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

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#171

Post by dalke » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 1:53 PM UTC

pedalpete wrote: post #125

dalke wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took "Don't pick through it, see what you think will make headlines or embarrass people you don't like, and publish only that which you feel is fit to press." to mean that everything should be printed. Otherwise he needs to decide what he feels is fit to press, and what is fit to be redacted. Now you are saying that he should redact certain items. What judgement should he use for that? Since it seemed like you were…

Specifically that the redacted parts were to ensure the safety of the people involved was what I meant by the pieces that should be redacted. Hiding names and details which may harm people is responsible, but not publishing whole pieces of content, I think, makes WikiLeaks the 'editor' of information rather than 'liberator'. I don't think I said that political agenda's can't be lead by humanitarian agendas, if I did,…

Quoting from https://wikileaks.org/About.html :

"WikiLeaks is a not-for-profit media organisation. Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public."

That makes them an "'editor' of information". If you send them video from the surveillance cameras of your local Kwik-E-Mart, showing how the cats gather around the trash bin, then I see little need for them to publish that information. While a 'liberator' of information would do so as a matter of principle.

You appear to know little about the history of Wikileaks or about the leaked cables. Why do you think you know enough about Assange's political agenda, as distinct from his humanitarian agenda, to be confident about your statement?

I of course agree with you, but that's because I think everyone has a political agenda. You don't, so you must have other, specific reasons, which you haven't explained.

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#172

Post by _nedR » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 1:54 PM UTC

mkal_tsr wrote: post #95

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…

What I've always found interesting in the nebulus of Assange/Google/NSA/etc. is 90%+ of the time, people only focus on this as it if is only as US-gov issue. As if Russia, India, China and others haven't developed similar systems of surveillance. It's not to say that any system is wrong or right (whole different debate for another time) ... but it just astounds me that people look at what was leaked/released/unclassi…

Everybody and their grandmothers know that Russia, India, China are using everything within their means to spy on the world, and their citizens. Its the US hypocrisy of whining about this, while doing as much and more is what gets people.

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#173

Post by dalke » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 2:19 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #103

TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #19

I did not realize what a nut Assange has become. The more there is the danger that he might be forgotten, the more ridiculous his theories of the world. However, you have to think about his target audience. The audience doesn't consist of people who are familiar with things like DARPA grants, and think tanks. For people in the know, this writing will read like lunacy, because they will understand that Assange sees de…

The Naval Surface Warfare Lab funded my high school robotics team trip to Seattle. I must be really evil.

From an old Onion article at http://www.theonion.com/articles/death-star-to-open-day-care... :

> After months of speculation, it was confirmed yesterday that the Death Star, the Empire’s vaunted, planet-destroying space station, has added a new, state-of-the-art day care center to its already vast array of capabilities. The massive four-room day care center, which, according to Grand Moff Tarkin, will “provide a safe and fun learning environment for tots between the ages of one and four,” has already begun spring enrollment and is expected to be fully operational by June 1.

> ... Last Friday, in the middle of a coloring activity, the planet Alderan was blown up, delighting 23 of the 24 children who witnessed the devastating power of the battle station.

> ... “As a stormtrooper and father of three, I’m very excited about the new day care center,” Death Star citizen Ralph Sedgwick said. “It’s a safe, nurturing environment, one in which my child will learn.”

I'm not at all saying that NSWL is evil. Only that, realistically, even the most quintessential of evil empires must surely not have been evil in every single aspect. A large organization can't work that way.

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#174

Post by hardwaresofton » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 2:24 PM UTC

mkal_tsr wrote: post #95

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…

What I've always found interesting in the nebulus of Assange/Google/NSA/etc. is 90%+ of the time, people only focus on this as it if is only as US-gov issue. As if Russia, India, China and others haven't developed similar systems of surveillance. It's not to say that any system is wrong or right (whole different debate for another time) ... but it just astounds me that people look at what was leaked/released/unclassi…

But a lot of those other countries are fundamentally different (or at least they are on paper... specifically old constitution paper) than the US.

