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

Obama expected to issue cybersecurity executive order

usatoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: Obama expected to issue cybersecurity executive order

#51

Post by tptacek »

stfu wrote: post #49
tptacek wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the fact that Obama can't get consent from the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is a sure sign that he's up to no good.

Your first statement on that subject that I wholeheartedly agree on. I can completely understand that he is trying to circumvent the House on partisan issues (e.g. welfare, health care, etc) and avoiding compromises on his key agenda points. But if he is unable to create consent on a deeply hawk'ish issue such as defense, then there is something seriously wrong - either with the president or with the proposal. Consid…

He can't even get his (Republican) SecDef candidate confirmed. I'm sorry, I know that in the frictionless intellectual void that is message board arguments, it makes sense that Obama should be able to get bipartisan consent for defense measures, but in the real world that simply isn't so.

Re: Obama expected to issue cybersecurity executive order

#53

Post by clicks »

tptacek wrote: post #38
adventured wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government has earned a very large dose of paranoia. They keep trying to intentionally rob us of our liberty, and they've been doing it mostly as behind-closed-doors as they can get away with. The old joke is it's not paranoia if they're really out to get you. The government keeps demonstrating it's really out to get us, or specifically it wants vast new powers over every remaining corner of freedom, including th…

It doesn't matter what they've earned. If you're wrong, you're wrong. You can't mitigate your wrongness by saying you came by it honestly. (That goes for me too, of course. Totally possible I'm wrong.)

You come off as overly authoritarian in your comments such that a chance for measured discussion is I think probably often quelled by your domineering attitude.

Since the last decade our civil liberties have only been eroding -- that is the trend, not the opposite of that or something. So a good amount of leeriness is probably healthy and very well warranted. It's great that you're reading the executive orders and getting down to things, but please don't go off on those who by default take the position of skepticism. There's a reason they are that way, and that reason is a pretty good one.

Re: Obama expected to issue cybersecurity executive order

#54

Post by skylan_q »

dfc wrote: post #37
skylan_q wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never knew why they called it the wild west. It was very tame.

When you say this are you ignoring or denying the experience of Native Americans? Because from what I understand tame is not a word often used to describe the Trail of Tears or Wounded Knee. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars

The Wild West refers to the west when Americans first started settling in the West and were largely out of the reaches of the army and federal government.

Re: Obama expected to issue cybersecurity executive order

#55

Post by dfc »

skylan_q wrote: post #54
dfc wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say this are you ignoring or denying the experience of Native Americans? Because from what I understand tame is not a word often used to describe the Trail of Tears or Wounded Knee. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars

The Wild West refers to the west when Americans first started settling in the West and were largely out of the reaches of the army and federal government.

When the west was being "settled" who living there at the time?

Put another way: Are you arguing that the wild west period was a peaceful and prosperous time for the Native Americans? A period marked by little physical or economic violence?

Re: Obama expected to issue cybersecurity executive order

#56

Post by tptacek »

clicks wrote: post #53
tptacek wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter what they've earned. If you're wrong, you're wrong. You can't mitigate your wrongness by saying you came by it honestly. (That goes for me too, of course. Totally possible I'm wrong.)

You come off as overly authoritarian in your comments such that a chance for measured discussion is I think probably often quelled by your domineering attitude. Since the last decade our civil liberties have only been eroding -- that is the trend, not the opposite of that or something. So a good amount of leeriness is probably healthy and very well warranted. It's great that you're reading the executive orders and ge…

This attitude drives me nuts. It's a message board. What do you want from me? We're not settling public policy, we're discussing it. How does it help anyone for me to issue prolix disclaimers about how certain I am about things? How does that even matter? If you think I'm wrong, say I'm wrong, and preferably, why you think that. If I agree, I'll say so. I'll do the same.

I have no actual "authority" on HN.

