12 ms·

Chelsea Manning: The Dystopia We Signed Up For

231 points by frandroid 9y ago

caiob 9y ago
So, I am reading an article written by Chelsea Manning about trust and confidentiality. Am I reading this right? Is this where we are at now!?
- jackmott 9y ago
  Yes.
- castis 9y ago
  I don't understand the subcontext of your rhetorical question. Could you explain why this would be a problem?
  - Danihan 9y ago
    She was placed in a position of trust to watch over classified data, and massively breached that trust. And was imprisoned for it, and in fact would still be in prison had the sentence not been commuted. Agree or disagree with her actions, it is extremely ironic. Is it really that difficult to understand the subtext here?
    - phailhaus 9y ago
      Yeah, because it's pretty clear you didn't read the article. It has nothing to do with trust.
      - linkregister 9y ago
        You probably meant to direct that to the original poster, not the person you responded to. That person was clarifying the subtext.
      - Danihan 9y ago
        The entire article is about society putting too much trust in computer systems. So yes, it is about trust. Beyond that, I was answering a question about subtext, not discussing the article directly.
        phailhaus 9y ago
        The article is about the alarming amount of information we've granted to private companies, Chelsea was imprisoned for releasing classified documents. How are the two related? Your argument would still "apply" if Chelsea had cheated on a lover; "hey, she betrayed someone's trust so how can she talk about trust?" Basically, nothing's she's done invalidates or even weakens her points.
        Danihan 9y ago
        She's basically proving her own point. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. "Don't let anyone get your private data or it'll be leaked or mishandled -- trust me I know all about mishandling privileged data."
        phailhaus 9y ago
        Again, you seem to not have read the article, because it's not about having your private data leaked. Her article is about how we've voluntarily given private companies our private data with no control of how it is used, and that this information is used to power algorithms that affect our lives in ways we can't predict.
        Danihan 9y ago
        >Her article is about how we've voluntarily given private companies our private data with no control of how it is used, and that this information is used to power algorithms that affect our lives in ways we can't predict. Which is "mishandled."
        phailhaus 9y ago
    - mahyarm 9y ago
      Imagine your an accountant for a firm, you realize they are committing unethical accounting practices, some which may be 'legal', some which may be 'not legal'. You feel like they are pretty heinous and they breached the 'trust of the public' by doing so. In this dilemma which trust has the higher priority? In your opinion it should be the US military, in Manning's case, it was not.
      - Danihan 9y ago
        How would you know my opinion on it?
        lovich 9y ago
        Because you stated it was ironic for someone who breached the trust of the military to be talking about trust, which implies that you valued the militaries trust over the trust of people in the military.
        Danihan 9y ago
        It's ironic regardless. Whether I value the military's trust or not doesn't enter into it. Her original intention, which has gotten somewhat lost in all this controversy, was to protect atheist groups in Middle Eastern countries who were being labeled as "anti-government radicals" and persecuted, in concert with US intelligence forces. I certainly agree with her frustrations there. But not her tactics. She broke her employment contract and the rules of her security clearance, then bragged about it to the wrong person and paid an appropriate price.
        lovich 9y ago
        Then I guess it depends on if you view the military doing things that most of the people who they are supposed to protect disagree with, as a violation of trust or not. I personally don't believe that saying one side followed all the rules when they have the power to make the rules has any weight as a moral argument
        deleted 9y ago
    - chc 9y ago
      Would you see the same irony in any other whistle-blower writing this article? I don't think most people see whistle-blowing as equivalent to breaching individuals' privacy. One is defending the public from wrongs done by powerful organizations, while the other is harming the public by threatening their privacy. You have to erase a lot of details to draw an equivalence there.
    - ionised 9y ago
      And the US military was trusted with not murdering civilians and journalists and breached that trust. Chelsea Manning made us aware of it by leaking documents I deem to be in the public interest. Between the US military and Chelsea Manning, guess who I trust more?
- shallot_router 9y ago
  About trust and confidentiality... of citizens' private data. By contrast, she leaked military/diplomatic documents and footage. Not exactly a 1-to-1 parallel.
  - caiob 9y ago
    Ok. Then, what are his/her credentials on the topic?
    - phailhaus 9y ago
      Did you even try? From the article: > Chelsea Manning is an advocate of government transparency, a transgender rights activist and a former United States Army intelligence analyst.
      - pyre 9y ago
        Based on the commenter's first comment in this thread, I'm assuming that they already know who Chelsea Manning is. Unfortunately the content of all of their comments seems aimed to inflame/offend rather than discuss.
    - civilian 9y ago
      Aren't you just committing an appeal to authority fallacy? Read her article and judge the merits there. It's the NYTimes, it's not like the article is going to break philosophical ground, it's more of a summary of what has happened. The way that our faces, location and information is collected has potential for dystopia, and that's an easy argument to make. //edit: For context, the comment I was replying to read: > Ok. Then, what are his/her credentials on the topic?
      - an27 9y ago
