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

UK Government Officials Infected with Pegasus

citizenlab.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 381 posts

Re: UK Government Officials Infected with Pegasus

#321

Post by cloutchaser »

lostmsu wrote: post #280
cloutchaser wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you are doing exactly what you are claiming was done, explaining away one thing (which still btw doesn’t work, Blair and brown are both labour too), and saying the others don’t matter because you’ve proved one wrong. Yet somehow it’s always Corbyn labour that gets “misquoted”. Why is that? The Labour Party has plenty of motivation to smear the conservatives over antisemitism, yet somehow they don’t have the mater…

Did you just call "the left" "antisemitic" and then immediately complained about people who "blame identity groups for the world's problems" in two consecutive statements?

Yes I did. Who does the american left blame right now for the world's problems? Individuals evaluated by what they do, or a certain group of people?

Re: UK Government Officials Infected with Pegasus

#322

Post by [deleted] »

thedeadfish wrote: post #315
throwaway67743 wrote: post #304

There is a point being totally missed in this thread and that is the UK government basically ignore all security common sense and do absolutely incomprehensible things like discuss national security over WhatsApp and Zoom, as a British citizen, in my eyes this absolutely amounts to treason as they're knowingly potentially giving away state secrets, anyone else would be instantly jailed. UK government and any departme…

The UK government hates its own country and people, why would they bother with something so trivial as national security. That would be like a serial killer worrying about infection whilst dismembering their victim.

[deleted]

Re: UK Government Officials Infected with Pegasus

#323

Post by Chris2048 »

yyyk wrote: post #316
cyberpunk wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please show me where Corbyn said anything against Jewish people for being jewish? He, like me, is strongly against the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the war crimes it commits against its peoples in exercise of that. Saying so does not make you a bigot or an anti semite. Israel and it's defenders hide behind these kind of statements and they're nonsense. Labour if elected would not have given Israel such an easy…

Nearly all of the statements and actions in issue with Corbyn have nothing whatsoever to do with Israel. 99.9999% politicians manage to avoid antisemitic murals and endorsing antisemitic books just fine. It's not remotely difficult, and I'm sure 99.999999% of Labour Leftists with nigh-identical positions would not be so compromised. Can't understand why the Labour Left had to (politically) die on that hill.

Corbyn didn't support an anti-Semitic mural, if that's what "managing to avoid" means: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/23/corbyn-crit...

The book was presumably "Imperialism: A Study" - not wholly about Jews, and Corbyn describes the accusation as "mischievous representation".

These are weak examples, basically a degrees-of-separation argument coupled with your own opinion of what is black-and-white anti-Semitic without informed discussion (or even examples since you only provide suggestive anecdotes, not sources). Feel free to demonstrate your "99.9..%" numbers for politicians that are under the same amount of scrutiny.

Re: UK Government Officials Infected with Pegasus

#324

Post by throwaway67743 »

tomxor wrote: post #314
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to think that is an issue with old non-technical generation and therefore it is argument for new blood. But.. new blood is about as careless about sharing all sorts of information online as old blood. I don't know if there is a solution to this. I am starting to wonder if it is one of those 'best not to think about it' things.

It's the same problem as the lack of widespread technical comprehension in the general public. New blood politicians may know more about tech, phones and services from a _user_ perspective, but most of them are still politicians, not engineers - and just like the vast majority of the general public, will mostly not appreciate the implications of any details bellow the surface of modern technology. What we think of as…

NCSC are supposed to be doing this, but they're genuinely clueless and just like doing PR.

I also don't think it's reasonable to say it's lack of awareness, the same people wouldn't give the launch codes to a 3rd party, it doesn't require any technical clue to apply this.

Re: UK Government Officials Infected with Pegasus

#325

Post by nonrandomstring »

mr_toad wrote: post #113
haltingproblem wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stopped reading around: "Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;" and something about (only) Ireland repealed it in [1]. In [2] it says, quite straight faced, that "The Constitution of the United Kingdom or British constitution comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a politica…

> Britain does not have a written constitution but it is followed (how?) Perhaps this is just a tacit admission that writing the rules on a piece of paper changes nothing. People follow the rules as a kind of collective consensus. Writing them down in one place wouldn’t change that.

"The English have a system that is no system, which is also a system, only better."

- I have completely forgotten the quote source, but it is a lesser cited quip from a famous political philosopher.

