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

Anonymous hijacks Syria's government pages

mod.gov.sy

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 50 posts

Re: Anonymous hijacks Syria's government pages

#41

Post by yid »

IsaacSchlueter wrote: post #39
khafra wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the folks making the laws are criminals, breaking the law is still criminal. By definition. Whether it's right or wrong is a different and more nuanced question; but it's not the question addressed by the parent. I sympathise with your perspective, but I dislike "debate drift."

Every time someone says "By definition" as if it means something, a little vomit rises to the back of my throat.

On the contrary, "by definition" has a very clear meaning in mathematics and logic. On HN and other forums with logically-slanted people, it's used to reduce ambiguity in drifting debates like this one.

Re: Anonymous hijacks Syria's government pages

#42

Post by Kirchart123 »

yid wrote: post #41
IsaacSchlueter wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time someone says "By definition" as if it means something, a little vomit rises to the back of my throat.

On the contrary, "by definition" has a very clear meaning in mathematics and logic. On HN and other forums with logically-slanted people, it's used to reduce ambiguity in drifting debates like this one.

Agreed, "definition" its an absolute .. By definition gravity pulls you down as an example.

Re: Anonymous hijacks Syria's government pages

#43

Post by danenania »

khafra wrote: post #37
danenania wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about when the folks making the laws are criminals? Perhaps we should be more concerned with right and wrong than following the rules.

When the folks making the laws are criminals, breaking the law is still criminal. By definition. Whether it's right or wrong is a different and more nuanced question; but it's not the question addressed by the parent. I sympathise with your perspective, but I dislike "debate drift."

In that case, using the word 'criminal' as if it's at all relevant to the situation is 'debate drift'. It's a loaded word and its use as a label carries well known connotations. I'm not disputing the tautological definition, I'm disputing the implicatons of invoking it.

Put another way, you don't often hear Gandhi or Martin Luther King referred to as 'criminals', even if by definition it's the truth. There's a reason for that, and there's a reason why I'd tend to be pretty skeptical of someone who chose such a label for those men in conversation, technically factual though it may be.

Re: Anonymous hijacks Syria's government pages

#44

Post by khafra »

danenania wrote: post #43
khafra wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the folks making the laws are criminals, breaking the law is still criminal. By definition. Whether it's right or wrong is a different and more nuanced question; but it's not the question addressed by the parent. I sympathise with your perspective, but I dislike "debate drift."

In that case, using the word 'criminal' as if it's at all relevant to the situation is 'debate drift'. It's a loaded word and its use as a label carries well known connotations. I'm not disputing the tautological definition, I'm disputing the implicatons of invoking it. Put another way, you don't often hear Gandhi or Martin Luther King referred to as 'criminals', even if by definition it's the truth. There's a reason…

That's not the way I read the original use of "criminal," but that's a legitimate argument to make. The thing to do would have been to say something like "I agree with you denotatively, but disagree with your connotations," and explain why. Not to fight debate drift with more debate drift.

Re: Anonymous hijacks Syria's government pages

#45

Post by johngalt »

khafra wrote: post #37
danenania wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about when the folks making the laws are criminals? Perhaps we should be more concerned with right and wrong than following the rules.

When the folks making the laws are criminals, breaking the law is still criminal. By definition. Whether it's right or wrong is a different and more nuanced question; but it's not the question addressed by the parent. I sympathise with your perspective, but I dislike "debate drift."

The age old debate of chaotic good vs. lawful good

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_%28Dungeons_%26_Drago...

Re: Anonymous hijacks Syria's government pages

#46

Post by IgorPartola »

danenania wrote: post #29
yid wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A break-in, by definition, is criminal regardless of the motivation. This would be like breaking into city hall to stage a protest -- the protest part is democratic, the break-in part is criminal.

How about when the folks making the laws are criminals? Perhaps we should be more concerned with right and wrong than following the rules.

This gets to be a complicated question. Basically, if you believe that your government is corrupt and no longer represents you, you may have the right or even a responsibility to revolt [1]. This gets fuzzy with right and wrong. You see if you pull off a revolution, you get to set the rules. You may even be able to call the losers criminals and try them as such. In some cases you could even make up laws and try the prior government members for them retroactively and get away with it if enough people think that what you are doing is right and just. However, until you win, the current government will consider you a criminal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution

Re: Anonymous hijacks Syria's government pages

#47

Post by yaix »

corin_ wrote: post #21
yaix wrote: post #19

This is a very good hack and also a reminder for Western countries and political actors that these kind of break-ins are not necessarily criminals acts but may be political demonstrations. If a break-in is non-destructive and has as motivation a political demonstration, in a democracy it should be treated as such and not be brushed aside as "criminal".

It's far too easy to jump to "if the non-digital equivilent happened.." comparisons without realising that they don't actually line-up right. If I broke onto an MoD base in person, no matter how little damage I did or how much my motivation was politically driven, I'd be arrested pretty damn quick. And I'm talking about countries like the UK/US, not Syria.

Greenpeace did that lots of times. They usually went straight to the roof of the company building and unrolled a large sign with their protest text ("{companyname} polutes {someplace} with {somesubstance}" etc.

The beginnings of protests try to call attention for a cause. It gets media attention and people notice it. Now people know and can actually support the cause. If it can get a majority, the initial "illegal action" changed the law by forcing the government to react to what people actuallt want.

That's the essence of democracy: to make the government do what the people want and not the other way around.

I am really surprised (not positively) that this sparked a big discussion.

Re: Anonymous hijacks Syria's government pages

#48

Post by VladRussian »

khafra wrote: post #37
danenania wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about when the folks making the laws are criminals? Perhaps we should be more concerned with right and wrong than following the rules.

When the folks making the laws are criminals, breaking the law is still criminal. By definition. Whether it's right or wrong is a different and more nuanced question; but it's not the question addressed by the parent. I sympathise with your perspective, but I dislike "debate drift."

>When the folks making the laws are criminals, breaking the law is still criminal. By definition.

some other definition:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

Re: Anonymous hijacks Syria's government pages

#50

Post by rspix000 »

IgorPartola wrote: post #46
danenania wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about when the folks making the laws are criminals? Perhaps we should be more concerned with right and wrong than following the rules.

This gets to be a complicated question. Basically, if you believe that your government is corrupt and no longer represents you, you may have the right or even a responsibility to revolt [1]. This gets fuzzy with right and wrong. You see if you pull off a revolution, you get to set the rules. You may even be able to call the losers criminals and try them as such. In some cases you could even make up laws and try the p…

General McArthur, after the fire bombing of Tokyo and other large cities in Japan said that if the US doesn't win the war, he will be a war criminal. the definers tend to be the winners at least initially. From the longer term historical perspective, not so much, for example, Japanese internment during WW2.
Post reply on HN