        Did that user just delete their comments or is this a new antispam/censorship feature of the forum software?
- pyre 9y ago
  Unless Chelsea Manning is trying to convince us to trust her with our private data, I don't see where the irony is. It's similar to a reformed/retired safe cracker is telling us which safes are hard to crack. The safe cracker would be in a position to know about how difficult it would be to crack safes. The major difference being that the safe cracker possibly stands to benefit from lying to us in an effort to make their job easier (convince us to get safes that are in reality easy to crack). In the situation with Chelsea Manning, I'm not sure where you think that she stands to benefit from us following any advice that she's giving.
  - SXX 9y ago
    Regardless of the article that analogy with safe cracker lead nowhere. Almost every good expert in computer security was at some point black hat and you never know what they actually are now.
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      I think that's a stretch (police state definitions of "black hat" non-withstanding)
      - SXX 9y ago
        Even so person capable of keeping software secure can as well tell you how secure it is while selling bugs in said software to 3 letter agency, some authoritarian state or basically anyone who have enough cash. Oh, I forgot that we don't call it black hat and this is totally legit business. That safe cracker from example above would be ashamed, he couldn't even dream of something like that.
- allworknoplay 9y ago
  She saw something wrong going on and blew a whistle; she was sentenced and it was commuted in the name of transparency and respect for the government's obligations to its citizens and transparency. So basically, she saw the government's breach of trust and called it out, and is doing so again now. It seems like either you don't understand what Chelsea did in the first place, or your argument is simply with Chelsea herself for any number of possible reasons. Yes, this is where we are now. Fucking good.
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    It's a little more complex than that. Chelsea did what she thought was right (and I generally agree in principle) but the actual dump was just... everything. It wasn't a well curated dump, much of the data wasn't whistleblowing. If you compare how Chelsea handled it vs Snowden they are worlds apart. Chelsea wanted to be a whistleblower but IMO behaved like a leaker/dumper. Of course intent does matter but, even though I'm very pro-Chelsea, lets not pretend Chelsea behaved admirably in how she handled the leaks.
- sctb 9y ago
  Please post more substantively than this—we're here to learn. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
meri_dian 9y ago
What she describes doesn't sound like a dystopia at all. Some systems that she interacted with weren't able to handle her name change. Ok... having some trouble handling edge cases is not dystopian, that's just poorly designed software. It's not like she was permanantly shut out of society. She was temporarily inconvenienced.
- Danihan 9y ago
  It's almost as if she has histrionic traits or something..
- jimktrains2 9y ago
  Name changes aren't an edge case. What's dystopian to me is the unwillingness of people to actually work out and solve issues for their clients, customers, and citizens. "Computer Says No" is used to avoid having to work and avoid having to escalate.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - fusiongyro 9y ago
    How's that different from bad customer service in an earlier era? "I don't know what form you need and my manager is at lunch."
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    Having worked at a helpdesk: "computer says no" is effectively the same as "my company/boss says no". Most of those systems are intentionally set up so that you can't override them for an edge case. It's not a smart way to do things, but it's the way things are done.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 9y ago
    It's not just a name change. She was in prison for several years. When she got out, she tries to fix up her accounts. If someone walks up to a bank years after no activity and wants a name change (and maybe a gender change) on an account should the bank just do it? Probably not without 3rd party verification that the customer has to initiate by filling out some forms and providing evidence. I'm just speculating but it could have been reasonable for the bank to have declined the request up front.
ncr100 9y ago
One point seems to be about trust. She's noting how society depends upon digital, not analog, trust. She thinks of that as dystopian because of the foreignness and inconvenience. We, as technologists, can improve upon this by talking empathetically more with our users about how they interact with our technology, to help steer the product towards incorporating more human-focused designs. This could help avoid this Stranger in a Strange Land phenomenon becoming more prevalent, and avoid the negative psychological behaviors which disconnected individuals typically exhibit.
- sp332 9y ago
  But what if there isn't any big incentive to do that? It's profitable to take away people's privacy and there's not that much money in letting them keep it.
  - barce 9y ago
    Their really isn't any big incentive to do that. Software is still eating the world. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111903480904576512250915629460 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111903480904576512...
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - sp332 9y ago
      I'm kinda OK with software eating the world. That doesn't automatically mean concentrating power.
  - kobeya 9y ago
    Then you work to change the incentives.
- 9y ago
Shivetya 9y ago
We have had thought crime and precrime punitive actions and enforcement already through the invention of hate crimes. we already have guilt by association, including both involuntary and voluntary association. how that is going to be any different in a computerized world is beyond me, other than it might become less influenced by people which removes power from those exploiting it.
