Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems • Hacker News Board

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#131

Post by colordrops » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 6:03 AM UTC

alexqgb wrote: post #58

programmarchy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling someone a conspiracy "nut" is not an argument, and doesn't add anything to the conversation besides an ad hominem fallacy. I do agree with your one point that DARPA funding is given out in a seemingly haphazard manner. However, giving companies money is an effective way of exerting influence over them in the future.

Simply calling somebody a nut instead of pointing out the flaws in their argument is a proper example of the ad hominem fallacy. However, taking aim at the argument itself, successfully demonstrating its nuttiness, and concluding that one would have to be a nut to try making such a case is not a failure of reason. Quite the opposite. After all, the ad hominem rule is not some generalized prohibition against personal…

In essence you are saying that you don't agree with Assange so his name should be smeared to keep his opinions from reaching the public. You are claiming that you are able to parse and analyze his statements for their truthfulness, whereas the rest of the public will be hoodwinked. What an arrogant and elitist way to think.

Arguments should stand or fall based on merit, not on labels like "nutjob" or "conspiracy theorist".

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#132

Post by colordrops » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 6:11 AM UTC

krapp wrote: post #89

smokeyj wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can agree this thread is full of shills, just possibly not google shills.

How do you tell the difference between a shill and someone who actually holds an opposing point of view? It might be true, but Hacker News has a diverse userbase and it might as well be false. Using the term seems to me to be just a way to dismiss the credibility of critics - it's a thought terminating cliche.

Shills are easy to detect, as they out of character with the typical tone and style of messages on a particular forum. They also tend to have egregious flaws in reasoning and use emotional and heated personal attacks against the person or topic in question. The posts often get pushed to the top more quickly than usual.

It has already been revealed that government agencies use sock puppets and other techniques to manipulate popular and influential message boards, such as Reddit and Hacker News:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/14/manipulating-o...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-ope...

Also, as many of you here on Hacker News should know, marginally ethical marketing techniques are commonly used by tech and other companies, including bought articles and opinion pieces, astro turfing, sock puppets, guerrilla marketing, software to assist in targeting specific forums and message boards, vote brigading etc. See:

http://www.blackhatworld.com/

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#133

Post by colordrops » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 6:12 AM UTC

bane wrote: post #107

So Google does business with the U.S. government? No duh. It's not exactly a state secret, it's not like Google doesn't post job openings at the Washington D.C. and Reston, VA locations for people who want to sell and support the government. Here's the contract awards http://www.usaspending.gov/search?form_fields=%7B%22search_t... https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/search.do?indexName=awardfull&... Of course they want to…

The claim is not only that Google does business with the government, but that they also help push the US Government's agenda. Did you read the article?

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#134

Post by Natsu » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 6:21 AM UTC

hardwaresofton wrote: post #85

Despite all the people that think he sounds like a lunatic, is any of what he is saying a lie? Lots of people who sound like lunatics but aren't telling lies are worth listening to, I think. So, he's putting a lot of "these guys are all evil" spin on it, but then again, all the connections he is making seem to be true. Whether it means Google is in bed with the US government or not is up to the reader (with nudging f…

The biggest problem for me is that it simply doesn't matter if I trust today's Google 100%. The fact is that it's a company and eventually the leaders will die, leave or retire.

Even if I claim that Google [today] is 100% pure, honest and ethical, that trust isn't transferable to Google [tomorrow] that will have all of its resources and all of its databanks to mine someday.

And that's a problem. Rationally we shouldn't let them occupy too high a pedestal or trust them too far, or we run the risk of regretting it later, when it's too late.

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#135

Post by xnull2guest » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 6:34 AM UTC

chj wrote: post #97

hardwaresofton wrote: post #85

Despite all the people that think he sounds like a lunatic, is any of what he is saying a lie? Lots of people who sound like lunatics but aren't telling lies are worth listening to, I think. So, he's putting a lot of "these guys are all evil" spin on it, but then again, all the connections he is making seem to be true. Whether it means Google is in bed with the US government or not is up to the reader (with nudging f…

> I think most people in the tech industry (and sadly not many people outside it) have already realized the Google is very very big-brothery. .. and is politically oriented. For example, the China government hacking incident was blown way out of proportion, greatly damaging the company's business in there. The consequence is still hurting them that Google services are now almost inaccessible in China.

"The company, which in 2010 blamed China for an attack on its computer networks, said it recently discovered the Gmail campaign, which "appears to originate from Jinan, China," and targeted specific individuals." - http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/china-hacks-go...

"Chinese hackers who breached Google’s servers several years ago gained access to a sensitive database with years’ worth of information about U.S. surveillance targets, according to current and former government officials." - http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/chines...

There's a reason PRISM and others go through the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Courts.

China hacked the interface US intelligence agencies were used to request Chinese surveillance targets and information. This is why they've lost business in China.

