Why is this not flag killed like all the other (politically biased) articles on the DNC hack?
Because it is Bruce Schneier who tends to have a technical rather than an outright political angle.
The Security of Our Election Systems
21–30 of 89 posts
Re: The Security of Our Election Systems
#22Re: The Security of Our Election Systems
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. This is another moral question along the Snowden/Manning lines. Here's the thing: breaking into somebody's house is illegal. If you do it, you're a criminal and should face some kind of legal proceeding. If you break into their house and leave some personal items along the curb, like nude photographs? I'm probably going to gawk at them as I drive by. I don't like the fact that I do it, but I am human. You are s…
If you break into someone's house and find evidence of a murder or sexual assault, should you reveal those details? I would say yes, the crime of breaking and entering (and theft of the evidence) is still a crime, but a smaller one in the grand scheme of things. I would say both parties should be charged. It's not so clear cut though; if I break into your house and find a few joints should that be treated the same wa…
Note that you are answering a different question. I approached this issue framed as "what should society do?". My answers were about whether criminal proceedings should occur. How should the rest of us react when we see something like this?
Your question is of a moral nature: what should I do if I break in your house and find out that you are abusing your kids?
This is why they write fiction :) Not so easy to figure out, and it could easily vary by individual and circumstance.
As to advocating for people to become robbers, would I advocate for another Snowden to appear? I think that's impossible for me to answer without answering your moral question, without knowing what sorts of things would be revealed by the crime. Whether I advocated or not, though, it'd still be a crime. Not sure if my advocacy is a crime. If so, then I'm a criminal and the law is an ass.
Re: The Security of Our Election Systems
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. This is another moral question along the Snowden/Manning lines. Here's the thing: breaking into somebody's house is illegal. If you do it, you're a criminal and should face some kind of legal proceeding. If you break into their house and leave some personal items along the curb, like nude photographs? I'm probably going to gawk at them as I drive by. I don't like the fact that I do it, but I am human. You are s…
> Then the community has an obligation to take action both against the robber and the person who's house was broken into. No. This is exactly what's wrong with parallel construction and why any evidence like this should always be treated like it simply does not exist. The only times when you should be able to break that rule is if there is overwhelming social advantage to breaking it. And I'm not sure the case posted…
I don't think so. In my response, if somebody used parallel construction? They'd be guilty of a crime. This is what we want, right?
Re: The Security of Our Election Systems
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is about the leaks, is that there's isn't anything there that anyone paying attention didn't already know. Of course DWS was putting the thumb on the scales for Hillary, who schedules something you want people to see on a Saturday night? [0] As far as "corrupted" and "preventing" democratic process where's the evidence? Seriously. What votes were not counted?Where's the voter fraud? I'll tell you. Nowhere.…
The sheer banality of the "sabotage" found in the emails is honestly pretty good proof to me that there isn't anything truly horrible to be found- if there was, Sanders' folks would be trumpeting it, not "Sanders doesn't understand Democratic politics".
Yeah. My favorite of the truther conspiracies is that the DNC somehow called MSNBC up on the phone and had them kill a live segment. "Pull" means "get a copy" in this context.
It's as bad calling a cisco wifi repeaters a "white noise device".
Re: The Security of Our Election Systems
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you break into someone's house and find evidence of a murder or sexual assault, should you reveal those details? I would say yes, the crime of breaking and entering (and theft of the evidence) is still a crime, but a smaller one in the grand scheme of things. I would say both parties should be charged. It's not so clear cut though; if I break into your house and find a few joints should that be treated the same wa…
Note that you are answering a different question. I approached this issue framed as "what should society do?". My answers were about whether criminal proceedings should occur. How should the rest of us react when we see something like this? Your question is of a moral nature: what should I do if I break in your house and find out that you are abusing your kids? This is why they write fiction :) Not so easy to figure…
My comment wasn't so much a direct response to the points you raised, and I wasn't disagreeing, the things I discussed were ideas which were inspired by your comment.
I hadn't considered whether I would advocate for another Snowden, but assuming being 'another Snowden' implies exposing corruption I would have to say that I would. I personally think that corruption in any form is one of the things holding us back as a species. See Africa for a wealth of examples.
Re: The Security of Our Election Systems
#27Why is this not flag killed like all the other (politically biased) articles on the DNC hack?
Where is the political bias on Schneier's part here? Perhaps you simply just disagree with his position?
Re: The Security of Our Election Systems
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a message that needs to be transmitted, and he's one of the best folks to transmit it. > I don't think there's any demonizing going on. Ok, what is it that we're not supposed to tolerate from Russia? They spied on our documents and released them for public review. Schneier himself would be the first to tell you that they're not going to stop spying on us and we shouldn't expect them to. The phrase "attack agai…
Accurate or not, foreign influence is something to worry about. Let's be honest here. Governments don't release intelligence on foreign leaders in some sort of magnanimous and innocent gesture to help inform the foreign populace. No. They do it for influence. They choose what to release and when. For the sake of argument, let's say that your had evidence that a major candidate for office in a strategically important…
So what? You appear to be defending the idea I originally mocked, that this is a good thing when the New York Times does it and a bad thing when Pravda does it. You won't ever be able to make that argument coherently; all information releases serve the goals (or are intended to) of the person releasing the information, and those goals are never your goals. Why are Russia's US federal policy goals more nefarious than Salt Lake City's US federal policy goals? If they are, how does it matter?
Re: The Security of Our Election Systems
#29This is a WHISTLE BLOWER situation.
First identify who is trying to persecute the whistleblower.
There, you've found the party that has committed untoward acts who is now trying to SILENCE THE WHISTLEBLOWER/CHANGE THE SUBJECT.
I was a Bernie supporter. A LOT of people were/are. Not at all happy with the DNC.
Having a whistleblower confirm our idea that the DNC was trying to hurt Bernie --
-- now I know how a parent feels when they finally solve the tragedy of a missing family member.
REALLY CATHARTIC.
And really depressing.
Re: The Security of Our Election Systems
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Then the community has an obligation to take action both against the robber and the person who's house was broken into. No. This is exactly what's wrong with parallel construction and why any evidence like this should always be treated like it simply does not exist. The only times when you should be able to break that rule is if there is overwhelming social advantage to breaking it. And I'm not sure the case posted…
I don't think so. In my response, if somebody used parallel construction? They'd be guilty of a crime. This is what we want, right?
No, it would be akin to anonymous tips leading to miraculous discoveries. After all, if the penalty would be to only be slapped on the wrist for the 'lesser' crime then that would up-end the whole system in place for evidence gathering, which is supposed to be lawful at all times.
Parallel construction is sneaky in that it allows otherwise in-admissible evidence into a case or allows one to jump-start a case that would otherwise not have existed in the first place.