- lovich 9y ago
  It's not less influenced by people it's just inflexible now. People are still writing the software. You get preconceived notions baked into something that no longer even has the option to compensate. For example cameras with facial recognition that thinks east Asians are blinking all the time[1]. This wasn't malicious, it wasn't even intentional, but no one can go "Oh the system is making a mistake" and fix it. Yes software can be updated, but how often do small minorities get software updated for them unless they are paying more than everyone else? [1]http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1954643,00.html http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1954643...
nether 9y ago
We need to blast off into space sooner than later to escape this tyranny. We must declare independence.
- kelnos 9y ago
  What makes you think we won't just establish similar tyranny on another planet?
  - diminish 9y ago
    Funny enough most space sci-fi worlds include some form of tyranny or kingdoms at best - at demonic levels.
  - zo1 9y ago
    It's a chance for a fresh start, whether it ends up tyrannical or not is yet to be decided. Whereas, staying here, we're by-default picking tyranny by the majority. There is absolutely no-where to go on this planet to escape statism or to join with like-minded individuals in creating a new society. Heck, government is even trying to stake claim to outer space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
  - ColanR 9y ago
    It worked well enough for the US, at least for a while.
    - kelnos 9y ago
      And that's the rub: it does work for a while, but humans inevitably organize into power structures, and those structures always end up making decisions at the expense of the minority.
- root_axis 9y ago
  This is not a realistic proposal. Space will not save us, it's just a different setting for the same animal except the environment is unimaginably hostile in every aspect, it would only magnify our worst tendencies.
eric_b 9y ago
It's impossible for me to believe she wrote this article on her own based on her public Twitter timeline[1]. But, even supposing she did, other than name recognition, I'm also not sure I understand why we should care what she thinks about anything? From my understanding of her background, she was a subpar intelligence analyst who has no real deep expertise in digital surveillance or even technology in general. The article is surface level at best, and asks simplistic questions that attempt to evoke an emotional reaction. Her current role of "government transparency advocate" is equally silly to me. Other than regurgitating platitudes on Twitter, has she done anything worth recognition or that would make her an authority in this space? (I don't really count leaking classified materials and barely escaping a treason conviction as worthwhile) [1] I just picked two random tweets from her timeline. They are all like this. https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/906552329482248193 https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/906552329482248193 https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/905122312424435712 https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/905122312424435712 Edit: Ahhhh yes. Thanks for the downvotes. Always amazed at the sympathy people have for criminals who needlessly endangered dozens of lives. Great job HN.
- astronautjones 9y ago
  the government admitted that her leaks endangered no one https://www.buzzfeed.com/jasonleopold/secret-government-report-chelsea-manning-leaks-caused-no https://www.buzzfeed.com/jasonleopold/secret-government-repo...
  - wildmusings 9y ago
    What a great opportunity for a lesson in fake news. Let's get to the meat of the claim in the article you link to (https://www.buzzfeed.com/jasonleopold/secret-government-report-chelsea-manning-leaks-caused-no?utm_term=.kqkOv6JJOp#.vjxzYeppzx https://www.buzzfeed.com/jasonleopold/secret-government-repo...): Regarding the hundreds of thousands of Iraq-related military documents and State Department cables provided by the Army private Chelsea Manning, the report assessed “with high confidence that disclosure of the Iraq data set will have no direct personal impact on current and former U.S. leadership in Iraq.” How strange! The article is trying to give the impression that Manning's leaks IN GENERAL harmed no one, but when they get to the heart of the matter, they only reference the situation in Iraq. Manning's leaks included information about our diplomacy around the world. Iraq-related material were only part of it. Further, it is widely believed that Manning's leaks contributed greatly to, if not sparked the flames of, the Arab "Spring", which has most certainly been a disaster for America (and the people in the region too).
marcoperaza 9y ago
Is there any evidence that Manning was able to express herself at such a high level before becoming a public figure? I can't help but suspect that someone is just using her name for their own political ends.
- jlgaddis 9y ago
  I've no idea, to be honest, but as I was reading the article I was thinking that this could potentially be a nice way to provide for herself financially: writing articles for the media, making appearances/speeches at events/conferences, etc. With a criminal record and fresh out of prison, she's not going to have many (decent) opportunities available to her so perhaps this is one way to make the most of her situation and/or experiences. I'm sure there are plenty of organizations that would pay for this.
  - tanderson92 9y ago
    > With a criminal record and fresh out of prison, she's not going to have many (decent) opportunities available to her... She was named as a visiting fellow at the Harvard Institute of Politics, literally today. https://twitter.com/HarvardIOP/status/907977942269091840 https://twitter.com/HarvardIOP/status/907977942269091840
    - jlgaddis 9y ago
