Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. I already said I wasn’t interested in that debate.
It's load-bearing in your argument, so does that mean you withdraw your argument?
If that is the load-bearing part, I failed to make my point.
A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention
161–170 of 181 posts
Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same way we dont want smart people on juries, smart people in government is haram. especially people with technical educations who care about privacy. very haram!
You forgot the police with its explicit maximum IQ limits.
This is not a real thing, but people on the Internet badly want it to be.
Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Bad actors desire complexity because it leads to indifference. This is an extremely dangerous idea without being counterbalanced by fact that reality is often complex and good actors want to be honest about it. Bad actors desire confusion is closer to being accurate. But bad actors also often oversimplify to rouse people to some politically beneficial but ultimately harmful action.
I get your point, but I think confusion requires complexity. Otherwise how would it be confusing?
Motivated reasoning, especially by emotion or fear, especially when the simple answer is unpleasant. Missing information. Irrelevant information. Plain stupidity. Lots of ways to be confused about simple things.
Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> I feel like WYSIWYG politics is what most of us want, but probably doesn’t actually work. > then WYSIWYG politics will emerge as a preferred choice. I think the problem that Waterluvian's is getting at is precisely that WYSIWYG politics is taken as the preferred choice without understanding the implications that make it not actually work. For example, continuing to accept anything that remotely passes as protect-t…
> For example, continuing to accept anything that remotely passes as protect-the-children politics without understanding that the consequences are worse than the benefits, even for the children themselves. Have you checked the premise? Usually the waves of fake protect-the-children policies are widely decried, support is fairly thin and the politicians pass it anyway then refuse to revisit the issue ever. It is like…
> Have you checked the premise? Usually the waves of fake protect-the-children policies are widely decried, support is fairly thin and the politicians pass it anyway then refuse to revisit the issue ever.
I think support can be quiet. I think politicians make a bet on how their constituents, including the quiet ones, will feel.
Do you think that on average if you pulled a person off the street and asked them, they'd evaluate such policies as bad? I think seeing e.g. the awfulness of compromising encryption and device ownership requires at least a tech background, which most wouldn't have. Most would probably just think, "with this, there should be less reason to worry just leaving my child to their devices".
Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa. You can't just call everyone you disagree with a fascist.
I dont call "just anyone" I disagree with that. I call it a specific libertarian millionaires and republican party as is now. Because they fit the definition. And have fascist goals. I disagree with many other people who dont happen to be like that.
How do they fit the definition? What specific fascist goals?
I don't have a strong bill into who you are or your expertise on the matter, so I have to question it, especially no credentials on the matter extending a "definitive answer" to the people involved.
Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
black = bad is the generalization, not the argument. The argument tends to be to just look at the number of incarcerated black people. That's simple. > you cannot make that argument without backing it with a bunch of convoluted nonsense (complexity). Unfortunately, the one listening is the one that determines how much complexity you need. Some people are convinced more easily than others. In the end, people tend to b…
> In the end, people tend to believe what they want. Agreed. My point about complexity vs. simplicity does not apply to people who are coming in with strong, preconceived notions. Because how would a simple argument convince them of a generalization otherwise? Expanding on this, the point I was making is that Complexity is dangerous for those who are genuinely interested in trying to understand a topic or are simply…
> My point about complexity vs. simplicity does not apply to people who are coming in with strong, preconceived notions. Because how would a simple argument convince them of a generalization otherwise?
If it covers enough ground and they're prone to lose interest with more complex explanations, that can convince them... They can justify it with Occam's razor.
You're talking about coming in with strong, preconceived notions, but I think those notions start with simplistic race/DNA explanations. It's precisely because the explanation is simple that it's appealing. Even just pointing at the pattern may suffice.
Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the EU, and the UK The EU has their own cybercrime treaty: https://commission.europa.eu/law/cross-border-cases/judicial... But you'll never hear a peep from "no logs at all costs" VPN companies based in the EU.
403 error. Now that's concerning. Europe doesn't want me to know what the law is in the place where I am.
That's for your safety and well-being citizen.
Sometimes less information is more information.
Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dont call "just anyone" I disagree with that. I call it a specific libertarian millionaires and republican party as is now. Because they fit the definition. And have fascist goals. I disagree with many other people who dont happen to be like that.
How do they fit the definition? What specific fascist goals? I don't have a strong bill into who you are or your expertise on the matter, so I have to question it, especially no credentials on the matter extending a "definitive answer" to the people involved.
I read what they write. I see what they pust for. The millionaires were very open about their political goals, their distate for democracy. Republicans are very open about their wish to create white nationalist ethnotstate and their treatment of power is on full display.
Do you also question those who pretend libertarian millionaires are all about freeedom? Or just take that as granted? Do you also question those who paint republicans in positive light where it is clear lie?
Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, without a public identity we cannot know, they could be running for their local elections
Full disclosure: my name is Chip Dipson and I’m running for TV Remote Comptroller in the living room. I’m running on a campaign of “PUT IT THE %#^* BACK IN THE SAME PLACE EVERY TIME WHEN YOU’RE DONE WITH IT.”
You got my vote!
Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Please don't post ideological flamebait on HN. The guidelines make it clear we're trying for something better here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html