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

How the Government Killed a Secure E-mail Company

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–46 of 46 posts

Re: How the Government Killed a Secure E-mail Company

#41

Post by kaonashi »

dx4100 wrote: post #36
kaonashi wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then realize it was written by a bunch of Aristocratic slave-holding white men, who implicitly meant for the document to apply only to people like themselves. What the traditionally disenfranchised are thinking is: welcome to the fucking club.

Does that invalidate the arguments put forth in the document? Did it not result in greater freedom for all and eventually lead to massive prosperity?

It definitely inspired people to resolve its core hypocrisy, which led to positive effects.

Re: How the Government Killed a Secure E-mail Company

#42

Post by kaonashi »

newnewnew wrote: post #39
kaonashi wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then realize it was written by a bunch of Aristocratic slave-holding white men, who implicitly meant for the document to apply only to people like themselves. What the traditionally disenfranchised are thinking is: welcome to the fucking club.

How do you ever learn anything from history believing in such tired Marxist bullshit? 2+2=4 even if you are one of those awful people with the misfortune to be born white.

Since you seem to be unfamiliar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

Re: How the Government Killed a Secure E-mail Company

#43

Post by dredmorbius »

saurik wrote: post #30
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #26

Completely aside from the main point, but I am curious as to why the New Yorker chose to use umlauts for all of the instances of the word: "coöperate." It's a latin word so I wouldn't expect to see that. I wonder if it is a rendering trick or something intentional for tracking.

That isn't an umlaut: it is a diaeresis.

Completing the thought: a diæresis indicates that a second instance of a vowel is to be pronounced distinctly.

It's co-operate, not "coop-erate". Also sometimes in dissimilar vowels as naïve, or in a finial vowel as in Brontë. The practice is older and more formal, but still correct.

Re: How the Government Killed a Secure E-mail Company

#44

Post by e12e »

barking wrote: post #4
hga wrote: post #2

" If Lavabit lost its appeal to the F.I.S.C.R., and still refused to coöperate, it would run a serious risk of being found in contempt; that’s how most courts punish those who disobey its orders. The FISA court is no different. According to the court’s rules of procedure, a party may be held in contempt for defying its orders. The secret court may consider many punishments—secret fines for each day of noncompliance,…

Secret courts extraordinary rendition waterboarding indefinite detention in a location beyond the reach of the judicial system shoot to kill via drone spying on the populace on a scale that the stasi could only dream of. Spying on allies as well as enemies What kind of a regime is that?

I believe waterboarding, unlike skateboarding, is now illegal again.

It might still be secretly legal, though.

Re: How the Government Killed a Secure E-mail Company

#45

Post by pcrh »

Eliezer wrote: post #38
pcrh wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree that the rights of the prisoner in the case you link to appear to be excessively curtailed , he was not "secretly imprisoned". Secret imprisonment would be a clear indication of totalitarianism, but doesn't, as far as we know, appear to be happening on US soil.

For heaven's sake, if Guantanamo isn't a clear indicator to you, I doubt that secret imprisonment, when it comes or when it's proved to you, will be taken as a clear indicator either.

The people in Guantanamo are known to be there... albeit some of them shouldn't be.

Re: How the Government Killed a Secure E-mail Company

#46

Post by nitrogen »

pcrh wrote: post #45
Eliezer wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For heaven's sake, if Guantanamo isn't a clear indicator to you, I doubt that secret imprisonment, when it comes or when it's proved to you, will be taken as a clear indicator either.

The people in Guantanamo are known to be there... albeit some of them shouldn't be.

Now they're known to be there. But there were secret prisons in other countries where captives were held that were only revealed later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_prison#Official_recogni...
Post reply on HN