      I'm two days late in responding but apparently they have since rescinded her fellowship.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Is there any evidence that Manning was able to express herself at such a high level before becoming a public figure? Maybe not before becoming a public figure, but she's done a lot of public writing since, including the last couple of years as an official contributing writer for Guardian US, having written a couple op-eds for them before that. Prison does often give one time for studying, reading, and writing if one chooses to use it for that purpose.
turc1656 9y ago
Industrial Society and Its Future. The miniseries on the Unabomber that just ended this week could not be more timely, even after 20 years.
iamleppert 9y ago
I experienced this recently in the scariest of circumstances -- a hospital. I have hemophilia, a bleeding disorder. Normally, its a nuisance that just requires I take medication on semi-daily basis. If I don't take the medication, I'll usually be fine, except if I have an active bleed, which will just continue to bleed, causing damage to my body, and can be life threatening depending on the location of the bleed. I was recently traveling back home and I ran out of my medication. It's a specialty medication that you can't find in pharmacies. It normally has to be shipped to me. I had ordered some but it wouldn't arrive for another day. I was having an active bleed in my torso, of all places, which is an odd place and distressing because its close to so many important body systems (the spine, major arteries). The thing about my condition is that normally bleeds are innocuous, but you never know. I always be on the safe side, because when I haven't its often meant months-long recovery. Anyway, I figured no problem, I'll just go to the hospital ER and get some medication, which is what I'm supposed to do and I've done before -- but not in a long time. Most all major metro hospitals carry my medication. I went to the hospital and told them about my condition and what I needed. They wanted me to take a CT scan, which I declined (I already knew what I was dealing with and just needed my medication). Then, they wanted to test me for hemophilia (I've had the condition since birth), a very expensive and lengthy test that takes hours. After finally speaking with a doctor, he declined to give me my medication until I both consented to the CT scan and the test for hemophilia (despite me having official medical identification that explains my condition). I didn't want the CT scan because its ungodly expensive and exposes your body to a lot of radiation (100x an x-ray). You could clearly tell it was a bleed due to swelling, bruising, heat, and my prior medical history. And I've lived with the condition for awhile so I am very attuned to these problems. I experienced what I can only describe as a similar type of hostility as someone coming in seeking drugs to get high (my medication neither makes you high nor is dangerous, except when I don't get it). Curious as to why I was being treated this way, I pressed further. The doctor came back with a print-out from some medical "AI" software. It had not only determined what the proper course of action was to be (the tests before my medication), I was also informed that if the staff deviated from the "process" at all, they would risk being fired. There you have it. All decision-making ability had been revoked from even the doctors. They were prepared to let me bleed for hours, while waiting on a test to confirm a condition I've had since birth rather than risk deviating from some computer-generated "AI" policy. Even more sinister, since it was a screenshot (done with print screen) of the windows-based software, I spotted something else: something called a "risk score". It was a gauge-like visualization that had rated me in the "riskier" category. No doubt this was also the case with patients who are drug seeking, and I hypothesize this was the reason for the apathy and apprehension I detected. It kind of reminds me of the Critical Care episode of Star Trek: Voyager, where patients have been reduced to a "TC" -- treatment coefficient that determines who gets good care and who doesn't and is based on the person's accomplishments and value to society. Honestly, we're not far off from that. What would happen if I came into the ER with a serious problem that required immediate treatment? Would they defer to this software and watch me die while waiting on tests? I know my condition is rare, I'm used to educating doctors about it, but the fact that the doctors seemed unwilling to even compromise and do the right thing was alarming to me, and also sad. Its like they have become customer service representatives of a large corporation and they know it, and so they have divorced themselves of any care or humanity at all. I decided to leave and take my chances on waiting the day, rather than sit there for hours. At that point, I was in extreme pain and I honestly didn't know if the bleed would resolve itself or not. Worse case, I could always come back to the hospital. I guess. The bleed ended up resolving itself, and I eventually got my medication and was able to treat myself. Ironically, a nurse called later the next day to "check up on me". My tests had finally come back over a day later and confirmed my condition, and also that my factor level was low. After I told her the story I've just shared with you, all she could offer was to "make a note in your chart". That no-one will be looking at, and likely not influence the medical software at all. I looked on the hospital web site for contact information to try and lodge a complaint -- there was none. I also tried calling the hospital's 800 number, which was entirely automated and offered no ability to talk to anyone. In case anyone is wondering, the name of the hospital is Riverside in Columbus, Ohio (part of Ohio Health). It's a huge hospital. Anyway, this is my story about AI. Something to think about because as engineers we are the ones making these kinds of software and have an ethical and moral responsibility. We need to be aware of how people are going to use technology and actively work to prevent abuses, and hopefully build this into the software itself. What kind of science fiction novel are we living in?

