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

Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 79 posts

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#51

Post by vanderZwan »

vinceguidry wrote: post #48
tsmarsh wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s edge cases like this that make me wonder about the whole concept of nations. It makes citizens sound like property / cattle. “I believe my cow pooped on your lawn. I demand the right to inspect your lawn for my cows poop to retrieve the poop. Expect further consultation if we decide you illegally benefited from that poop. I don’t care that you are ok with the poop or that the cow came to your lawn and pooped the…

> It makes citizens sound like property / cattle. This is, precisely, how polities have always worked. Personal freedom of movement is circumscribed to lawfully prescribed means. It wasn't until after WW2 and airplanes when ordinary people gained the technical capability to move around. Before then, you had to have lots of money and time to travel. Serfs were considered part of the land, they needed permission to lea…

> This is, precisely, how polities have always worked. Personal freedom of movement is circumscribed to lawfully prescribed means. It wasn't until after WW2 and airplanes when ordinary people gained the technical capability to move around. Before then, you had to have lots of money and time to travel. Serfs were considered part of the land, they needed permission to leave.

[Citation needed]

From what I have been taught by friends of mine who studied International Migration & Ethnic Relations, people moved around a lot more freely before the nation state came into existence than they do now, because there were no borders to keep them out.

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#52

Post by [deleted] »

buvanshak wrote: post #44
mtreis86 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes they are given reasons, volunteers tend to fight better that way. They are supposed to obey but they, in the USA anyways, swore to protect the constitution. "They suffered and they did their duty so a sheltered homeland can enjoy the peace that was purchased at such a high cost." Eugene Sledge

> They are supposed to obey but they, in the USA anyways, swore to protect the constitution... Are you seriously saying all the troops deployed in Nam and the middle east was protecting US constitution..

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#53

Post by AnimalMuppet »

buvanshak wrote: post #19
golergka wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most horrible and bloody dictators had only the best intentions in mind. The most bloody and horrible ideology in the world – communism – was driven by idealists. I'll always take a corrupt politician over a benevolent dictator.

>I'll always take a corrupt politician over a benevolent dictator. Am I wrong in saying that if you have enough resources, corrupt politicians and authorities will let you dictate the affairs under them? So a dictator, as you say exerciser their power to enforce their own agenda. While a corrupt politician sells them off to the highest bidder, to enforce what ever agenda they have... The only thing better in that sce…

In "A Reply to Professor Haldane", published in "Of Other Worlds", C.S. Lewis said the same thing as golergka. Lewis said that a robber baron may be satisfied with enough money (though I must say that history doesn't supply much hope of that). The robber baron may get lazy. And maybe, since on some level they know that what they do is morally sketchy, they may repent. But an idealist who holds their ideal or political theory with the force of a religion is far worse, because they commit their horrors in the name of doing good, and so their benevolent impulses seem to them to be temptations - something to be resisted in order to do what is "good".

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#54

Post by bwanab »

vanderZwan wrote: post #51
vinceguidry wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It makes citizens sound like property / cattle. This is, precisely, how polities have always worked. Personal freedom of movement is circumscribed to lawfully prescribed means. It wasn't until after WW2 and airplanes when ordinary people gained the technical capability to move around. Before then, you had to have lots of money and time to travel. Serfs were considered part of the land, they needed permission to lea…

> This is, precisely, how polities have always worked. Personal freedom of movement is circumscribed to lawfully prescribed means. It wasn't until after WW2 and airplanes when ordinary people gained the technical capability to move around. Before then, you had to have lots of money and time to travel. Serfs were considered part of the land, they needed permission to leave. [Citation needed] From what I have been taug…

I'm trying to imagine in what historical period that would have been. Whether the border was that of a modern nation-state, a principality, or a village the effect would have been the same.

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#55

Post by mtreis86 »

buvanshak wrote: post #44
mtreis86 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes they are given reasons, volunteers tend to fight better that way. They are supposed to obey but they, in the USA anyways, swore to protect the constitution. "They suffered and they did their duty so a sheltered homeland can enjoy the peace that was purchased at such a high cost." Eugene Sledge

> They are supposed to obey but they, in the USA anyways, swore to protect the constitution... Are you seriously saying all the troops deployed in Nam and the middle east was protecting US constitution..

Not at all, I was specifically responding to "what soldiers risk their lives for"

That said, according to the UCMJ, the orders given to slaughter civilians in Vietnam were unlawful and a soldier refusing to obey them would not have been prosecuted.

"Obedience to orders. It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful."

http://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Documents/MCM2016.pdf?ver=...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson_Jr.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120324030925/http://www.usna.e...

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#56

Post by freeflight »

buvanshak wrote: post #18
cmurf wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Read Hobbes' Leviathan, it discusses this. A prerequisite for success the sovereign must establish a state religion, subjects comply or are executed. And then John Locke, with emphasis on consent of the governed. And why not the Catholic Church? The pope is essentially what you describe but they have been many bad Popes. Nevertheless as an institution it endures, with and without justice. A sovereign who is compl…

>A sovereign who is completely selfless would not be a human. All human beings have survival instincts. But we manages to build soldiers that are willing to risk their lives for random stuff. Right? In such way, it might be possible to build, or grow, generations of such people, completely selfless..

