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

This Man Has Nothing to Hide – Not Even His Email Password

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–96 of 96 posts

Re: This Man Has Nothing to Hide – Not Even His Email Password

#91

Post by mmalone »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #44

This is about the silliest thing I've read in awhile. All right so he wants to do this dumb PR stunt where he films his life and he wants to raise money on Kickstarters. OK, I will just wait for him to raise the money, log in to his Kickstarter or his bank account, take all his money and voila I have won the game. I mean this is extraordinarily ridiculous and I don't know how this is making any intelligible point abo…

In a hypothetical world with no privacy and perfect information I'd just make my nuclear launch system (which also has perfect information) only launch when the right people ask them too. You can't pretend to be those people because you can't lie because the launch system would know because there's no privacy.

I don't know of any way to actually implement this in practice -- there probably isn't one -- but it's an interesting thought experiment. It's possible that privacy isn't a moral right and perhaps isn't necessary at all. The argument for privacy seems to be predicated on other people being immoral. If you could identify immoral people 100% accurately then perhaps the need for privacy goes away. In fact, if that were the status quo you might claim that keeping something private is immoral.

Re: This Man Has Nothing to Hide – Not Even His Email Password

#92

Post by nitrogen »

mmalone wrote: post #90
nitrogen wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not believing in Santa Claus, Zeus, Imhotep, Peter Pan, or The Green Lantern without proof of their non-existence is etc. etc.? The burden of proof lies with the claim of existence. In the absence of any evidence, nonexistence is the default assumption. Yet disbelief in all of these things is based on evidence, since we have looked in the places people used to believe they lived and/or domains they were believed to c…

How are you defining God? Have we looked for God in all of the places that people believe God lives / controls? The universe either came from somewhere or has always existed... If I define God as a "the thing that created the universe" how would you prove or disprove God's existence?

If I define God as a "the thing that created the universe"...

...then you would have to justify that definition before expecting anyone to accept, prove, or disprove it.

FWIW I was once a believer and frequently associate with believers, so I have some experience in the matter and have given it considerable thought.

Re: This Man Has Nothing to Hide – Not Even His Email Password

#93

Post by mmalone »

nitrogen wrote: post #92
mmalone wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you defining God? Have we looked for God in all of the places that people believe God lives / controls? The universe either came from somewhere or has always existed... If I define God as a "the thing that created the universe" how would you prove or disprove God's existence?

If I define God as a "the thing that created the universe"... ...then you would have to justify that definition before expecting anyone to accept, prove, or disprove it. FWIW I was once a believer and frequently associate with believers, so I have some experience in the matter and have given it considerable thought.

I have to justify that that's what I mean when I say "god," or I have to justify that God created the universe? It is a common definition, so I figured you'd accept it.

The point is I'm not talking about a specific God or assuming anything about the nature of God like many religions do. Once you remove all that baggage God is just a term that means "the thing that created the universe." So to deny the existence of God you must deny that the universe was created by something. I don't see how you can make such a claim without any evidence. Last I checked there was no scientific explanation for the creation of the universe.

Re: This Man Has Nothing to Hide – Not Even His Email Password

#94

Post by prawn »

mmalone wrote: post #93
nitrogen wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I define God as a "the thing that created the universe"... ...then you would have to justify that definition before expecting anyone to accept, prove, or disprove it. FWIW I was once a believer and frequently associate with believers, so I have some experience in the matter and have given it considerable thought.

I have to justify that that's what I mean when I say "god," or I have to justify that God created the universe? It is a common definition, so I figured you'd accept it. The point is I'm not talking about a specific God or assuming anything about the nature of God like many religions do. Once you remove all that baggage God is just a term that means "the thing that created the universe." So to deny the existence of Go…

Might help not to capitalise the G. I think that implies something more than it doesn't.

Re: This Man Has Nothing to Hide – Not Even His Email Password

#95

Post by mmalone »

prawn wrote: post #94
mmalone wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to justify that that's what I mean when I say "god," or I have to justify that God created the universe? It is a common definition, so I figured you'd accept it. The point is I'm not talking about a specific God or assuming anything about the nature of God like many religions do. Once you remove all that baggage God is just a term that means "the thing that created the universe." So to deny the existence of Go…

Might help not to capitalise the G. I think that implies something more than it doesn't.

Not implying anything other than that it's a proper name. Meh.

Re: This Man Has Nothing to Hide – Not Even His Email Password

#96

Post by nitrogen »

mmalone wrote: post #93
nitrogen wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I define God as a "the thing that created the universe"... ...then you would have to justify that definition before expecting anyone to accept, prove, or disprove it. FWIW I was once a believer and frequently associate with believers, so I have some experience in the matter and have given it considerable thought.

I have to justify that that's what I mean when I say "god," or I have to justify that God created the universe? It is a common definition, so I figured you'd accept it. The point is I'm not talking about a specific God or assuming anything about the nature of God like many religions do. Once you remove all that baggage God is just a term that means "the thing that created the universe." So to deny the existence of Go…

I'm afraid I don't see the benefit of believing in a tautologically defined creator of the universe, nor do I see why such a thing should be called "god" or "God" when that term/name has so much additional meaning associated with it.

It's an unnecessary complication; if calling the Big Bang or whatever might have preceded it "god" provides useful explanatory and predictive power, then such a definition might gain some traction. But as it is, the universe appears indistinguishable from a naturalistic physical process.

Post reply on HN