When the US does it, it's hypocrisy (because of written law, and what we supposedly stand for), when the other countries do it it's not questioned because their citizens don't have the same protection by a long shot.

So while contradictory, I think (partially) that it IS a US-gov issue -- other countries it's a non-starter because they don't have the same rights (or claim the same things).

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#175

Post by hardwaresofton » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 2:30 PM 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…

A little late, but there is no way to submit every piece of available (or even easily-researchable) information in one article. So I think every article would be guilty of lying were that the case.

Also, the facts that you listed are not the facts that really sell his story. It's the connections, not the business Google was doing. Google's a company, I am at peace with the fact that they're selling their products to the highest bidder (the government has a big wallet, filled with money we give it). It's the connections with schmidt, and the other high-ranking Google employees and various parts of gov't.

Also, remember, the only company that seemed to really fight surveillance (I might be getting this wrong, I only really read pretty standard news sources) was Yahoo.

I don't know why everyone is focusing on the DARPA funding... I don't really like it, and I'm worried about the priorities of the research, but that's not so relevant to google.

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#176

Post by mkal_tsr » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 2:44 PM UTC

hardwaresofton wrote: post #174

mkal_tsr wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I've always found interesting in the nebulus of Assange/Google/NSA/etc. is 90%+ of the time, people only focus on this as it if is only as US-gov issue. As if Russia, India, China and others haven't developed similar systems of surveillance. It's not to say that any system is wrong or right (whole different debate for another time) ... but it just astounds me that people look at what was leaked/released/unclassi…

But a lot of those other countries are fundamentally different (or at least they are on paper... specifically old constitution paper) than the US. When the US does it, it's hypocrisy (because of written law, and what we supposedly stand for), when the other countries do it it's not questioned because their citizens don't have the same protection by a long shot. So while contradictory, I think (partially) that it IS a…

True. But then an easy way to clarify my point would be ... when you make a connection with a server, can you verifiably prove your packets haven't been intercepted at any point and recorded by a foreign entity (for sake of this point, China/Russia) or undisclosed corp, given everything known about certain TLA security agencies? And that's kinda what makes things interesting ... that conflict drives innovation on both ends of the spectrum. The next decade is going to be interesting, that's for sure, heh.

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#177

Post by AnimalMuppet » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 3:28 PM UTC

serf wrote: post #145

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, his argument is that Assange is clearly wrong on one point, so don't buy his (Assange's) spiel hook, line, and sinker. Think. Look into things. Do some research.

But.. he wasn't wrong. He claimed that DARPA supported early goog, and they did. Your post's parent just doesn't happen to believe that that's cause for alarm. He didn't buy into 'Assange's spiel' not because it was factually wrong, but because it differed from his opinion on the weight of significance regarding DARPA grants. If his argument is "Assange is clearly wrong.", he's clearly wrong.

Assange gives a fact, and gives it an implication. The fact is correct DARPA did give a grant that lead to Google. The implication is "therefore Google is a government spy". I believe the great-grandparent post was arguing with Assange's implication, not his facts, when stating that Assange is clearly wrong. The GGP poster cited DARPA's history of giving grants to anything and everything. That's not a refutation of Assange's facts, but it is a refutation of his implication.

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#178

Post by cromwellian » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 3:58 PM UTC

chippy wrote: post #162

cromwellian wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they're not. Absolutely ZERO evidence or indication they are interested in building robot weapons for the government. To even suggest this is patently absurd and downright offensive. It has absolutely zero to do with the company mission, business model, and would be an affront to company culture as well. Google might accidentally build SkyNet one day, but they're not going to build it on contract for the go…

>offensive Are you personally offended by this idea? Or is it offensive to the corporation of Google? If either, why? If not, will you expand on how it is offensive, please.

From my observations, a large contingent of the employees at Google are fairly progressive on the political spectrum, at the very least, even those on the economic right tend to be of the anti-interventionist libertarian stripe, and not in favor of building weapons to further a military empire.

My guess is, you'd have a hard time getting people to explicitly work on something whose purpose is to kill people. Now, something like a self-driving car could certainly turn into a self-driving unmanned combat vehicle, but I bet the Google X people would be pretty horrified if that's what it was used for, as they are trying to save lives, not take more.