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#136

Post by contingencies » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 6:36 AM UTC

pedalpete wrote: post #110

contingencies wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the attempts by Assange, and people like Yasha Levine, to tie Google into the military industrial complex are weak sauce The historical, current and future involvement of senior Google executives in US foreign policy, their self-description and in some cases their personal identification as middle-east focused was, I felt, well illustrated in the article. The DARPA point is tangential.

Though the article was focused on middle-east related activities, would your argument change if the article mentioned an equal number of South American or Asia focused conferences/think tanks, etc. etc. It's interesting that we keep saying US foreign policy, but I wonder if it truly is US only, or if Google's connections in other countries have similar connections and activities? If they do, does that change how we f…

would your argument change

This is a tangent. I don't think there's any argument. The statements were well supported.

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#137

Post by xnull2guest » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 6:43 AM UTC

adventured wrote: post #39

api wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of what's happened in the past ten years is straight out of the rantings of 1990s-era conspiracy nuts. If anything, the 90s conspiracy wackos were too conservative. Nobody would have imagined that everyone would think it perfectly okay to carry a portable device that constantly reports their location to central servers 24/7, not to mention that it has a microphone that can be switched on by malware.

The Patriot Act, indefinite detention, torture camps, the NDAA bill, NSA spying, the immense violations by the FBI and DEA when it comes to parallel construction and aggressive localized spying and tracking, StingRay, fake cell towers, local jurisdictions (eg Virginia) compiling phone records and tracking citizens, killing thousands of innocent people around the globe via drones, Guantanamo, arresting people under te…

Can you speak more about NDAA?

Oh man there's so many things I want to add to your list.

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#138

Post by xnull2guest » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 6:46 AM UTC

valas wrote: post #129

hardwaresofton wrote: post #85

Despite all the people that think he sounds like a lunatic, is any of what he is saying a lie? Lots of people who sound like lunatics but aren't telling lies are worth listening to, I think. So, he's putting a lot of "these guys are all evil" spin on it, but then again, all the connections he is making seem to be true. Whether it means Google is in bed with the US government or not is up to the reader (with nudging f…

How do you define a "lie"? It is full of misinformation and omission of fact which then creates a false narrative. There are a few options then: a) Assange is omitting important facts intentionally (which I don't think is the case). In this case you can call this misinformation a "lie". b) Assange truly believes in the narrative and honestly thinks the important facts are not that important. In this case, well, he is…

Replying only to your comment about sitting next to security professionals. I am a security professional at another large company. I and my team mates are also all pissed about XKeyScore etc. But it doesn't bubble up all the way through upper management. Because at some point there's section 215 of the Patriot Act, NSLs, and CALEA.

It's the compliance and legal folk who implement key and data escrow. The security folks are mostly not working to defend against nation states - although they will partner with other companies in the field and with the government to share intelligence about ongoing campaigns and fingerprints.

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#139

Post by Argorak » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 7:05 AM UTC

valas wrote: post #129

hardwaresofton wrote: post #85

Despite all the people that think he sounds like a lunatic, is any of what he is saying a lie? Lots of people who sound like lunatics but aren't telling lies are worth listening to, I think. So, he's putting a lot of "these guys are all evil" spin on it, but then again, all the connections he is making seem to be true. Whether it means Google is in bed with the US government or not is up to the reader (with nudging f…

How do you define a "lie"? It is full of misinformation and omission of fact which then creates a false narrative. There are a few options then: a) Assange is omitting important facts intentionally (which I don't think is the case). In this case you can call this misinformation a "lie". b) Assange truly believes in the narrative and honestly thinks the important facts are not that important. In this case, well, he is…

Omissions are not lies. Yes, it's true that a lot of PhD-Students get DARPA funding, but that doesn't make the fact less true that Google also gets this.

All you are presenting is different interpretations of facts and weighting them differently - which is completely okay and a politics standard.

I disagree with you on one thing: if the main asset of google is trust, how come it aggressively lobbies against german consumer rights and makes themselves a hated target in that country? Doesn't quite fit...

I don't believe that Assange is necessarily _dishonest_. I have different interpretations to a lot of his things, but I am convinced that they are his actual opinions.

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#140

Post by PeterisP » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 7:05 AM UTC

smokeyj wrote: post #120

krapp wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you tell the difference between a shill and someone who actually holds an opposing point of view? It might be true, but Hacker News has a diverse userbase and it might as well be false. Using the term seems to me to be just a way to dismiss the credibility of critics - it's a thought terminating cliche.

> How do you tell the difference between a shill and someone who actually holds an opposing point of view? Shills make ad hominem attacks they can't back up. Such as the (at the time) top rated comment calling Assange a "nut" and backing it up with "I just don't have the patience to sit and list out why his other points are equally silly for anyone versed in the space". Shills don't want to have a discussion. They wa…

Those two points apply also to quite many "normal" non-shill commenters on the internet, and realistically you should expect "misinformed ranter vulgaris" to outnumber actual shills 100-to-1 in most discussions.