The White Hat's Dilemma • Hacker News Board

Re: The White Hat's Dilemma

#91

Post by lawnchair_larry » Sun, Aug 04, 2013, 6:03 PM UTC

tluyben2 wrote: post #59

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But much like with the US government spying, China's laws permit them to spy. It was all legal. So what's the big deal? ;)

I know/hope you are kidding, but I still feel the need to respond. That whatever is legal or not can still go against your own feel of right or wrong. Who cares if something is legal somewhere and you don't agree with it. There are probably many examples of things legal in countries you visit which your moral compass would prevent you from taking part in. My personal annoyance being bullfighting in Spain (where I liv…

I was going to add the tag, but settled on the wink emoticon. I did think it might be too subtle.

Sadly, it's only subtle because there are crazies around here and in the government who actually use that as an argument.

Re: The White Hat's Dilemma

#92

Post by oinksoft » Sun, Aug 04, 2013, 6:11 PM UTC

clicks wrote: post #83

tptacek wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read every other sentence of what I wrote? None of this has anything to do with my comment.

One, I don't think it's the HN law that all threads should follow in some precise linearity: there's such a thing as free-form debate. Two, my comment did have something to do with your comment. Three, you very often reply like this -- "did you read what I said?" -- not that it matters much to me personally, but can you please start making an effort of at least trying to communicate such things in a little more civil…

His authoritarian tone squares nicely with his approach to ethics as expressed in threads like these.

Re: The White Hat's Dilemma

#93

Post by Rickasaurus » Sun, Aug 04, 2013, 6:16 PM UTC

Was this talk recorded?

Re: The White Hat's Dilemma

#94

Post by amirmc » Sun, Aug 04, 2013, 6:19 PM UTC

OrlandoSuave wrote: post #81

amirmc wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you were not at all clear about what you wanted to achieve. From my reading, you simply berated someone on the internet for revealing something about themselves. I've never found that to be a productive way of convincing anyone of anything. You now say that the aim was to get repentance, when he's already stated he regrets it. At no point do you give advice about what he could/should do now to 'make up for his si…

"At no point do you give advice about what he could/should do now to 'make up for his sins'" What do you want him to do to make up for it? Travel to China and tell the government to stop spying on their people using software he helped program?

Please re-read the thread as you've completely missed my point. I've not asked the person who 'confessed' to 'atone' for anything (that doesn't mean I agree with what happened).

My problem is with the comment that does nothing more than lambast someone without providing anything constructive. Offering some comment on how to approach such a situation next time, or what he could now, or projects he might think about contributing to, or anything else that might be useful to the person who originally posted or others reading the thread. As it stands, it's not much better than an ad-hominem.

Re: The White Hat's Dilemma

#95

Post by tptacek » Sun, Aug 04, 2013, 6:47 PM UTC

clicks wrote: post #83

tptacek wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read every other sentence of what I wrote? None of this has anything to do with my comment.

One, I don't think it's the HN law that all threads should follow in some precise linearity: there's such a thing as free-form debate. Two, my comment did have something to do with your comment. Three, you very often reply like this -- "did you read what I said?" -- not that it matters much to me personally, but can you please start making an effort of at least trying to communicate such things in a little more civil…

The idea you took away from my comment was the opposite of the idea that it communicated. You decided that my comment was an endorsement of amorality. It wasn't. Now that you've been called out on that, you wriggle and writhe through all sorts of meta-commentary to avoid acknowledging your misperception.

Re: The White Hat's Dilemma

#96

Post by tptacek » Sun, Aug 04, 2013, 6:48 PM UTC

oinksoft wrote: post #92

clicks wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One, I don't think it's the HN law that all threads should follow in some precise linearity: there's such a thing as free-form debate. Two, my comment did have something to do with your comment. Three, you very often reply like this -- "did you read what I said?" -- not that it matters much to me personally, but can you please start making an effort of at least trying to communicate such things in a little more civil…

His authoritarian tone squares nicely with his approach to ethics as expressed in threads like these.

I think you think this is a stinging comment, but it really says more about you than it does about me.

