5 ms·

The US has been guilty of electronic espionage and tampering in other countries. The world would call us out for aggressive retaliation here, and rightly so.

whyenot 10y ago
That's true, but it's a price worth paying IMO.
- brian-armstrong 10y ago
  Regardless of whether it was justified, it does weaken our position to complain when others do it to us
  - peller 10y ago
    Not only that, but if we start dumping dirt, who knows what secrets our adversaries might choose to drag out of the closet and parade down main street. It's a loosing proposition.
    - BuuQu9hu 10y ago
      I say it is time for the governments of the world to publicly display those secrets. Maybe then we can move forward into a world where humanity isn't constantly stabbing everyone else in the back.
      - peller 10y ago
        In the long run, perhaps, you may (I hope) be right. There's an interesting analogy that Nate Silver lays out in the beginning of The Signal and the Noise where basically, after the printing press, the availability of information to masses that didn't before have it exponentially increased way faster than "humanity" could adjust. (Obviously, this is massively simplified and leaves out all sorts of important things etc) Early on, much of what was (popularly) printed was religious. Then, the world was at war for a couple centuries before the enlightenment happened and some semblance of stability arose from the changed complex system humans had found themselves in. Now, with the internet, we're at the beginning of another such monumental shift in information access. The cynic in me finds it likely that shit gets worse before we, as a species, find a new balance point. I mean, either we learn to live with all varieties of each other in peace (which is what I think you're saying), or we end up blasting ourselves into extinction. No?
      - AndrewKemendo 10y ago
        Maybe then we can move forward into a world where humanity isn't constantly stabbing everyone else in the back. I don't think it's really possible without a major change to cognitive capabilities. The human biological system and the resultant communities aren't built to handle truth.
        peller 10y ago
        This is kind of nit-picky, but I think it might be closer to the collective we can't ever really know The Truth (about any big meta issues), but just about everybody is convinced they know and have that truth right (and by extension, most other peoples have that truth wrong). Which is to say, the brain equates beliefs to truths, which is an extremely difficult-to-overcome fallacy. (And, I suspect, therein lies the solution, if there is one.) Paradoxically, of course, life also wouldn't really be all that practical to live out if our brains didn't make such an overly simplistic jump. So, yea, not really disagreeing with you on the cognitive capabilities part. But I'm also not convinced there's no such belief structure out there that isn't capable of solving this pickle. Implementing and spreading said system of beliefs - if it exists and without starting a bunch of wars in the process, of course - is the harder part.
        AndrewKemendo 10y ago
        Which is to say, the brain equates beliefs to truths, which is an extremely difficult-to-overcome fallacy. In fact this construct is the basis for the illusion of the self - so it's inextricably linked to the human experience. The idea of an unbroken consciousness relies on a forward projection of a "future self" that is consistent with past experience. Practically, this construct is incompatible with objective experience because of our limitations for recall and "objective" evaluation of experience. But I'm also not convinced there's no such belief structure out there that isn't capable of solving this pickle. I don't think it's a belief structure that is needed - it's deeper than we can manifest so we need something to augment our limited capability. [edit] On your first point: we can't ever really know The Truth (about any big meta issues) I think that's true from an epistemic perspective, but I think we can reduce the uncertainty of variability around truth with enough inputs about causal factors in whatever event/issue is being evaluated.
      - Spooky23 10y ago
        Bureaucracy is a hard to manage 4th branch of government. If legal or other changes were made to do what you suggest, most of the juicy stuff would be destroyed... more to cover the asses of the people involved than anything else.
    - hulahoof 10y ago
      I can't even begin to comprehend a country whose citizens don't want the dirt on their government. There is exponentially less incentive to lie to citizens of other countries than your own.
      - solarengineer 10y ago
        Wow, how well put. It is appalling that citizens are scared of the dirty laundry that might come out, and are instead prepared to look the other way :(
        peller 10y ago
        Just to be clear, I was speaking from (what I imagine is) the perspective of America's leaders. Regardless, there is a non-zero chance that the result of unknown secrets being exposed could be anarchy instead of a better-functioning democracy.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        Spooky23 10y ago
