5 ms·

I love how you treat Putin one way and Obama another... So the argument follows if you want perfect information; make everyone at birth wear an exploding neck

I love how you treat Putin one way and Obama another... So the argument follows if you want perfect information; make everyone at birth wear an exploding neck tag with GPS and a cell phone that'll take your head clean off if you are ever thought of as a terrorist by the United States. No more war, no more collateral damage and yes, no more Edward Snowdon or Julian Assange. If what we are after is perfect stability and no doors government can't unlock, why not aim to tag everyone up with a government controlled device, rather than doing it via mobile phones.

ggreer 11y ago
I wrote almost 400 words dispelling misrepresentations of Obama and bemoaning the extent to which HN users misrepresent opposing views... and your response is to misrepresent a thought experiment as if I was proposing some sort of mustache-twirling movie villain plan. (sigh) I'm not sure how I can make my point any better than you just did.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- andy_ppp 11y ago
  I was also providing a thought experiment and a possible end game solution so that drone strikes would be unnecessary. Maybe think about the collateral murder tape and get back to me as to that thought experiment, or what about this one: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147 http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-... 41 people murdered without trial or war and 1147 people killed who weren't targets and tens of thousands who now hate the United States, perpetuating a never ending cycle of violence. So yeah, people do drive by and say stuff to make opposing points on discussion forums, the point was to ridicule your argument of "If Obama didn't have to murder loads of people he wouldn't". Maybe he thinks there is no alternative to 2800%+ collateral damage, do you?
  - dhimes 11y ago
    You missed the point. Obama thinks that taking our privacy away will help him target the bad guys better. So the argument is, "How many lives is your 'privacy' worth? Would you give some up to spare the 2800% collateral damage?" Snark aside, this is, actually, the rational conversation that America and the world need to have. Like many difficult problems, it's sometimes helpful to start with a simpler version of the problem. So let's simplify it a bit to start. Let's assume for a moment that backdoors will lead to better capture ratios for terrorists- that is, a higher probability of stopping real terrorist attacks. Even if it's only the stupid copy-cat cell guys, let's assume for whatever reason that giving this access to law enforcement buys us X innocent, civilian saved lives per year, by perhaps some combination of thwarting attacks and better intel on targets. What is X such that privacy invasion is acceptable? This, for me, is a super-hard question.
    - pdonis 11y ago
      > What is X such that privacy invasion is acceptable? It's impossible to tell in your simplified scenario, because you haven't said what the "simplified" version of the downside of privacy invasion is. If you're someone whose job is to prevent terrorist attacks, obviously you're going to judge that the downside of privacy invasion is a lot less than the downside of terrorist attacks. But if you're someone who's concerned about the long-term consequences of giving up civil liberties, you're going to judge that the downside of giving the government backdoor access to everyone's data is a lot more than the downside of terrorist attacks. One way to tackle this question is to look at history: how much damage has been done by terrorist attacks, child pornographers, etc., compared to the damage done by governments who were given too much power? I think the latter has done orders of magnitude more damage, which means we should be a lot more worried about privacy invasion than about terrorists. YMMV.
      - dhimes 11y ago
        I originally attempted to leave the downside of privacy invasion unsimplified, and thus different people would have different opinions based on their view of this- in other words start a discussion, not look for a "right" answer that I am pretending to know (because I don't). But this is the way I think about it. Perhaps it's still too hard of a problem, but your second paragraph what I was after. A second, more poignant way of looking at the problem is this (I'll do this one in first person, because it flat-out sucks): My friend just lost his family in a terrorist attack on an airplane. It seems likely (via whatever channels) that the attack could have been averted with more intel that was unavailable due to encryption. My friend knows that I'm against back-doors and government invasion of privacy. What do I tell him in consolation? I think that questions like this allow us to empathize with the people who are responsible for making the decision. (Of course a counter-example is also possible: Ronald Drump has just used warrantless wiretaps to identify all of the Muslim sympathizers and has started rounding them up...)

ggreer 11y ago

I wrote almost 400 words dispelling misrepresentations of Obama and bemoaning the extent to which HN users misrepresent opposing views... and your response is to misrepresent a thought experiment as if I was proposing some sort of mustache-twirling movie villain plan. (sigh) I'm not sure how I can make my point any better than you just did.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
andy_ppp 11y ago
I was also providing a thought experiment and a possible end game solution so that drone strikes would be unnecessary. Maybe think about the collateral murder tape and get back to me as to that thought experiment, or what about this one: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147 http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-... 41 people murdered without trial or war and 1147 people killed who weren't targets and tens of thousands who now hate the United States, perpetuating a never ending cycle of violence. So yeah, people do drive by and say stuff to make opposing points on discussion forums, the point was to ridicule your argument of "If Obama didn't have to murder loads of people he wouldn't". Maybe he thinks there is no alternative to 2800%+ collateral damage, do you?
- dhimes 11y ago
  You missed the point. Obama thinks that taking our privacy away will help him target the bad guys better. So the argument is, "How many lives is your 'privacy' worth? Would you give some up to spare the 2800% collateral damage?" Snark aside, this is, actually, the rational conversation that America and the world need to have. Like many difficult problems, it's sometimes helpful to start with a simpler version of the problem. So let's simplify it a bit to start. Let's assume for a moment that backdoors will lead to better capture ratios for terrorists- that is, a higher probability of stopping real terrorist attacks. Even if it's only the stupid copy-cat cell guys, let's assume for whatever reason that giving this access to law enforcement buys us X innocent, civilian saved lives per year, by perhaps some combination of thwarting attacks and better intel on targets. What is X such that privacy invasion is acceptable? This, for me, is a super-hard question.
  - pdonis 11y ago
    > What is X such that privacy invasion is acceptable? It's impossible to tell in your simplified scenario, because you haven't said what the "simplified" version of the downside of privacy invasion is. If you're someone whose job is to prevent terrorist attacks, obviously you're going to judge that the downside of privacy invasion is a lot less than the downside of terrorist attacks. But if you're someone who's concerned about the long-term consequences of giving up civil liberties, you're going to judge that the downside of giving the government backdoor access to everyone's data is a lot more than the downside of terrorist attacks. One way to tackle this question is to look at history: how much damage has been done by terrorist attacks, child pornographers, etc., compared to the damage done by governments who were given too much power? I think the latter has done orders of magnitude more damage, which means we should be a lot more worried about privacy invasion than about terrorists. YMMV.
    - dhimes 11y ago
      I originally attempted to leave the downside of privacy invasion unsimplified, and thus different people would have different opinions based on their view of this- in other words start a discussion, not look for a "right" answer that I am pretending to know (because I don't). But this is the way I think about it. Perhaps it's still too hard of a problem, but your second paragraph what I was after. A second, more poignant way of looking at the problem is this (I'll do this one in first person, because it flat-out sucks): My friend just lost his family in a terrorist attack on an airplane. It seems likely (via whatever channels) that the attack could have been averted with more intel that was unavailable due to encryption. My friend knows that I'm against back-doors and government invasion of privacy. What do I tell him in consolation? I think that questions like this allow us to empathize with the people who are responsible for making the decision. (Of course a counter-example is also possible: Ronald Drump has just used warrantless wiretaps to identify all of the Muslim sympathizers and has started rounding them up...)