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

Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

animalnewyork.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 374 posts

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#351

Post by Dylan16807 »

avn2109 wrote: post #327
Dylan16807 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on what you mean by "otherwise trusted", I would either not care or freak out worrying that I got something other than the Snowden blob. Just displaying an image would be easy to verify with a disassembler. And it's misleading to use 'binary blob' as an analogy to a simple statue. Most binary blobs are effectively impossible to examine fully.

>> "...easy to verify with a disassembler." Have to laugh at this, because only on HN is the use of a disassembler considered "easy." True story, I program computers for a living, and I have literally no idea how to verify anything at all with a disassembler. Or even approximately how one works.

We're talking about a breach of a major distribution. It's the job of someone in charge to do the analysis, not every single end user. To them, it is easy.

And I'm talking about looking at a 20 byte function; you could figure it out if you wanted.

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#352

Post by ceejayoz »

karmacondon wrote: post #276
cryoshon wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can, should, do, and must continue to have a strong and overriding sense of personal morality when dealing with government-- "just following orders" is not, has not, should not, and will never be an acceptable response to government wrongdoing as committed by the people who make up the organs of the government. Without Snowden, Ellsberg, Drake, Binney, Manning, and the other leakers, we would still be completely a…

You should have a strong and overriding sense of personal morality when dealing with government, but you should also keep in mind that your opinion is not the only one that counts, nor is your personal moral code necessarily "right". Democracy means that we must accept the will of the majority even when it conflicts with our own beliefs, even if history ends up judging us right and everyone else to be wrong. That's j…

> The FISA court operates how it's supposed to. It approves the majority of requests because prosecutors can thoroughly evaluate each case before bringing it before the court. They approve everything because prosecutors can request that cases be strengthened before they're even presented.

Prosecutors can do that for non-secret courts, too, yet their requests are often denied. It's very unlikely that prosecutors take special extraordinary measures to never present a mediocre case to the court.

At the very least, I'd like to see vetted, security-cleared lawyers from the ACLU/EFF/etc. permitted to play the adversarial role found pretty much everywhere else in our legal system.

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#353

Post by Lawtonfogle »

slg wrote: post #207
Lawtonfogle wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Middle ground does not always exist. For example, take the plans to set up decentralized networks outside of the government's control. There have been discussions on how to allow the government to still be able to fight certain forms of illegal data exchange (terrorism and child abuse) while banning it from being at all involved in the others (drugs). But there is no middle ground solution. Any network that comprises…

>As it stands, giving the government the power to read any one particular thing will result in it being abused to read other things that were never intended. Isn't this potentially the real problem? It is why our original system required courts and warrants, checks and balances. The Internet doesn't have to be completely different than the offline world. The police can knock down my door if there is a threat of child…

>It is why our original system required courts and warrants, checks and balances.

The problem is that current technology allows the government to hide behind 'you have no proof we did anything wrong' and 'state secret' defenses. Maybe a system that makes it clear when communications are being monitored, but the government is going to oppose that as much as a system that can't be monitored.

Also, there are few other considerations:

No foreign company is going to kick in your door, but they would be willing to hack your computer/listen to your chatter in an attempt to steal company secrets. Any weak point for the government is a weak point for all others.

Also, government is made up of some individuals that I do not want anywhere near any backdoors of my systems. Not to say everyone in government is incompetent.

Maybe they are if you are head of R&D for some massive project, at which point you would be taking extra precautions.

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#354

Post by Lawtonfogle »

maqr wrote: post #349
jshap70 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Middle ground does not always exist I think looking at issues with this lens is how the whole idea of "you're either with us or against us" gets started. It's possible to be less opinionated than that. I think everyone should take a step back and actually analyze the situation for what it is, rather than immediately grabbing the pitch fork.

> >Middle ground does not always exist He doesn't mean ideologically, he means technically. You're either encrypted or you're not. This isn't about being opinionated, it truly is about whether or not we allow the government to monitor all the things. The only options are all or none, there is no "just monitor some of the things" option.

The concern is that the technical binary nature of the issue does put pressure on the political sides towards being binary.

For example, those who want a system that protects jounalist in oppressive countries but that does not protect child predators have lots of positions to pick, but those positions (and the groups that hold them) can easily be divided along the lines of those who support a system that protects both and those that support a system that protects neither (it technically protects neither while it will often be sold as protecting one but not the other, and as such the majority of the group may fully believe it does protect one but not the other).