Re: Obama expected to issue cybersecurity executive order

#57

Post by stfu »

tptacek wrote: post #51
stfu wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first statement on that subject that I wholeheartedly agree on. I can completely understand that he is trying to circumvent the House on partisan issues (e.g. welfare, health care, etc) and avoiding compromises on his key agenda points. But if he is unable to create consent on a deeply hawk'ish issue such as defense, then there is something seriously wrong - either with the president or with the proposal. Consid…

He can't even get his (Republican) SecDef candidate confirmed. I'm sorry, I know that in the frictionless intellectual void that is message board arguments, it makes sense that Obama should be able to get bipartisan consent for defense measures, but in the real world that simply isn't so.

The controversy on Hagel's nomination has very little to do with his party line. Instead his questionable views on Israel are making him a choice that is difficult to sell - both to Republicans as well as Democrats.

Not saying that Hagel is such an outliner, but it is easy to nominate a fringe candidate of the other party and then pointing fingers when his own party does not support his views. Of cause something as sneaky as that would be unimaginable in real-world politics, and I am probably just watching too much House of Cards.

Re: Obama expected to issue cybersecurity executive order

#58

Post by timsally »

adventured wrote: post #36
rayiner wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internet wasn't implemented by some basic government funded research. It was designed and built under a DARPA project and designed and implemented by key pieces of the military industrial complex (BBN, etc). It was run by the DOD and "flourished" long before it was commercialized.

The Internet isn't ARPANET any more than Ethernet is ALOHA. The technology that made the Internet possible was almost exclusively private sector technology. The desire, effort and vision to put together large networks was already in place by the time the government made their move. The government helped, no question about it, but all the pieces were already there to make it happen. The private sector was driving that…

The record contradicts what you are saying here; what you've written is almost a perfect inversion of historical fact. All the commercial networks being developed or deployed when the Internet was being invented were circuit switched, centralized networks. They really didn't have anything to do with the Internet at all. The design philosophy behind the Internet [1, Section 3] was drastically different than all commercial efforts at the time. The design was so different and so unique compared to existing work that the inventors won a Turing Award for it.

As an aside, all of the above is typically covered in the first week or two of a networking course (I like Brighten Godfrey's [2]).

[1] http://ccr.sigcomm.org/archive/1995/jan95/ccr-9501-clark.pdf

[2] http://courses.engr.illinois.edu/cs538/

Re: Obama expected to issue cybersecurity executive order

#59

Post by rayiner »

clicks wrote: post #53
tptacek wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter what they've earned. If you're wrong, you're wrong. You can't mitigate your wrongness by saying you came by it honestly. (That goes for me too, of course. Totally possible I'm wrong.)

You come off as overly authoritarian in your comments such that a chance for measured discussion is I think probably often quelled by your domineering attitude. Since the last decade our civil liberties have only been eroding -- that is the trend, not the opposite of that or something. So a good amount of leeriness is probably healthy and very well warranted. It's great that you're reading the executive orders and ge…

You're dodging the point. Being skeptical does not give you license to be ignorant. That is to say it's possible to believe that our civil liberties have been eroding for the last decade* and base it on actual evidence instead of knee-jerk reactions to any government action.

*) And I tend to agree with you. The history of the U.S. has been a waxing and waning of civil liberties, and I think we're in a waning point right now. That said, the long term trend has been towards more liberty.

Re: Obama expected to issue cybersecurity executive order

#60

Post by rayiner »

tptacek wrote: post #56
clicks wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You come off as overly authoritarian in your comments such that a chance for measured discussion is I think probably often quelled by your domineering attitude. Since the last decade our civil liberties have only been eroding -- that is the trend, not the opposite of that or something. So a good amount of leeriness is probably healthy and very well warranted. It's great that you're reading the executive orders and ge…

This attitude drives me nuts. It's a message board. What do you want from me? We're not settling public policy, we're discussing it. How does it help anyone for me to issue prolix disclaimers about how certain I am about things? How does that even matter? If you think I'm wrong, say I'm wrong, and preferably, why you think that. If I agree, I'll say so. I'll do the same. I have no actual "authority" on HN.

Don't you know that HN is srsbusiness.
Post reply on HN