While it might not have been your intention, you pretty much described the Hitlerjugend there, indoctrination of children for a "bigger cause".

Even if the cause might be a good one, we still value our individuality over mass enforced and indoctrinated conformism. It might be anything but harmonic, and quite chaotic, but individuality gives us a diversity of ideas and views, thus enabling adaptability, which is one of homo sapiens sapiens biggest advantages.

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#57

Post by buvanshak »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #53
buvanshak wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'll always take a corrupt politician over a benevolent dictator. Am I wrong in saying that if you have enough resources, corrupt politicians and authorities will let you dictate the affairs under them? So a dictator, as you say exerciser their power to enforce their own agenda. While a corrupt politician sells them off to the highest bidder, to enforce what ever agenda they have... The only thing better in that sce…

In "A Reply to Professor Haldane", published in "Of Other Worlds", C.S. Lewis said the same thing as golergka. Lewis said that a robber baron may be satisfied with enough money (though I must say that history doesn't supply much hope of that). The robber baron may get lazy. And maybe, since on some level they know that what they do is morally sketchy, they may repent. But an idealist who holds their ideal or politica…

In other words, a fool might end up doing more harm than a really cruel person. Of course.

> But an idealist who holds their ideal or political theory with the force of a religion is far worse, because they commit their horrors in the name of doing good, and so their benevolent impulses seem to them to be temptations - something to be resisted in order to do what is "good".

We are talking about a benevolent dictator here. If you are saying that they ll resist their benevolent impulses, how are they a benevolent dictator in the first place?

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#58

Post by PurpleBoxDragon »

liberte82 wrote: post #41
PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the current 9 people, who are not at all in touch with either the original writers or the current population, get total say in what the Constitution actually says. It is just like the rulings that allowed obscenity exception to the first amendment, a fully automatic exception to the second amendment, or for the commerce clause to apply to a person growing food for their own animals to eat, Now, maybe in this…

Anyone could make your argument about any Supreme Court that has ever existed or will exist, when they don't agree with the decisions being made. What are you proposing exactly?

You could make this argument about not just any Supreme Court case, but about any law that exists. Someone or some group has to be the authority on interpreting any given law, and if they interpret a law that says "X is allowed" to mean "X is banned", then that is in their power to do so. Ideally when their interpretation becomes some blatantly against the will of the people, the people need to take action. In the case of the US, we need amendments to clarify things.

But so far this hasn't really been against the will of the people. So many wanted some level of obscenity ban. So many want some level of gun restrictions. And so many are willing to give up their privacy because of the promises made by those in power of the safety they will receive in turn. Sometimes when people play with fire, they aren't going to learn a lesson until they are burned, and there is nothing we can do other than try to protect ourselves from the blaze.

We have enough people right now wanting to restrict rights for promises of safety (even when those promises are not delivered on) that I'm not sure what we can do in the US. More education on reasons why one should not trust an all powerful authority, but we have plenty of evidence that teaching someone something is bad for them might do nothing to stop them from doing it anyways.

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#59

Post by buvanshak »

mtreis86 wrote: post #55
buvanshak wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are supposed to obey but they, in the USA anyways, swore to protect the constitution... Are you seriously saying all the troops deployed in Nam and the middle east was protecting US constitution..

Not at all, I was specifically responding to "what soldiers risk their lives for" That said, according to the UCMJ, the orders given to slaughter civilians in Vietnam were unlawful and a soldier refusing to obey them would not have been prosecuted. "Obedience to orders. It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordina…

What I was saying was, when someone sign up to join the Army, their ideal is to protect the country and it's citizens.

But when they ordered to go to a different country and fight a war over there. that is not what they originally signed up for, right? So they are putting their lives on line for the whims of someone in administration, and not for a cause they care about.

That is all I am saying.

So, my original argument is that, If we are able to make human beings to risk their lives for causes so disconnected from themselves, Why can't we have human beings that are ready to lead an enforced, selfless life devoid of normal human joys and full fillments in the service of their country?

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#60

Post by Maybestring »

vanderZwan wrote: post #51
vinceguidry wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It makes citizens sound like property / cattle. This is, precisely, how polities have always worked. Personal freedom of movement is circumscribed to lawfully prescribed means. It wasn't until after WW2 and airplanes when ordinary people gained the technical capability to move around. Before then, you had to have lots of money and time to travel. Serfs were considered part of the land, they needed permission to lea…

> This is, precisely, how polities have always worked. Personal freedom of movement is circumscribed to lawfully prescribed means. It wasn't until after WW2 and airplanes when ordinary people gained the technical capability to move around. Before then, you had to have lots of money and time to travel. Serfs were considered part of the land, they needed permission to leave. [Citation needed] From what I have been taug…

What time period is that? I'm not sure what historians consider the first nation state.
Post reply on HN