        Deniability is a powerful thing. How many disputes have been settled in the shadows? Remember this is 2016, not 1916. Revelation and escalation don't lead to a mere slaughter of soldiers, but potentially destruction of civilization as we know it.
        pbz 10y ago
        That happens when you link your identity with your tribe's identity. A lot of people in the US bought into the propaganda that we're the best or better than others. All that dirt surfacing would be an attack against that identity. It would force us to reconsider and reevaluate, which is a painful process if it requires changing one's identity.
      - anigbrowl 10y ago
        Not wanting your elections to be hacked doesn't mean not wanting dirt on the government. It's not like we got to read all the juicy dirt on both parties, in which case I'd be more OK with it, though not completely. But when you're only selectively provided with dirt as some external actor sees fit to reveal then you're being played to some extent. I feel I've been pretty consistent about this as opposed to being partisan; I had a minor spat with Assange over his choices about his approach to editorial framing back when WL was first revealing helicopter footage from Iraq. Wl is a new kind of publishing outlet, but no more neutral or disinterested than the more traditional kind.
aithoughts 10y ago
I think there is an implicit assumption that your last sentence is justification for condoning this type of hacking behavior, when it happens to us. I challenge this. Just because the US has meddled in elections in the past, it doesn't make it right, and it shouldn't render us mute when we are victims of it.
- brian-armstrong 10y ago
  No, it doesn't justify it. The most powerful nations are being very cavalier and the consequences could be dire. But to imply that we should immediately go to war seems disproportionate.
- stale2002 10y ago
  Sounds great! We declare war on Russia, and every other country that WE have hacked can declare war on us. What's fair is fair.
- digler999 10y ago
  > and it shouldn't render us mute when we are victims of it. so we should do it [hack other countries' elections] and then be pissed when it happens to us ?
  - ohyes 10y ago
    No, we should be pissed when our government does it, we should be pissed when other governments do it, we should be pissed if anyone does it. It devalues democracy in a fundamental and dangerous way. We have been wronged in a multitude of ways, and we shouldn't forgive any of the wrongs. I'm incredibly tired of hearing false dichotomies here. It is imperative to maintaining a democracy that it not be hindered. We've done a disservice to democracy by tampering in elections, as have the hackers here.
- speeder 10y ago
  I think you don't understand the implications here. US has a LOOOOONG history of meddling with other countries with some heavy-handed manner (like sending a carrier group to Brazil in 1964 to ensure a coup, bombing Chile to install Pinochet, attempt to assassinate Castro 60+ times or so, and so on...) If US even HINTS in considering a minor hack of sorts as an act of war and attacks Russia over it, it could very well spark the entire world to attack US back. US can be the most powerful country of earth, but I am very sure US vs all other countries US meddled with would mean US destruction (and maybe the other countries wouldn't survive it either...) People shouldn't even joke about going to war over the "election hack", what should be done is fix your own security and redo the elections if the hack was proven.
FrancoDiaz 10y ago
The world would call us out for aggressive retaliation here, and rightly so. "The World" would not. I don't know what people think they gain by using the term "the world".
- Spooky23 10y ago
  China would. Russia would. Notice how you don't hear too much about "Chinese hackers" anymore? There's all sorts of brinksmanship and politics involved here. The US have even publicly acknowledged this stuff. In 1982 pirated software (I think IBM mainframe stuff iirc) was modified, stuxnet-style to cause one of the largest non-nuclear explosions of some sort of gas refinery ever. God knows what's been done since then.
  - brownbat 10y ago
    You're probably thinking of the story Reed included in "At the Abyss," about a pipeline explosion from a trojan horse slipped in the Canadian control software. That was supposed to be in 1982. It's become an infamous legend about ICS attack. Probably didn't happen though. There was definitely a big pipeline explosion at the time, though Reed's fact checking misses the location, and somewhat more importantly, the fact that Russian control systems weren't software-based at the time. Although it was a fun legend, it probably started as a game of telephone (a/o paranoia). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_the_Abyss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_the_Abyss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia_(role-playing_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia_(role-playing_game)
  - sixothree 10y ago
    I'm not a fan of these "Notice how you don't hear too much about X" arguments. Just because you aren't interested does not mean it's not being reported.
    - Spooky23 10y ago
      It's more the opposite. If you follow the government beat, China was this unlimited threat until it wasn't.