231 points by frandroid 9y ago

So, I am reading an article written by Chelsea Manning about trust and confidentiality. Am I reading this right? Is this where we are at now!?

jackmott 9y ago
Yes.
castis 9y ago
I don't understand the subcontext of your rhetorical question. Could you explain why this would be a problem?
- Danihan 9y ago
  She was placed in a position of trust to watch over classified data, and massively breached that trust. And was imprisoned for it, and in fact would still be in prison had the sentence not been commuted. Agree or disagree with her actions, it is extremely ironic. Is it really that difficult to understand the subtext here?
  - phailhaus 9y ago
    Yeah, because it's pretty clear you didn't read the article. It has nothing to do with trust.
    - linkregister 9y ago
      You probably meant to direct that to the original poster, not the person you responded to. That person was clarifying the subtext.
    - Danihan 9y ago
      The entire article is about society putting too much trust in computer systems. So yes, it is about trust. Beyond that, I was answering a question about subtext, not discussing the article directly.
      - phailhaus 9y ago
        The article is about the alarming amount of information we've granted to private companies, Chelsea was imprisoned for releasing classified documents. How are the two related? Your argument would still "apply" if Chelsea had cheated on a lover; "hey, she betrayed someone's trust so how can she talk about trust?" Basically, nothing's she's done invalidates or even weakens her points.
        Danihan 9y ago
        She's basically proving her own point. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. "Don't let anyone get your private data or it'll be leaked or mishandled -- trust me I know all about mishandling privileged data."
        phailhaus 9y ago
        Again, you seem to not have read the article, because it's not about having your private data leaked. Her article is about how we've voluntarily given private companies our private data with no control of how it is used, and that this information is used to power algorithms that affect our lives in ways we can't predict.
        Danihan 9y ago
        >Her article is about how we've voluntarily given private companies our private data with no control of how it is used, and that this information is used to power algorithms that affect our lives in ways we can't predict. Which is "mishandled."
        phailhaus 9y ago
  - mahyarm 9y ago
    Imagine your an accountant for a firm, you realize they are committing unethical accounting practices, some which may be 'legal', some which may be 'not legal'. You feel like they are pretty heinous and they breached the 'trust of the public' by doing so. In this dilemma which trust has the higher priority? In your opinion it should be the US military, in Manning's case, it was not.
    - Danihan 9y ago
      How would you know my opinion on it?
      - lovich 9y ago
        Because you stated it was ironic for someone who breached the trust of the military to be talking about trust, which implies that you valued the militaries trust over the trust of people in the military.
        Danihan 9y ago
        It's ironic regardless. Whether I value the military's trust or not doesn't enter into it. Her original intention, which has gotten somewhat lost in all this controversy, was to protect atheist groups in Middle Eastern countries who were being labeled as "anti-government radicals" and persecuted, in concert with US intelligence forces. I certainly agree with her frustrations there. But not her tactics. She broke her employment contract and the rules of her security clearance, then bragged about it to the wrong person and paid an appropriate price.
        lovich 9y ago
        Then I guess it depends on if you view the military doing things that most of the people who they are supposed to protect disagree with, as a violation of trust or not. I personally don't believe that saying one side followed all the rules when they have the power to make the rules has any weight as a moral argument
      - deleted 9y ago
  - chc 9y ago
    Would you see the same irony in any other whistle-blower writing this article? I don't think most people see whistle-blowing as equivalent to breaching individuals' privacy. One is defending the public from wrongs done by powerful organizations, while the other is harming the public by threatening their privacy. You have to erase a lot of details to draw an equivalence there.
  - ionised 9y ago
    And the US military was trusted with not murdering civilians and journalists and breached that trust. Chelsea Manning made us aware of it by leaking documents I deem to be in the public interest. Between the US military and Chelsea Manning, guess who I trust more?
shallot_router 9y ago
About trust and confidentiality... of citizens' private data. By contrast, she leaked military/diplomatic documents and footage. Not exactly a 1-to-1 parallel.
- caiob 9y ago
  Ok. Then, what are his/her credentials on the topic?
  - phailhaus 9y ago
    Did you even try? From the article: > Chelsea Manning is an advocate of government transparency, a transgender rights activist and a former United States Army intelligence analyst.
    - pyre 9y ago
      Based on the commenter's first comment in this thread, I'm assuming that they already know who Chelsea Manning is. Unfortunately the content of all of their comments seems aimed to inflame/offend rather than discuss.
  - civilian 9y ago
    Aren't you just committing an appeal to authority fallacy? Read her article and judge the merits there. It's the NYTimes, it's not like the article is going to break philosophical ground, it's more of a summary of what has happened. The way that our faces, location and information is collected has potential for dystopia, and that's an easy argument to make. //edit: For context, the comment I was replying to read: > Ok. Then, what are his/her credentials on the topic?
    - an27 9y ago
      Did that user just delete their comments or is this a new antispam/censorship feature of the forum software?
pyre 9y ago
Unless Chelsea Manning is trying to convince us to trust her with our private data, I don't see where the irony is. It's similar to a reformed/retired safe cracker is telling us which safes are hard to crack. The safe cracker would be in a position to know about how difficult it would be to crack safes. The major difference being that the safe cracker possibly stands to benefit from lying to us in an effort to make their job easier (convince us to get safes that are in reality easy to crack). In the situation with Chelsea Manning, I'm not sure where you think that she stands to benefit from us following any advice that she's giving.
- SXX 9y ago
  Regardless of the article that analogy with safe cracker lead nowhere. Almost every good expert in computer security was at some point black hat and you never know what they actually are now.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    I think that's a stretch (police state definitions of "black hat" non-withstanding)
    - SXX 9y ago
      Even so person capable of keeping software secure can as well tell you how secure it is while selling bugs in said software to 3 letter agency, some authoritarian state or basically anyone who have enough cash. Oh, I forgot that we don't call it black hat and this is totally legit business. That safe cracker from example above would be ashamed, he couldn't even dream of something like that.
allworknoplay 9y ago
She saw something wrong going on and blew a whistle; she was sentenced and it was commuted in the name of transparency and respect for the government's obligations to its citizens and transparency. So basically, she saw the government's breach of trust and called it out, and is doing so again now. It seems like either you don't understand what Chelsea did in the first place, or your argument is simply with Chelsea herself for any number of possible reasons. Yes, this is where we are now. Fucking good.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  It's a little more complex than that. Chelsea did what she thought was right (and I generally agree in principle) but the actual dump was just... everything. It wasn't a well curated dump, much of the data wasn't whistleblowing. If you compare how Chelsea handled it vs Snowden they are worlds apart. Chelsea wanted to be a whistleblower but IMO behaved like a leaker/dumper. Of course intent does matter but, even though I'm very pro-Chelsea, lets not pretend Chelsea behaved admirably in how she handled the leaks.
sctb 9y ago
Please post more substantively than this—we're here to learn. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