Re: The White Hat's Dilemma

#97

Post by tptacek » Sun, Aug 04, 2013, 6:49 PM UTC

qxf2 wrote: post #73

clicks wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading what you just wrote reminded me of the famous Edmund Burke quote: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". If it had not been for the acquiescence of engineers who took part in the creation of PRISM, XKeyscore, etc. we... well, we would not have PRISM, XKeyscore, etc. Increasingly there is no such thing as an "amoral" position when it comes to a lot of these things -- you're…

I am understanding it differently, may be because after much deliberation I fell into the same position. I interpret the parent comment to mean that the questions posed are very, very relevant and worth grappling with, but knowing the answers is not a pre-requisite to work in the chosen field. I don't know about the original commenter, but I fell into this position as being the best for me based on, "I am overwhelmed…

Exactly this. Alex Stamos' ethical strategy is perilous; it forces him to do a balancing act when asked to help companies like Narus or the USG, because his work for those organizations could help more than it hurt. I'm confident Alex can perform those ethical acrobatics, but I prefer to avoid them altogether.

Re: The White Hat's Dilemma

#98

Post by clicks » Sun, Aug 04, 2013, 7:03 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #95

clicks wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One, I don't think it's the HN law that all threads should follow in some precise linearity: there's such a thing as free-form debate. Two, my comment did have something to do with your comment. Three, you very often reply like this -- "did you read what I said?" -- not that it matters much to me personally, but can you please start making an effort of at least trying to communicate such things in a little more civil…

The idea you took away from my comment was the opposite of the idea that it communicated. You decided that my comment was an endorsement of amorality. It wasn't. Now that you've been called out on that, you wriggle and writhe through all sorts of meta-commentary to avoid acknowledging your misperception.

Funny, I also happen to think that the idea you took away from my comment was the opposite of the idea that it communicated.

Okay, forgive me for getting even more meta here, but: You're operating under the assumption that I would doggedly stick to my misinterpretation (if it were the case), or maybe that I have some agenda to distort the messages in your comments? My comment history suggests otherwise: I'm more than happy to back off, apologize, and recant any misguided statements I make if it's pointed out rationally. Why doesn't the idea of calmly, non-abrasively trying to explain the breakdown in communication occur to you? Why are you so quick to elevate differences into an us-vs-them orientation on a personal level?

Re: The White Hat's Dilemma

#99

Post by anonymous » Sun, Aug 04, 2013, 7:22 PM UTC

cheapsteak wrote: post #90

throwaway3902 wrote: post #8

I used to work for Blizzard. The Chinese government requested that we modify the WoW client so that they could intercept all chat. As far as I know, no-one said anything, including me - and Blizzard, of course, was more than happy to comply, given the size of the market and the risk of being forbidden to do business there. There were plenty of other MMOGs happy to play ball and eat that cake. I didn't say anything. I…

If it makes you feel any better, you would not have made a difference. Having lived there for nearly a decade, including middle and high school, I can tell you that people here just don't care anymore, and news papers and websites would know better than to publish a story like that anyway; you would have self-immolated for nothing.

If it were me, I'd have looked for a way to sneak it into a popup that shows the first time you run the updated client. Something like

    In the interest of your safety and
    the prosperity of the Chinese, all
    your chat messages are henceforth
    constantly monitored by government
    officials. Have a nice day.
    [OK]

It may ultimately turn out to be impossible to do, but I would like to at least try.

Re: The White Hat's Dilemma

#100

Post by TeMPOraL » Sun, Aug 04, 2013, 7:24 PM UTC

amirmc wrote: post #76

mr_spothawk wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was very very clear about what I hoped to accomplish: a repentance from the actor in this case, and to highlight their stupidity to others. And I wish more people would stand up and say it to their friends and relatives when those people graduate college and start talking about working for the Military Industrial Complex, "Cyber" anything, or various other companies who build bombs, agents of war, or devices used t…

No, you were not at all clear about what you wanted to achieve. From my reading, you simply berated someone on the internet for revealing something about themselves. I've never found that to be a productive way of convincing anyone of anything. You now say that the aim was to get repentance, when he's already stated he regrets it. At no point do you give advice about what he could/should do now to 'make up for his si…

The point wasn't to convince anyone of anything. The point was just to state, "I read what you wrote and I agree you fucked up seriously".

The Internet is not a confessional and speaking your sins out loud here doesn't automatically absolve you. But that might be an impression one could get if the only responses were in the tone of "thank you for telling us, you're a brave and good man". So we need comments, like mr_spothawk's, that basically say "you're not a bad guy, but you fucked up; here's why and how exactly; let's hope we can all learn from this".