Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cowards

uncrunched.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 240 posts

Re: Cowards

#231

Post by zaphar »

bandushrew wrote: post #230
zaphar wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If the government gets to deny human rights to anyone it with a specific label - what does it matter what the label is? The government should not be allowed to deny human rights to anyone .

I think you may have missed the part where I said you might disagree with the methods. But my point wasn't regarding methods it was regarding purpose.

Re: Cowards

#232

Post by humbleopinion »

there is the fear of prosecution of course, but i think that plays less a part than the threat of how the market will react to a full confession that we're giving your data away (even if it's under the pretense of "safety" or whether you trust the data given is whole or in part).

so lets say Google admits, ok we give access to the gov to sift through your contacts...the vast amount of the population will say, that's messed up but will continue to use their services...who I do see leaving are the small segment of people who value their privacy and the technically savvy individuals who can roll their own services...those people could be the taste-makers of society and depending on whether you believe their influence, could pivot the market to a competitor.

of probably greater importance are the government and corporate entity of the world who now will be concerned with whether they should use Google for their own sensitive data knowing that a third-party (and in the case of nation states, an overly meddlesome competitor) can access it, who historically are also known to have difficulty holding onto data (ie, leaks). So there would be definite loss of trust there.

from my view, those are the greater risks for those particular CEOs...it could result in killing your own baby, as they are also the founders.

Re: Cowards

#233

Post by Dylan16807 »

bambax wrote: post #217
tptacek wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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? So? Does this make the argument wrong? Or does this mean that arguments that have been used once, cannot be used again? Arguments as toilet paper, in some way? I'm French. France was occupied by Nazi Germany (as every American I ever speak to likes to…

It's not that simple. When 'terrorists' are in their home country fighting the occupiers, it is sometimes justified. When they go into another country to attack civilians any justification of fighting for freedom is lost. As a category 'terrorist' is imprecise and problematic, and likely better off not being used.

Re: Cowards

#234

Post by _bfhp »

The CEO answers to shareholders, not users. A CEO of a company with shareholders is not a living organism with the possibility of having a moral compass but instead a (don't snicker) machine, one that makes deterministic (ultimately predictable) decisions.

Re: Cowards

#235

Post by bambax »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #233
bambax wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? So? Does this make the argument wrong? Or does this mean that arguments that have been used once, cannot be used again? Arguments as toilet paper, in some way? I'm French. France was occupied by Nazi Germany (as every American I ever speak to likes to…

It's not that simple. When 'terrorists' are in their home country fighting the occupiers, it is sometimes justified. When they go into another country to attack civilians any justification of fighting for freedom is lost. As a category 'terrorist' is imprecise and problematic, and likely better off not being used.

Agree totally. The word "terrorist" is useless. It's even less useful when used against anyone who hasn't yet been convicted, in order to justify bypassing normal judicial due process (as the parent was implying, and as many countries have done, including the UK and, shamelessly, France).

The only way for the terrorists to win is to transform modern democracies into paranoid, self-centered, hysteric societies.

Terrorists appear to be winning so far, but it's a long game. We should really not play their game.

Re: Cowards

#236

Post by dasil003 »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #226
dasil003 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, let's not call on powerful people to do the right thing then. I mean they were the ones with the ambition to influence the world, so it's pointless to even ask them to have some morals.

Where do you see a connection between influencing the world for personal gains and having morals?

Uh, in the comment I was responding to?

Re: Cowards

#237

Post by 14113 »

zaphar wrote: post #231
bandushrew wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the government gets to deny human rights to anyone it with a specific label - what does it matter what the label is? The government should not be allowed to deny human rights to anyone .

I think you may have missed the part where I said you might disagree with the methods. But my point wasn't regarding methods it was regarding purpose.

The problem, and what bandushrew is saying, is that purposes can be flexible. Once a system or method is legitimised, legalised or even routinely used it can be repurposed for other means. That's the true message of the OP's post - the "coming for" is the method in this case, while the people listed are the individual purposes.

Re: Cowards

#238

Post by lnanek2 »

I'm all for people getting their privacy, rah, rah. However, these leaders of companies are not free of obligations. What if you had your entire life savings in Google, Google broke the law by talking about what it is legally not allowed to do, and the stock plummeted due to the CEO being arrested? Or if the government just put a lot of oversight on them in the future and lost them a lot of business and cost them a lot of money verifying everything through lawyers (happens often after privacy violations, amusingly). Even if the leader of a company spoke with a good heart, if he broke the law and got the company in trouble, he is abandoning his duty to the company. I'd hope the board would remove him in this case, but even then there's still be a lot of damage.

Re: Cowards

#239

Post by chii »

nitrogen wrote: post #205
chii wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

if you put it that way, the only solution is to brute force it (i.e., have cheap, limitless energy, which is easy for any and everyone to utilize).

Re: Cowards

#240

Post by drivebyacct2 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #132
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they simply know more than we do. Maybe they've gotten the answers to "Why?" that we want and that convinced them? That's the "conspiracy" that almost worries me more. Not that I hold any real faith in such a thought.

That conclusion requires three things to be true simultaneously: 1) The government has some actual legitimate reason to do all of this which outweighs the danger of excessive government power. 2) Disclosing the reason to the public would eviscerate its effectiveness. 3) Allowing the government to say "trust us, we're the government" about anything from now on and get a free pass, because it could be this situation, w…

I 100% completely agree with you. Everything else aside, as I said elsewhere, I'm tired of being treated like a child and told to shut up and not question things. That's what repressive governments do. "Just trust us, we know what's best for your "safety"".
Post reply on HN