meri_dian 9y ago

What she describes doesn't sound like a dystopia at all. Some systems that she interacted with weren't able to handle her name change. Ok... having some trouble handling edge cases is not dystopian, that's just poorly designed software. It's not like she was permanantly shut out of society. She was temporarily inconvenienced.

Danihan 9y ago
It's almost as if she has histrionic traits or something..
jimktrains2 9y ago
Name changes aren't an edge case. What's dystopian to me is the unwillingness of people to actually work out and solve issues for their clients, customers, and citizens. "Computer Says No" is used to avoid having to work and avoid having to escalate.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- fusiongyro 9y ago
  How's that different from bad customer service in an earlier era? "I don't know what form you need and my manager is at lunch."
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  Having worked at a helpdesk: "computer says no" is effectively the same as "my company/boss says no". Most of those systems are intentionally set up so that you can't override them for an edge case. It's not a smart way to do things, but it's the way things are done.
- 2muchcoffeeman 9y ago
  It's not just a name change. She was in prison for several years. When she got out, she tries to fix up her accounts. If someone walks up to a bank years after no activity and wants a name change (and maybe a gender change) on an account should the bank just do it? Probably not without 3rd party verification that the customer has to initiate by filling out some forms and providing evidence. I'm just speculating but it could have been reasonable for the bank to have declined the request up front.

ncr100 9y ago

One point seems to be about trust. She's noting how society depends upon digital, not analog, trust. She thinks of that as dystopian because of the foreignness and inconvenience. We, as technologists, can improve upon this by talking empathetically more with our users about how they interact with our technology, to help steer the product towards incorporating more human-focused designs. This could help avoid this Stranger in a Strange Land phenomenon becoming more prevalent, and avoid the negative psychological behaviors which disconnected individuals typically exhibit.

sp332 9y ago
But what if there isn't any big incentive to do that? It's profitable to take away people's privacy and there's not that much money in letting them keep it.
- barce 9y ago
  Their really isn't any big incentive to do that. Software is still eating the world. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111903480904576512250915629460 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111903480904576512...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - sp332 9y ago
    I'm kinda OK with software eating the world. That doesn't automatically mean concentrating power.
- kobeya 9y ago
  Then you work to change the incentives.
9y ago

Shivetya 9y ago

We have had thought crime and precrime punitive actions and enforcement already through the invention of hate crimes. we already have guilt by association, including both involuntary and voluntary association. how that is going to be any different in a computerized world is beyond me, other than it might become less influenced by people which removes power from those exploiting it.