Re: UK Government Officials Infected with Pegasus

#326

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

yyyk wrote: post #319
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't often respond to claims like these, but I think it might be necessary to in this case. I am not sure what sources you used to inform those claims, but I will simply say that in both cases both are misleading. Noam Chomsky is a lot of things, but 'genocide denier' label is at best inaccurate and, more importantly, does not automatically make him wrong on any other issue. I get that character assassination work…

The quote in question provides no sources beyond that Chomsky said it (no direct sources or anything). So the question of Chomsky's credibility is important, and well, Chomsky's own record in the Balkans and earlier in Cambodia speaks for itself. >I think parent is referring to this piece of legislation I believe you are right, but the particular issue parent's objecting to is not new at all [EDIT: Note that parent c…

I will admit that I don't follow him closely enough to know his stance on either Balkans or Cambodia. If you can share any sources, I would not mind learning a little more.

That said, I accept your argument that credibility is relevant. Not to search very far, if we accept him as some sort of authority on geopolitical matters, is he wrong, say, about US-Iraq relationship? My point is that opinions should not be automatically dismissed or automatically accepted. It should be based on the merits of the argument. And Chomsky can present an interesting argument based on what I heard.

Re: UK Government Officials Infected with Pegasus

#327

Post by yyyk »

Chris2048 wrote: post #317
yyyk wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comparison is to the rhetoric used to ignore bigotry (see the absurd defence of Corbyn in the comments). The alleged sins of a country are irrelevant to that issue.

So the topic you wish to discuss is "rhetoric used to ignore bigotry". Feel free to demonstrate where this exists in the comment you replied to. I can just as easily decide the more relevant topic is "rhetoric used to ignore ethnic nationalism", which your post could be. EDIT: I'd also note the comment you replied to says: > Israel plays the anti-semitism card much too loosely to be taken seriously your own comment e…

>Why is dismissive labelling ok in one case, and not another?

Because the only source given for the quote was Chomsky himself*. In that case, the question of Chomsky's credibility is directly relevant.

* It's possible Chomsky had an actual source etc., but if so, it was not provided in the original comment.

Re: UK Government Officials Infected with Pegasus

#328

Post by yyyk »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #326
yyyk wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quote in question provides no sources beyond that Chomsky said it (no direct sources or anything). So the question of Chomsky's credibility is important, and well, Chomsky's own record in the Balkans and earlier in Cambodia speaks for itself. >I think parent is referring to this piece of legislation I believe you are right, but the particular issue parent's objecting to is not new at all [EDIT: Note that parent c…

I will admit that I don't follow him closely enough to know his stance on either Balkans or Cambodia. If you can share any sources, I would not mind learning a little more. That said, I accept your argument that credibility is relevant. Not to search very far, if we accept him as some sort of authority on geopolitical matters, is he wrong, say, about US-Iraq relationship? My point is that opinions should not be autom…

That's fair enough. We can discuss arguments to a large extent divorced from who made them. This is often useful.

However, the quote in question goes a bit further, Chomsky says Eban started a specific strategy of using antisemitism to Eban's own ends, almost directly paraphrasing something Eban allegedly said. I think I'm entitled to ask what's Chomsky's source, and if there isn't any, than it rests on Chomsky's credibility which, well, isn't very much IMHO.

[EDIT: On the Balkans, you can see Kraut's video on YouTube. This text has similar arguments though:

https://srebrenicagenocide7111995.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/n... ]

Re: UK Government Officials Infected with Pegasus

#329

Post by jen20 »

clort wrote: post #179
jen20 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which UK politician are you referring to? The only one I’m aware of in high office currently who was born abroad is Boris Johnson, who was born in New York - a fact so far down the list of reasons for his unfitness for office that it does not really register. The idea that this is the “main” problem in the UK is frankly laughable.

Well of course, GP said 'positions of power' rather than 'politician'. Controversially, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evgeny_Lebedev has been ennobled and is now qualified to sit in the House of Lords, most definitely a position of power though he has not as yet chosen to appear there as far as I know. It turns out that Unelected Lords are also permitted to be ministers in the cabinet, so...

Lebedev definitely qualifies here.

Re: UK Government Officials Infected with Pegasus

#330

Post by Chris2048 »

yyyk wrote: post #327
Chris2048 wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the topic you wish to discuss is "rhetoric used to ignore bigotry". Feel free to demonstrate where this exists in the comment you replied to. I can just as easily decide the more relevant topic is "rhetoric used to ignore ethnic nationalism", which your post could be. EDIT: I'd also note the comment you replied to says: > Israel plays the anti-semitism card much too loosely to be taken seriously your own comment e…

>Why is dismissive labelling ok in one case, and not another? Because the only source given for the quote was Chomsky himself*. In that case, the question of Chomsky's credibility is directly relevant. * It's possible Chomsky had an actual source etc., but if so, it was not provided in the original comment.

The issue isn't if Chomsky's credibility is relevant, but on the credibility swipe itself: If Chomsky can be dismissed on all topics (zero credibility on anything) for alleged genocide denial, why isn't that "rhetoric that ignores X" for whatever X Chomsky might discuss?
Post reply on HN