whyenot 10y ago

That's true, but it's a price worth paying IMO.

brian-armstrong 10y ago
Regardless of whether it was justified, it does weaken our position to complain when others do it to us
- peller 10y ago
  Not only that, but if we start dumping dirt, who knows what secrets our adversaries might choose to drag out of the closet and parade down main street. It's a loosing proposition.
  - BuuQu9hu 10y ago
    I say it is time for the governments of the world to publicly display those secrets. Maybe then we can move forward into a world where humanity isn't constantly stabbing everyone else in the back.
    - peller 10y ago
      In the long run, perhaps, you may (I hope) be right. There's an interesting analogy that Nate Silver lays out in the beginning of The Signal and the Noise where basically, after the printing press, the availability of information to masses that didn't before have it exponentially increased way faster than "humanity" could adjust. (Obviously, this is massively simplified and leaves out all sorts of important things etc) Early on, much of what was (popularly) printed was religious. Then, the world was at war for a couple centuries before the enlightenment happened and some semblance of stability arose from the changed complex system humans had found themselves in. Now, with the internet, we're at the beginning of another such monumental shift in information access. The cynic in me finds it likely that shit gets worse before we, as a species, find a new balance point. I mean, either we learn to live with all varieties of each other in peace (which is what I think you're saying), or we end up blasting ourselves into extinction. No?
    - AndrewKemendo 10y ago
      Maybe then we can move forward into a world where humanity isn't constantly stabbing everyone else in the back. I don't think it's really possible without a major change to cognitive capabilities. The human biological system and the resultant communities aren't built to handle truth.
      - peller 10y ago
        This is kind of nit-picky, but I think it might be closer to the collective we can't ever really know The Truth (about any big meta issues), but just about everybody is convinced they know and have that truth right (and by extension, most other peoples have that truth wrong). Which is to say, the brain equates beliefs to truths, which is an extremely difficult-to-overcome fallacy. (And, I suspect, therein lies the solution, if there is one.) Paradoxically, of course, life also wouldn't really be all that practical to live out if our brains didn't make such an overly simplistic jump. So, yea, not really disagreeing with you on the cognitive capabilities part. But I'm also not convinced there's no such belief structure out there that isn't capable of solving this pickle. Implementing and spreading said system of beliefs - if it exists and without starting a bunch of wars in the process, of course - is the harder part.
        AndrewKemendo 10y ago
        Which is to say, the brain equates beliefs to truths, which is an extremely difficult-to-overcome fallacy. In fact this construct is the basis for the illusion of the self - so it's inextricably linked to the human experience. The idea of an unbroken consciousness relies on a forward projection of a "future self" that is consistent with past experience. Practically, this construct is incompatible with objective experience because of our limitations for recall and "objective" evaluation of experience. But I'm also not convinced there's no such belief structure out there that isn't capable of solving this pickle. I don't think it's a belief structure that is needed - it's deeper than we can manifest so we need something to augment our limited capability. [edit] On your first point: we can't ever really know The Truth (about any big meta issues) I think that's true from an epistemic perspective, but I think we can reduce the uncertainty of variability around truth with enough inputs about causal factors in whatever event/issue is being evaluated.
    - Spooky23 10y ago
      Bureaucracy is a hard to manage 4th branch of government. If legal or other changes were made to do what you suggest, most of the juicy stuff would be destroyed... more to cover the asses of the people involved than anything else.
  - hulahoof 10y ago
    I can't even begin to comprehend a country whose citizens don't want the dirt on their government. There is exponentially less incentive to lie to citizens of other countries than your own.
    - solarengineer 10y ago
      Wow, how well put. It is appalling that citizens are scared of the dirty laundry that might come out, and are instead prepared to look the other way :(
      - peller 10y ago
        Just to be clear, I was speaking from (what I imagine is) the perspective of America's leaders. Regardless, there is a non-zero chance that the result of unknown secrets being exposed could be anarchy instead of a better-functioning democracy.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - Spooky23 10y ago
        Deniability is a powerful thing. How many disputes have been settled in the shadows? Remember this is 2016, not 1916. Revelation and escalation don't lead to a mere slaughter of soldiers, but potentially destruction of civilization as we know it.
      - pbz 10y ago
        That happens when you link your identity with your tribe's identity. A lot of people in the US bought into the propaganda that we're the best or better than others. All that dirt surfacing would be an attack against that identity. It would force us to reconsider and reevaluate, which is a painful process if it requires changing one's identity.
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      Not wanting your elections to be hacked doesn't mean not wanting dirt on the government. It's not like we got to read all the juicy dirt on both parties, in which case I'd be more OK with it, though not completely. But when you're only selectively provided with dirt as some external actor sees fit to reveal then you're being played to some extent. I feel I've been pretty consistent about this as opposed to being partisan; I had a minor spat with Assange over his choices about his approach to editorial framing back when WL was first revealing helicopter footage from Iraq. Wl is a new kind of publishing outlet, but no more neutral or disinterested than the more traditional kind.

