Cowards • Hacker News Board

Re: Cowards

#201

Post by iandanforth » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 5:10 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #185

edw519 wrote: post #167

First they came for the terrorists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a terrorist. Then they came for the whistle blowers, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a whistle blower. Then they came for the illegal aliens, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not an illegal alien. Then they came for the hackers--and there was no one left to speak for us.

Whistleblowers and illegal aliens might be morally equivalent to trade unionists and socialists, but terrorists are not equivalent to communists; I said nothing when they came for the terrorists because the terrorists were trying to murder my children.

Two points

1. The US has killed many many more children in its retaliation for attacks than any so called 'terror' organization has. (http://www.policymic.com/articles/20884/is-america-like-adam...)

2. The fear of your children dying is the ultimate weapon for people to control you.

There is a strange dichotomy between the pride parents of soldiers have in their child's courage to defend liberty, and the 'do-anything-it-takes-to-protect-my-babies' mindset that seems to pervade the civilian population. One leads to people standing up, the other, cowering.

Re: Cowards

#202

Post by avisk » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 5:17 PM UTC

All,

Can somebody compile Non-US alternatives for email, search,etc?

On top of my mind : Search : yandex.com Google Docs : zoho.com Email : fastmail.fm (Paid)

Re: Cowards

#203

Post by zaphar » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 5:20 PM UTC

iandanforth wrote: post #201

tptacek wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whistleblowers and illegal aliens might be morally equivalent to trade unionists and socialists, but terrorists are not equivalent to communists; I said nothing when they came for the terrorists because the terrorists were trying to murder my children.

Two points 1. The US has killed many many more children in its retaliation for attacks than any so called 'terror' organization has. ( http://www.policymic.com/articles/20884/is-america-like-adam... ) 2. The fear of your children dying is the ultimate weapon for people to control you. There is a strange dichotomy between the pride parents of soldiers have in their child's courage to defend liberty, and the 'do-anythi…

One of the governments primary jobs is protecting you from aggressors. You may not agree with the method a government uses but that doesn't change it's job description. So when they come for the terrorist they are pursuing a legitimate governmental role.

When they come for the whistleblower and illegal alien it becomes debatable whether they are pursuing a legitimate governmental role. It's very definitely an apples to oranges comparison there.

Re: Cowards

#204

Post by tomg » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 5:30 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #185

edw519 wrote: post #167

First they came for the terrorists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a terrorist. Then they came for the whistle blowers, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a whistle blower. Then they came for the illegal aliens, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not an illegal alien. Then they came for the hackers--and there was no one left to speak for us.

Whistleblowers and illegal aliens might be morally equivalent to trade unionists and socialists, but terrorists are not equivalent to communists; I said nothing when they came for the terrorists because the terrorists were trying to murder my children.

Even a suspected terrorist deserves a trial. If they are guilty, if they are a terrorist, then they will be given the punishment they are due.

The problem with deciding that suspected terrorists don't deserve the same rights is that those rights are/should be inalienable. If we decided to start making exceptions, then those rights are no longer inalienable and it's just a matter of degree.

What is a terrorist but a murderer with a political agenda? So perhaps we shouldn't give murder suspects a trial either. And what about a suspect who's attempted to murder? Why give them a fair trial? And so on.

The degree of heinousness of the crime should determine the punishment, not whether the accused deserves a trial.

Re: Cowards

#205

Post by nitrogen » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 6:04 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #191

einhverfr wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a problem to be solved then.

no it isn't a problem to be solved, it is a property of the world (of human psyche), like gravity is a property of matter.

Properties of the world can still be problems to be solved. Gravity is a problem solved by rockets. What is the solution to the gravity of human avarice?

Re: Cowards

#206

Post by ucee054 » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 6:06 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #185

edw519 wrote: post #167

First they came for the terrorists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a terrorist. Then they came for the whistle blowers, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a whistle blower. Then they came for the illegal aliens, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not an illegal alien. Then they came for the hackers--and there was no one left to speak for us.

Whistleblowers and illegal aliens might be morally equivalent to trade unionists and socialists, but terrorists are not equivalent to communists; I said nothing when they came for the terrorists because the terrorists were trying to murder my children.

No, the terrorists were trying to protect their children, whom the "troops" were heroically murdering.

Do you not know about the drone "signature strikes" that bomb randomly in Yemen and Pakistan, followed by targeted strikes against first responders?

And do you not know that all it takes to become a "terrorist" is to be male, medium age, and killed in such a strike? Unless proven innocent?

