having with our government and corporate leaders, and it would probably be more substantive too.

there are other ways to handle a lone wolf, even if powerful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko

The whole premise is that the NSA is protecting the USA of terrorism by spying and that the USA is in a war against terrorism. Then the one who go against NSA is a traitor in a war time. Stop any rational argument here. BTW, I think you look slightly traitor to me...

On a side note, I see the whole xenophobia that's implied by all this. The NSA exists only to strip foreigners of their privacy, without any due process or supervision, and the only accusation here is that they might have stripped some of the 5% of the global population of their privilege of due process and constitutional rights. And there is a lot of suspicion that the NSA was used for economic spying in the war between Boing and EADS, and probably other cases.

Re: Cowards

#105

Post by threeseed »

bambax wrote: post #67
sage_joch wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What the hell does this even mean? It means that if telling the truth is illegal, they should have the courage to break the law.

Exactly. Just because it's "illegal" doesn't mean it can't be done -- just as, just because what the government asks is "legal" (??!?) doesn't mean it has to be complied with. "What will happen?" is an excellent question that is not even asked. Certainly not everything is an acceptable risk; if Larry Page seriously believe he would risk spending the rest of his life in prison for publishing national security letters,…

Because CEOs need to act like adults not petulant little children.

You obey the law. Period. And if you don't agree with it you lobby directly or encourage your users to do so.

Re: Cowards

#106

Post by fauigerzigerk »

"Or to put it another way, who the hell needs “direct access” or “back doors” when companies are building “secure portals” for them instead?"

The extent of his confusion is breathtaking. Apparently very few people get what this is all about. The real question is this:

Does the government (a) mine content and/or metadata in these service providers' databases for suspect activity, or (b) can it only access specific accounts after naming the account holder?

What happened at Verizon is (a). Page and Zuckerberg say it's not what happens at Google and Facebook.

What Page and Zuckerberg meant when they were talking about "scale" is that the government cannot mine their databases for suspects. Not directly, not indirectly, not through a secure portal or in any other way.

The government can and does make requests (lots of them) to have specific accounts opened, and what Google/Facebook apparently do is to make that process technically more efficient via a secure portal.

Re: Cowards

#107

Post by primitur »

yaix wrote: post #102
primitur wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>to have an actual conversation both about privacy Let us have a conversation about that: Why should Mark Zuckerberg, et al., know things about you that the government shouldn't? Or, to put it another way, shouldn't the very thing which represents You, the People, have as much information about you as, "They", the Corporations, do? After all, Mr. Z, et al., can quite easily tell you things about yourself which, 3 wor…

> Why should Mark Zuckerberg, et al., know things about you that the government shouldn't? 1. Because the user decided to give their own info to FB, but not to the gov. 2. The gov has many more powers than FB. If FB knows something about you that "may be suspicious" they can't put you in jail for it, maybe even without a trial. 3. If some FB employee is able to steal data, it would have bad consecuences for the FB st…

1. You also chooose your participation in government. 2. Right, so because Mr. Z. et al., don't have a 'license to kill', there is a difference. This is the only difference. 3. Which do you trust more, McDonalds or Congress?

Re: Cowards

#108

Post by jacquesm »

yaix wrote: post #102
primitur wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>to have an actual conversation both about privacy Let us have a conversation about that: Why should Mark Zuckerberg, et al., know things about you that the government shouldn't? Or, to put it another way, shouldn't the very thing which represents You, the People, have as much information about you as, "They", the Corporations, do? After all, Mr. Z, et al., can quite easily tell you things about yourself which, 3 wor…

> Why should Mark Zuckerberg, et al., know things about you that the government shouldn't? 1. Because the user decided to give their own info to FB, but not to the gov. 2. The gov has many more powers than FB. If FB knows something about you that "may be suspicious" they can't put you in jail for it, maybe even without a trial. 3. If some FB employee is able to steal data, it would have bad consecuences for the FB st…

> Because the user decided to give their own info to FB, but not to the gov.

This is not quite true. Facebook can make profiles even on people that don't have facebook and that have never logged in to facebook.

The tracking works just fine on a per-browser level. The practical upshot of this is that there is a good chance that facebook has data on you from before you joined and is able to track you after you leave.

Re: Cowards

#109

Post by Chris2048 »

fijal wrote: post #103
scythe wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Y'know, I'd like to believe I'd do that in this situation, too. But people are more generous in theory than in practice. You have to realize: Mark Zuckerberg isn't just looking out for Mark Zuckerberg by posting what he did. He has a family, a social life, and a whole lot of people at Facebook who depend on him. To whom, perhaps, it would not be fair for Zuck to martyr himself on the great gallows of the United State…

"First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."

That's a reply to who you should fight for things that don't effect you (or your group), not for when individuals don't want to join a greater fight for the sake of their dependants.

Re: Cowards

#110

Post by wavefunction »

threeseed wrote: post #105
bambax wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Just because it's "illegal" doesn't mean it can't be done -- just as, just because what the government asks is "legal" (??!?) doesn't mean it has to be complied with. "What will happen?" is an excellent question that is not even asked. Certainly not everything is an acceptable risk; if Larry Page seriously believe he would risk spending the rest of his life in prison for publishing national security letters,…

Because CEOs need to act like adults not petulant little children. You obey the law. Period. And if you don't agree with it you lobby directly or encourage your users to do so.

Not if the law is immoral, but run along little authoritarian.
Post reply on HN