aithoughts 10y ago

I think there is an implicit assumption that your last sentence is justification for condoning this type of hacking behavior, when it happens to us. I challenge this. Just because the US has meddled in elections in the past, it doesn't make it right, and it shouldn't render us mute when we are victims of it.

brian-armstrong 10y ago
No, it doesn't justify it. The most powerful nations are being very cavalier and the consequences could be dire. But to imply that we should immediately go to war seems disproportionate.
stale2002 10y ago
Sounds great! We declare war on Russia, and every other country that WE have hacked can declare war on us. What's fair is fair.
digler999 10y ago
> and it shouldn't render us mute when we are victims of it. so we should do it [hack other countries' elections] and then be pissed when it happens to us ?
- ohyes 10y ago
  No, we should be pissed when our government does it, we should be pissed when other governments do it, we should be pissed if anyone does it. It devalues democracy in a fundamental and dangerous way. We have been wronged in a multitude of ways, and we shouldn't forgive any of the wrongs. I'm incredibly tired of hearing false dichotomies here. It is imperative to maintaining a democracy that it not be hindered. We've done a disservice to democracy by tampering in elections, as have the hackers here.
speeder 10y ago
I think you don't understand the implications here. US has a LOOOOONG history of meddling with other countries with some heavy-handed manner (like sending a carrier group to Brazil in 1964 to ensure a coup, bombing Chile to install Pinochet, attempt to assassinate Castro 60+ times or so, and so on...) If US even HINTS in considering a minor hack of sorts as an act of war and attacks Russia over it, it could very well spark the entire world to attack US back. US can be the most powerful country of earth, but I am very sure US vs all other countries US meddled with would mean US destruction (and maybe the other countries wouldn't survive it either...) People shouldn't even joke about going to war over the "election hack", what should be done is fix your own security and redo the elections if the hack was proven.

FrancoDiaz 10y ago

The world would call us out for aggressive retaliation here, and rightly so. "The World" would not. I don't know what people think they gain by using the term "the world".

Spooky23 10y ago
China would. Russia would. Notice how you don't hear too much about "Chinese hackers" anymore? There's all sorts of brinksmanship and politics involved here. The US have even publicly acknowledged this stuff. In 1982 pirated software (I think IBM mainframe stuff iirc) was modified, stuxnet-style to cause one of the largest non-nuclear explosions of some sort of gas refinery ever. God knows what's been done since then.
- brownbat 10y ago
  You're probably thinking of the story Reed included in "At the Abyss," about a pipeline explosion from a trojan horse slipped in the Canadian control software. That was supposed to be in 1982. It's become an infamous legend about ICS attack. Probably didn't happen though. There was definitely a big pipeline explosion at the time, though Reed's fact checking misses the location, and somewhat more importantly, the fact that Russian control systems weren't software-based at the time. Although it was a fun legend, it probably started as a game of telephone (a/o paranoia). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_the_Abyss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_the_Abyss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia_(role-playing_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia_(role-playing_game)
- sixothree 10y ago
  I'm not a fan of these "Notice how you don't hear too much about X" arguments. Just because you aren't interested does not mean it's not being reported.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    It's more the opposite. If you follow the government beat, China was this unlimited threat until it wasn't.