131–140 of 145 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And, it's the reason governments will clamp down and regulate the internet more and more. This is why we can't have nice things.
Hacking is already illegal. What could governments have done to prevent this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hacking is already illegal. What could governments have done to prevent this?
For example, they'd make anyone possessing, downloading, reading, printing etc any of these emails a 'terrorist' and imprison them indefinitely.
900 upvotes and 92 comments on the reddit thread, yet not one comment that is critical of this action. To release the emails of private individuals and firms without any a priori evidence that they have committed any sort of crime is distasteful to me. It would be unethical if the tables were turned and ordinary citizens were getting their emails released. And its unethical in this case as well, regardless of whether…
Hmm. You know what? Your position, on paper, makes a lot of sense. At the same time, there are times where you say "eh, fuck it." And this, for me, is one of them. Assume we live in a world where those who have power exist in a sphere of privilege. They enjoy protections from the consequences of their actions. Their influence and connections exempt them from the standard costs of citizenship. If that's the case, if t…
Not to be a pedant, but it should be "among", not "between."
That is pedantic, and not in a particularly well justified way: http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/nonerrors.html#between
If the line read "3.3 million e-mails between many of the most powerful men are about to be released." I would have grimaced and kept my piece.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is due to one of my least favorite traits about reddit: the hivemind criminalizes the rich and powerful by defining them as naturally evil. I don't know how this mindset got started on reddit; I would love to find out. It seems to be their way of justifying being middle/lower class by saying the reason the rich/powerful succeed is due the rich/powerful not having a heart and gaming people of their money.
It's called tall poppy syndrome.
in other words: you're assuming that rich people are wonderful and that criticism is therefore unfair; others are sceptical that the wealth and privilege is justified and so feel that the criticsm is fair.
so the difference is political. labeling it "tall poppy syndrome" is a framing technique to "smuggle in" the assumption that wealth is deserved.
and to answer the question of "where it came from" - questioning the right to wealth is not a new idea. if you think it's something specific to reddit then you might consider learning more about alternative political viewpoints.
I have higher hopes for hacker news. There is more to this than the morality of publishing emails. http://pastebin.com/8yrwyNkt Specifically, of interest (at least to me), as the post claims that Stratfor themselves said this (I haven't actually checked/found external verification, please post URL if you do): "In the past month Stratfor has drawn attention to a carefully assembled open-source report that asserted tha…
As opposed to a bunch of misguided, ignorant script kiddies thinking Stratfor is something it isn't?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is pedantic, and not in a particularly well justified way: http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/nonerrors.html#between
Usage of "between" in this particular headline causes confusion because between implies there are only two men. If the line read "3.3 million e-mails between many of the most powerful men are about to be released." I would have grimaced and kept my piece.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that government employees' correspondence with a private company is confidential.
You're wrong. You can foia request any communication between government employees and anyone if it was done in their official role or on government equipment. There are some exceptions of course, but generally speaking correspondence is anything but confidential (at least in the USA)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have to back you on this. This doesn't sit in any moral grey area. This is nothing but corruption. If people genuinely have no problem with the outing of millions of private correspondences, then they should be publicly offering their own correspondences up for inspection. If you're against SOPA, you should be against tyranny like this. This is the tyranny of the minority, of anarchists who aren't doing this for mo…
> If you're against SOPA, you should be against tyranny like this. This is the tyranny of the minority, of anarchists who aren't doing this for moral value or just cause. This wasn't even done for retaliation or idiot bashing like hbgary. This was done for no reason but to cause harm and mayhem. In normal circumstances I would agree with what you say, any sane person would agree with you actually, but these are not n…
How ridiculous. You can use that to justify absolutely any action that you deem fit. Who's to decide what's acceptable in these "not normal circumstances"?