lovich 9y ago
It's not less influenced by people it's just inflexible now. People are still writing the software. You get preconceived notions baked into something that no longer even has the option to compensate. For example cameras with facial recognition that thinks east Asians are blinking all the time[1]. This wasn't malicious, it wasn't even intentional, but no one can go "Oh the system is making a mistake" and fix it. Yes software can be updated, but how often do small minorities get software updated for them unless they are paying more than everyone else? [1]http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1954643,00.html http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1954643...

nether 9y ago

We need to blast off into space sooner than later to escape this tyranny. We must declare independence.

kelnos 9y ago
What makes you think we won't just establish similar tyranny on another planet?
- diminish 9y ago
  Funny enough most space sci-fi worlds include some form of tyranny or kingdoms at best - at demonic levels.
- zo1 9y ago
  It's a chance for a fresh start, whether it ends up tyrannical or not is yet to be decided. Whereas, staying here, we're by-default picking tyranny by the majority. There is absolutely no-where to go on this planet to escape statism or to join with like-minded individuals in creating a new society. Heck, government is even trying to stake claim to outer space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
- ColanR 9y ago
  It worked well enough for the US, at least for a while.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    And that's the rub: it does work for a while, but humans inevitably organize into power structures, and those structures always end up making decisions at the expense of the minority.
root_axis 9y ago
This is not a realistic proposal. Space will not save us, it's just a different setting for the same animal except the environment is unimaginably hostile in every aspect, it would only magnify our worst tendencies.

eric_b 9y ago

It's impossible for me to believe she wrote this article on her own based on her public Twitter timeline[1]. But, even supposing she did, other than name recognition, I'm also not sure I understand why we should care what she thinks about anything? From my understanding of her background, she was a subpar intelligence analyst who has no real deep expertise in digital surveillance or even technology in general. The article is surface level at best, and asks simplistic questions that attempt to evoke an emotional reaction. Her current role of "government transparency advocate" is equally silly to me. Other than regurgitating platitudes on Twitter, has she done anything worth recognition or that would make her an authority in this space? (I don't really count leaking classified materials and barely escaping a treason conviction as worthwhile) [1] I just picked two random tweets from her timeline. They are all like this. https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/906552329482248193 https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/906552329482248193 https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/905122312424435712 https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/905122312424435712 Edit: Ahhhh yes. Thanks for the downvotes. Always amazed at the sympathy people have for criminals who needlessly endangered dozens of lives. Great job HN.

astronautjones 9y ago
the government admitted that her leaks endangered no one https://www.buzzfeed.com/jasonleopold/secret-government-report-chelsea-manning-leaks-caused-no https://www.buzzfeed.com/jasonleopold/secret-government-repo...
- wildmusings 9y ago
  What a great opportunity for a lesson in fake news. Let's get to the meat of the claim in the article you link to (https://www.buzzfeed.com/jasonleopold/secret-government-report-chelsea-manning-leaks-caused-no?utm_term=.kqkOv6JJOp#.vjxzYeppzx https://www.buzzfeed.com/jasonleopold/secret-government-repo...): Regarding the hundreds of thousands of Iraq-related military documents and State Department cables provided by the Army private Chelsea Manning, the report assessed “with high confidence that disclosure of the Iraq data set will have no direct personal impact on current and former U.S. leadership in Iraq.” How strange! The article is trying to give the impression that Manning's leaks IN GENERAL harmed no one, but when they get to the heart of the matter, they only reference the situation in Iraq. Manning's leaks included information about our diplomacy around the world. Iraq-related material were only part of it. Further, it is widely believed that Manning's leaks contributed greatly to, if not sparked the flames of, the Arab "Spring", which has most certainly been a disaster for America (and the people in the region too).

marcoperaza 9y ago

Is there any evidence that Manning was able to express herself at such a high level before becoming a public figure? I can't help but suspect that someone is just using her name for their own political ends.

jlgaddis 9y ago
I've no idea, to be honest, but as I was reading the article I was thinking that this could potentially be a nice way to provide for herself financially: writing articles for the media, making appearances/speeches at events/conferences, etc. With a criminal record and fresh out of prison, she's not going to have many (decent) opportunities available to her so perhaps this is one way to make the most of her situation and/or experiences. I'm sure there are plenty of organizations that would pay for this.
- tanderson92 9y ago
  > With a criminal record and fresh out of prison, she's not going to have many (decent) opportunities available to her... She was named as a visiting fellow at the Harvard Institute of Politics, literally today. https://twitter.com/HarvardIOP/status/907977942269091840 https://twitter.com/HarvardIOP/status/907977942269091840
  - jlgaddis 9y ago
    I'm two days late in responding but apparently they have since rescinded her fellowship.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Is there any evidence that Manning was able to express herself at such a high level before becoming a public figure? Maybe not before becoming a public figure, but she's done a lot of public writing since, including the last couple of years as an official contributing writer for Guardian US, having written a couple op-eds for them before that. Prison does often give one time for studying, reading, and writing if one chooses to use it for that purpose.