Someone else asked if Google is different than Lockheed Martin or Boeing, and I'd say, the answer is yes. Those companies are steeped in the defense contractor business and make a huge chunk of money by selling weapons to the military.

People often accuse Google of being an "advertising company" and look at where we get our money to find our motivations. Well, if you consistently apply that logic, our interests would be in getting you to watch more cat videos, and Boeing/Lockheed's interests would be in the world needing more weapons.

You can't simultaneously accuse Google of being "only an ad company", while at the same time accusing it of being interested in the military industrial complex, where it receives almost no benefit or revenue.

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#179

Post by hardwaresofton » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 4:05 PM UTC

mkal_tsr wrote: post #176

hardwaresofton wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But a lot of those other countries are fundamentally different (or at least they are on paper... specifically old constitution paper) than the US. When the US does it, it's hypocrisy (because of written law, and what we supposedly stand for), when the other countries do it it's not questioned because their citizens don't have the same protection by a long shot. So while contradictory, I think (partially) that it IS a…

True. But then an easy way to clarify my point would be ... when you make a connection with a server, can you verifiably prove your packets haven't been intercepted at any point and recorded by a foreign entity (for sake of this point, China/Russia) or undisclosed corp, given everything known about certain TLA security agencies? And that's kinda what makes things interesting ... that conflict drives innovation on bot…

Yeah, pretty sure the answer is no (though it's funny, we wouldn't have any idea how bad it really was, and maybe still don't, without the whole PRISM thing)....

yeah, the next decade is definitely going to be interesting.

Re: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

#180

Post by cromwellian » Fri, Oct 24, 2014, 4:41 PM UTC

serf wrote: post #161

cromwellian wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The statements are mostly guilt by circumstance. IMHO, there's a lot of puffery and bullshit going on at these NGO conferences and meetings, where self-important people present platitudes in powerpoint slides about vacuous and abstract solutions for the world's problems. It's the same nonsense we've seen before. A bunch of bankers go to meet in secret, and all of a sudden people are talking about Bilderbergers/Trilat…

>The State Department arranges lots of these "CEO tours" all the time. Are they secretly working on foreign policy, or, are they trying to open up exports, or sell people on American capitalism? What's the difference? They both support the agenda of the supporting governments. >Just because the trip is arranged on behalf of the State Department doesn't make the agenda wrong Right, but without transparency to indicate…

> Geo-Eye high res imagery. Everyone who owns an imagery satellite is pretty much forced to give the government preferential access, and offer lower resolution to the public. This is not Eric Schmidt wanting to do favors for the government, I'm sure all of the competing mapping companies want to offer the best, highest resolution maps, but are often regulated by the state from doing so.

> Kerry ad on front page.

Seriously? So when YouTube hosts President Obama in a Hangout, you think this is some quid-pro-quo for foreign missions? You think Twitter hosting Presidential or Candidate questions, or Facebook doing the same mean something is going on? Red Bull's epic stratosphere sky dive also was promoted in the same way. Google wants to promote their services, like G+/Hangouts/YouTube and the government wants free advertising it's a win-win, and you don't need to concoct a story that this is payback for Eric Schmidt delivering a message to Kim Jong Un, or for Google getting a free-pass from the FTC.

This is what I mean by guilty by association. If YouTube hosts a Whitehouse press conference, there's a product manager in YouTube is supremely happy, but it is extremely unlikely they had to hand over the keys of their servers to the NSA to get it. YouTube audience size and demographics alone are reason enough. In the same manner, Obama went on "Between Two Ferns" not as a favor to the show because of a State Department mission.

Not every relationship between the government and the private sector needs a conspiracy. The government needs to buy toilet paper like everyone else.

"Defense Industrial Base"? Oh, you mean, if the US military opens a Google Apps account, uses Docs, Gmail, and Maps for it's internal planning, suddenly it's no different than Lockheed Martin? The military and government uses Powerpoint like crazy, does this make Microsoft part of the "defense industrial base"? It's a pretty meaningless label then.