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#356

Post by drchaos »

ics wrote: post #155
hristov wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. If it is something unauthorized they probably would have removed it in due time. I.e., they would have taken a couple of days to hire professionals to do it. Now they immediately cover it up so that no-one can see it while they arrange for its removal. Why? Obviously they do not want anyone to look at it before it is removed. But why not? It is certainly not offensive in any way. It may prove to be…

They have to wait for someone to move it (maybe someone within the Parks department, they have the equipment at least) but it's worth pointing out that a job in NYC Parks as highly bureaucratic it is desirable. Many employees are professionals (seriously, you have no idea if the guy throwing the tarp happens to have a masters in landscape architecture, or the next guy, or...) and park officers must be designated as s…

> What happens if it falls on someone? Or someone climbs it and a piece breaks off?

How exactly does covering it up help with that? I agree that there are valid reasons for wanting to remove it, but covering it up before that is just ridiculous.

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#357

Post by ics »

borgia wrote: post #36
hspak wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how long the sculpture stood up. The two articles were only published 2 hours apart.

It looks like they put it up around 6am and it was covered over around noon. I hope, for the sake of the work that went into the piece, that it isn't destroyed.

Unless destroying it was the only way to remove it, it would likely go to the nearest impound lot (where I believe it can actually be claimed by the owners for a fee, though that might invite other problems).

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#358

Post by ics »

brenschluss wrote: post #337
ics wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was born here in the '90s so I'm pretty sure I missed the whole phreaking scene, but your statement is a strawman regardless. I am advocating for this sort of public intervention. I support it 100%. Do I have to repeat that again? 100%. But reality will catch up with your ideals, and it's someone's job to take concerns that aren't yours and apply them in the best interest of the public [as determined by an imperfec…

> This is the domain of Parks and Recreation, and they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do, for completely boring but sensible reasons. > Sometimes they fuck it up by overstepping their bounds and acting in ways they are not authorized to. > I fully support the artists here– but it is precisely the job of Parks employees to assist in the removal of any form of unauthorized modifications to the park. Deep b…

My comments were solely directed towards those whose knee-jerk reaction was to call this a clear act of deliberate censorship[1] or "Soviet-style oppression" (in another comment chain). If you don't agree with those comments, then I don't intend to go so far out of the way to convince you of why rules exist and are enforced in the way that they are. Beyond that, I agree with pretty much everything you said in this comment.

[1] I decided to add the word deliberate here because this may be the source of some confusion in my comments. Many comments suggest that the intent is to cover up support for Snowden specifically. I believe this to have no known factual basis. If on the other hand, you consider this, and the policies which allow it, to be a general act of censorship on public art etc. then that is open to debate– I would tend to agree with it, and am happily writing to the Parks dept. today to say as much.

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#359

Post by dragontamer »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #300
dragontamer wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know we want to close the discussion, but let me note one more thing. > Okay I'll be more specific. Without specific permission pertaining to a specific case, they collect whatever they feel like to sort out later. I don't like that. How do you expect the Police to go after a swatter then? The creation of 'nameless warrants' is looked down upon in general, and is grossly illegal in many jurisdictions. You cannot ge…

>How do you expect the Police to go after a swatter then? The creation of 'nameless warrants' is looked down upon in general, and is grossly illegal in many jurisdictions. Well we're talking about a 'nameless warrant' to only access something they could access at-will before, so I don't see that as a real problem. >we should _define_ metadata as the part that can be reasonably searched. That sounds like a mess. Metad…

> Well we're talking about a 'nameless warrant' to only access something they could access at-will before, so I don't see that as a real problem.

No. A warrant means they can start accessing data. Install bugs, tracking devices... the whole works. All fourth amendment protections are gone once a judge grants the Police a warrant.

The question is whether or not you want "Metadata" to be part of that pool or not. Personally speaking, I don't.

> Maybe, but things are much more complicated than public and not public.

Which is why discussion of this issue is important. The fact is, you expect something from the Police that is different than the Status Quo for the past decades.

It frustrates me to no end when all the YCombinator posters around here complain and protest in obscure ways (ie: putting Snowden up as a statue in a park), and then they don't really try and learn the intricacies of the law and try to find changes that everyone actually agrees upon.

The reason our political system is borked is because no one is actually discussing the law or how to change it. Our Congressmen get vague clues (ie: SOPA BAD!!), but they really are struggling to understand our opinion in general.

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#360

Post by Lawtonfogle »

Karunamon wrote: post #187
Lawtonfogle wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be well assured some religious group is going to use this to put up some religious symbol, after which some non-religious group is going to put up another demonic thinking chair.

We have the establishment clause to deal with that particular kind of abuse - this is completely nonreligious.

So if I create the Church of Snowden, someone else can complain to have the statue removed?
Post reply on HN