Cowards • Hacker News Board

Re: Cowards

#51

Post by scythe » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 6:52 AM UTC

dylangs1030 wrote: post #23

An article that waxes poetic, yet is so very hollow and devoid of realism. What would you have these companies do? Band together in a mighty ring of technological resources and begin a Privacy Revolution? This is unrealistic. As an American, I am saddened and angered by the recent news of the past two days. I am disgusted with what our government has done - what it has hidden from us, to take advantage of us unawares…

If there's anyone to go after, it's the ranking members of the Special Committee on Intelligence, who wrote FISA and greenlighted this policy. Sadly, the ranking members are the near-80 Dianne Feinstein and lame-duck Saxby Chambliss; their successors are probably Jay Rockefeller and Susan Collins.

While I don't think single-issue voting is a good political strategy, in this particular case it seems prudent to consider that the reprehensibility of the whole affair and the complicity of those few most able to stop it calls into question their moral fiber. We can't -- and shouldn't -- hope to kick every pro-surveillance Congressman out of office, but when someone in a position of influence helps betray the country to this degree we should take notice.

Re: Cowards

#52

Post by marcamillion » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 6:52 AM UTC

This is classic Prisoner's Dilemma.

If all of them come out at the same time - everybody benefits.

But if 1 of them screws everybody over, the screwed will be royally screwed.

Re: Cowards

#53

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 6:53 AM UTC

btilly wrote: post #25

Nice. Quote the NY Times article describing how things work, and fail to quote the bit where the employees tasked with responding to FISA orders, and who were possibly involved in the program, were legally not allowed to inform the CEO of what they were doing. CEOs who are not informed can release statements indicating the depth of their ignorance without being deliberately dishonest. That said, the alleged situation…

[deleted]

Re: Cowards

#54

Post by trustfundbaby » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 6:53 AM UTC

> Will you do it, Marissa? Or you, Ballmer? Or you, Armstrong? Will anyone stand up and say the truth? Will anyone stand up to the secret organization with the secret courts and, simply, do what’s right? Despite the consequences? Despite what your lawyers tell you?

Silly man. Exactly how hard is it to ask someone else, with way more to lose than you, to be a martyr for a cause you feel strongly about?

Re: Cowards

#55

Post by Achshar » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 6:57 AM UTC

mintplant wrote: post #34

Wait. That's it ? That's all PRISM is--a special method of handing over information that is requested via court order? Is this correct?

A hidden/secret court order that can at times ask for broad thing like search term logs and

> In one recent instance, the National Security Agency sent an agent to a tech company’s headquarters to monitor a suspect in a cyberattack, a lawyer representing the company said. The agent installed government-developed software on the company’s server and remained at the site for several weeks to download data to an agency laptop.

> In other instances, the lawyer said, the agency seeks real-time transmission of data, which companies send digitally.

That is more than what they currently do.

Re: Cowards

#56

Post by jd007 » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 6:57 AM UTC

sillysaurus wrote: post #7

jmduke wrote: post #2

There's a meme on Reddit that revolves around 'so brave': basically calling people/posts/comments out for obvious pandering. This reads like a pastiche of Keith Olbermann, all bravado and empty gusto. Arrington writes: What has these people, among the wealthiest on the planet, so scared that they find themselves engaging in these verbal gymnastics to avoid telling a simple truth? and then acknowledges that doing so,…

It means that people should at least be willing to challenge immoral behavior in a court, even if it's legal. We don't need to have a "conversation". We need to challenge this behavior in courts, and win.

To challenge immoral behavior in court may be much harder than you think, and TBH I don't think it's even needed here (though IANAL so this is me speculating). I think it's enough to claim that what NSA did is unconstitutional.

Re: Cowards

#57

Post by polarix » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 6:58 AM UTC

trustfundbaby wrote: post #54

> Will you do it, Marissa? Or you, Ballmer? Or you, Armstrong? Will anyone stand up and say the truth? Will anyone stand up to the secret organization with the secret courts and, simply, do what’s right? Despite the consequences? Despite what your lawyers tell you? Silly man. Exactly how hard is it to ask someone else, with way more to lose than you, to be a martyr for a cause you feel strongly about?

Moreover, these people cannot speak the truth since they do not know it. The surgeries were done far away from the C-suite.

Re: Cowards

#58

Post by InclinedPlane » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 7:05 AM UTC

jmduke wrote: post #2

There's a meme on Reddit that revolves around 'so brave': basically calling people/posts/comments out for obvious pandering. This reads like a pastiche of Keith Olbermann, all bravado and empty gusto. Arrington writes: What has these people, among the wealthiest on the planet, so scared that they find themselves engaging in these verbal gymnastics to avoid telling a simple truth? and then acknowledges that doing so,…

Why has this program been secret for more than a day, or a month? Are we to believe that the leaders of the most technologically advanced companies on Earth are so unsophisticated they can imagine the only way to let the world know a secret is to tell it directly?

Governments and companies know how to leak. The only logical conclusion is that these surveillance programs are not actually significantly upsetting to most of these folks.

Re: Cowards

#59

Post by pfortuny » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 7:06 AM UTC

jmduke wrote: post #2

There's a meme on Reddit that revolves around 'so brave': basically calling people/posts/comments out for obvious pandering. This reads like a pastiche of Keith Olbermann, all bravado and empty gusto. Arrington writes: What has these people, among the wealthiest on the planet, so scared that they find themselves engaging in these verbal gymnastics to avoid telling a simple truth? and then acknowledges that doing so,…

Do you understand what a conscience is? Only if you do you can understand that post. Really.

"Legal" is worthless if it is inhuman. So one MUST stand against inhuman laws.

Re: Cowards

#60

Post by dylangs1030 » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 7:10 AM UTC

polarix wrote: post #50

milkshakes wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arrington was addressing the leaders of these companies, not the organizations themselves. While corporations obviously do not have consciences nor moral compasses, his point was that humans do, or at least they should. And I think he was pretty clear about what he would have those leaders do: > Perhaps you could all get on a conference call tonight and double dare each other to do it all together, at the same time.…

See the people who are making these statements don't know. The only people who know are the ops teams, and they really can't tell, because they could fairly easily just disappear.

I think it's incredibly important that more people understand this. It was a somewhat obfuscated fact in the New York Times article, but it's still incredibly important to acknowledge.