turc1656 9y ago

Industrial Society and Its Future. The miniseries on the Unabomber that just ended this week could not be more timely, even after 20 years.

iamleppert 9y ago

I experienced this recently in the scariest of circumstances -- a hospital. I have hemophilia, a bleeding disorder. Normally, its a nuisance that just requires I take medication on semi-daily basis. If I don't take the medication, I'll usually be fine, except if I have an active bleed, which will just continue to bleed, causing damage to my body, and can be life threatening depending on the location of the bleed. I was recently traveling back home and I ran out of my medication. It's a specialty medication that you can't find in pharmacies. It normally has to be shipped to me. I had ordered some but it wouldn't arrive for another day. I was having an active bleed in my torso, of all places, which is an odd place and distressing because its close to so many important body systems (the spine, major arteries). The thing about my condition is that normally bleeds are innocuous, but you never know. I always be on the safe side, because when I haven't its often meant months-long recovery. Anyway, I figured no problem, I'll just go to the hospital ER and get some medication, which is what I'm supposed to do and I've done before -- but not in a long time. Most all major metro hospitals carry my medication. I went to the hospital and told them about my condition and what I needed. They wanted me to take a CT scan, which I declined (I already knew what I was dealing with and just needed my medication). Then, they wanted to test me for hemophilia (I've had the condition since birth), a very expensive and lengthy test that takes hours. After finally speaking with a doctor, he declined to give me my medication until I both consented to the CT scan and the test for hemophilia (despite me having official medical identification that explains my condition). I didn't want the CT scan because its ungodly expensive and exposes your body to a lot of radiation (100x an x-ray). You could clearly tell it was a bleed due to swelling, bruising, heat, and my prior medical history. And I've lived with the condition for awhile so I am very attuned to these problems. I experienced what I can only describe as a similar type of hostility as someone coming in seeking drugs to get high (my medication neither makes you high nor is dangerous, except when I don't get it). Curious as to why I was being treated this way, I pressed further. The doctor came back with a print-out from some medical "AI" software. It had not only determined what the proper course of action was to be (the tests before my medication), I was also informed that if the staff deviated from the "process" at all, they would risk being fired. There you have it. All decision-making ability had been revoked from even the doctors. They were prepared to let me bleed for hours, while waiting on a test to confirm a condition I've had since birth rather than risk deviating from some computer-generated "AI" policy. Even more sinister, since it was a screenshot (done with print screen) of the windows-based software, I spotted something else: something called a "risk score". It was a gauge-like visualization that had rated me in the "riskier" category. No doubt this was also the case with patients who are drug seeking, and I hypothesize this was the reason for the apathy and apprehension I detected. It kind of reminds me of the Critical Care episode of Star Trek: Voyager, where patients have been reduced to a "TC" -- treatment coefficient that determines who gets good care and who doesn't and is based on the person's accomplishments and value to society. Honestly, we're not far off from that. What would happen if I came into the ER with a serious problem that required immediate treatment? Would they defer to this software and watch me die while waiting on tests? I know my condition is rare, I'm used to educating doctors about it, but the fact that the doctors seemed unwilling to even compromise and do the right thing was alarming to me, and also sad. Its like they have become customer service representatives of a large corporation and they know it, and so they have divorced themselves of any care or humanity at all. I decided to leave and take my chances on waiting the day, rather than sit there for hours. At that point, I was in extreme pain and I honestly didn't know if the bleed would resolve itself or not. Worse case, I could always come back to the hospital. I guess. The bleed ended up resolving itself, and I eventually got my medication and was able to treat myself. Ironically, a nurse called later the next day to "check up on me". My tests had finally come back over a day later and confirmed my condition, and also that my factor level was low. After I told her the story I've just shared with you, all she could offer was to "make a note in your chart". That no-one will be looking at, and likely not influence the medical software at all. I looked on the hospital web site for contact information to try and lodge a complaint -- there was none. I also tried calling the hospital's 800 number, which was entirely automated and offered no ability to talk to anyone. In case anyone is wondering, the name of the hospital is Riverside in Columbus, Ohio (part of Ohio Health). It's a huge hospital. Anyway, this is my story about AI. Something to think about because as engineers we are the ones making these kinds of software and have an ethical and moral responsibility. We need to be aware of how people are going to use technology and actively work to prevent abuses, and hopefully build this into the software itself. What kind of science fiction novel are we living in?