Or are you under the delusion that you have to actually join AlQaeda for the US government to count you as a terrorist?

Re: Cowards

#207

Post by tptacek » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 6:07 PM UTC

iandanforth wrote: post #201

tptacek wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whistleblowers and illegal aliens might be morally equivalent to trade unionists and socialists, but terrorists are not equivalent to communists; I said nothing when they came for the terrorists because the terrorists were trying to murder my children.

Two points 1. The US has killed many many more children in its retaliation for attacks than any so called 'terror' organization has. ( http://www.policymic.com/articles/20884/is-america-like-adam... ) 2. The fear of your children dying is the ultimate weapon for people to control you. There is a strange dichotomy between the pride parents of soldiers have in their child's courage to defend liberty, and the 'do-anythi…

I am not sure what your point is here, unless it is to argue that communists are morally equivalent to terrorists.

Also, a question: do you think there is anyone online reading HN that has not already heard this line of argument, that both governments and terrorists kill children?

Finally, not that I think it's necessary to rebut your post point by point, but: I'm not ok with the USG doing anything to protect my kids. But I am just fine with them going after actual terrorists.

Re: Cowards

#208

Post by TheMagicHorsey » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 6:13 PM UTC

Look this article is ridiculous. I'm embarrassed with everyone that thinks this is some sort of conspiracy to hand over information to the government without process.

Both Google and Facebook hand over data for INDIVIDUALS when the government issues a lawful request (such as by subpoena or warrant). Subpoena's do not have judicial review the way warrants do, but they are not OPTIONAL. A company MUST comply under US laws if the government issues a lawful request.

Both Facebook and Google have lawyers on staff that carefully vet requests.

If you have an issue with how our F'in government asks for too much information, then take issue with our laws. You cannot fault Google or Facebook for obeying laws that you, through your representatives, put in place.

I am fully in support with restricting the power of the state to compel private information from corporations, but I certainly won't blame a corporation for obeying the law.

Now, let us tackle the issue of the so called "red carpet" rolled out for the government. When the government requests information Google and Facebook can send them the information on disk, on paper, on anything for that matter. The issue is that they want to keep YOUR information as secure as possible while handing it to the state. They want the state to have access to it, but NOT any third party.

How secure will your information be if they don't set up a secure drop for the government? Do you want them to set up one-off FTP sites? Do you want them to put the information on disk for hand over? We've already discussed that direct access to the source servers is a bad idea.

Do you see what I'm saying? This fucking author doesn't use his brain for two seconds. What options do Google and Facebook have to obey the law, and to keep your data as secure as possible from third parties.

Some people just want to cry wolf at every turn. And then when we really need to raise a fuss (like when Google removes XMPP support from messaging) we get no traction with the public, because the community just looks like a bunch of whiners.

Re: Cowards

#209

Post by wiml » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 6:28 PM UTC

vadiml wrote: post #164

e_w wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but this is a textbook example of oversimplification.

I'd say it is basic game theory and statistics. If we have population of individuals who exhibit three types of behaviour: A - altruistic (1% of population) E - egoistic (1% ...) N - Normal (randomly A or B 98% of population) Let's them play a game where E - type has muuuuch better chances to win.... It is obvious that the proportion of E - types in the winner population will grow during the tournament. This explain…

It's basic extrapolating-without-data is what it is. You have a theory, well, let's call it a hypothesis ("a person who reaches CEO level is someone who will not behave altruistically"). You even have a simple model which mostly agrees with the hypothesis (not completely, I'll note) and which relies on several more untested hypotheses. Both the hypothesis and the model predict certain things about the world. You can check! Are those predictions borne out in reality? (˙˙˙ʎʃʃɐǝɹ ʇoᴎ :ɹǝʍsu∀)

Re: Cowards

#210

Post by Vivtek » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 6:46 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #185

edw519 wrote: post #167

First they came for the terrorists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a terrorist. Then they came for the whistle blowers, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a whistle blower. Then they came for the illegal aliens, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not an illegal alien. Then they came for the hackers--and there was no one left to speak for us.

Whistleblowers and illegal aliens might be morally equivalent to trade unionists and socialists, but terrorists are not equivalent to communists; I said nothing when they came for the terrorists because the terrorists were trying to murder my children.

I was not aware of any terrorist attack on Chicago. Nor do I believe that any terrorists have your children on their checklists.

Hyperbole is a fun game. But this is beneath you.