4 ms·

This is cowardice. Rational cowardice, perhaps, but still cowardice nonetheless. > “Some men have voiced concerns to me that a false accusation is what they fe

This is cowardice. Rational cowardice, perhaps, but still cowardice nonetheless. > “Some men have voiced concerns to me that a false accusation is what they fear,” said Zweig, the lawyer. “These men fear what they cannot control.” This reveals so much about the mentality of the people being interviewed. The statistics of false rape accusations do not justify this concern. I would expect that an industry that copes with risk as part of their job to understand this. https://web.archive.org/web/20180101025446/https://icdv.idaho.gov/conference/handouts/False-Allegations.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20180101025446/https://icdv.idah...

thenayr 8y ago
More like "these men have probably done some fucked up things that they don't want uncovered and now realize they are at risk of being exposed".
throwawaymath 8y ago
What is the difference between cowardice and "rational cowardice"?
- CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
  Cowardice, defined here as the lack of personal integrity in the face of occupational hazards, can sometimes be rational and sometimes be emotional. Some of the men are demonstrating a rational argument (albeit based on flawed statistics), but they're using it to justify running away from the problem rather than addressing it.
  - throwawaymath 8y ago
    I respect your broader opinion but that's not how I would choose to define cowardice.
throwaway5250 8y ago
Avoiding unnecessary risk is not cowardice. In fact, most of us are paid, in part, for doing just that.
- CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
  Drastically changing one's professional habits to cope with a rare risk is a poor use of one's time.
buboard 8y ago
> This is cowardice. That's offensive. These men have the right to do displays of virtue (such as only talking with an open door). Why do you presume that men must risk their jobs ? It sounds like some some macho-requirement.
- CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
  > Why do you presume that men must risk their jobs ? It sounds like some some macho-requirement. One of the cornerstones of their entire industry accounting for the uncertainty of the future. They're already risking their jobs (and, indeed, their companies) every day. Contrast that with a statistically insignificant number of false accusations. If they are truly afraid of false accusations (like they say) rather than true accusations, then they haven't clearly done the math. (If, on the other hand, they're afraid of true accusations, they should proactively cease to sexually harass women and maybe they'll have a less guilty conscience.) I'm not imposing a macho-requirement on anyone, just asking that they exercise some sense of consistency here.
  - buboard 8y ago
    i think you got it wrong. they are not risking their jobs, they are risking other people's money.
  - mikelyons 8y ago
    You should take the time to learn why your argument is so flaccid and insubstantial.
  - nickpsecurity 8y ago
    You're looking at this with statistical, risk management. There's a subset of risk management that focused on what's called "catastrophic," risk management. That's when the impact of the event, which is rare but can happen, is so high that one is willing to go the extra mile to prevent it. This includes obvious examples like nuclear powerplants having ridiculous security or classified systems being air gapped with dedicated, physical lines. However, there's less-obvious cases where the same thinking is employed: One company's head of security at WTC started doing evacuation drills after the 1990's bombing thinking something destructive to whole building is worth having a plan for. He said all but 5 people got out in 2001. In same place, a bank was running OpenVMS clusters on high-quality hardware with a far-away site in case something happened to the building (standard concern, too). They claimed those nodes were the last thing that failed with no transactions lost. Everything else was destroyed. People often consider hurricanes, tornados, flood levels, wild fires, and earthquakes before moving into an area. Lots of folks avoid Tornado Alley and the Southern/Southeastern Coast for that reason. One person thinking floods might get bad in Texas put an inflatable, rubber circle filled with water around their house. It was only one floodwaters went around instead of through. Likewise, the Hurricane Architecture article said author [statistically-unnecessarily] went with dedicated servers and architecture for super-high volume. Became main source for news during flood for entire state with tons of traffic. Kept folks informed. Lots of people either don't put political/religious/relationship/work information social media or periodically delete it to make digging up previous dirt on them harder. It either takes no effort (former) or small effort (latter). The endless volume of folks getting quoted before being slammed online or being fired at work suggests this is a rational practice. Also, as Schneier says about crypto, the number and effectiveness of such attacks seem to go up overtime where traditional, risk assessment is nearly impossible. Certain appliances, like toasters and tumble dryers, cause a disproportionate amount of homes to be destroyed. Many homeowners make sure they're only used when someone is there to react to damage. For toasters, some people also unplug them when not in use (idk if that matters). At least "person is there" is a costless precaution that prevent loss of entire home. Another which is sometimes labeled discrimination is folks staying out of the hood to avoid being violently assaulted. There's quite a few hoods in Memphis, TN near me. Most people, regardless of race or gender, avoid them if they can since they don't want to be mugged, raped, beaten, or killed. When weighing that, people consider the psychological effect it would have on them. If they don't live there, the choice is (a) go meet people, do stuff, etc where I almost certainly won't experience violence or (b) go do same stuff where said violence is reported (or not) several times a day in those same places. Most people, again all groups, do (a) to avoid cost of (b) since it's never worth it to them. Some do (b), though, for a variety of reasons. Just saying it to acknowledge they exist. In the main article, these are rational, successful people are similarly facing a catastrophic risk that's got an entire movement behind the tools that make it work. They don't know odds of it happening but do know the cost is end-of-career and frequency is increasing. They are rightly thinking in terms of catastrophic, risk mitigation where the entire class of risk is mitigated since the cost is unbearable. Although I disagree on specifics, they're definitely right to mitigate a catastrophic risk increasing in frequency. It's what they usually do. Me too.
repolfx 8y ago
You're assuming those stats are correct. I've seen very different stats that say the problem is huge. But realistically, regardless of what the stats are, if you read news stories about powerful men being shot down through false or trivial accusations every day, stats aren't going to be the main thing on your mind, are they?
- CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
  The news sensationalizes. When I was arrested many years ago, the news spun it as though I had hacked into millions of computers and used them to DDoS the FBI, and then somehow use that to take over their computers. In reality, I had found that they had an unsecured arbitrary file upload (i.e. had zero authorization guarding it) and told them about it on Twitter. Not the best move, but a far cry from what the media accused me of. If you expect me to take the word of reporters above that of scientists, well, that ain't happening.

thenayr 8y ago

More like "these men have probably done some fucked up things that they don't want uncovered and now realize they are at risk of being exposed".

throwawaymath 8y ago

What is the difference between cowardice and "rational cowardice"?

CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
Cowardice, defined here as the lack of personal integrity in the face of occupational hazards, can sometimes be rational and sometimes be emotional. Some of the men are demonstrating a rational argument (albeit based on flawed statistics), but they're using it to justify running away from the problem rather than addressing it.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  I respect your broader opinion but that's not how I would choose to define cowardice.

throwaway5250 8y ago

Avoiding unnecessary risk is not cowardice. In fact, most of us are paid, in part, for doing just that.

CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
Drastically changing one's professional habits to cope with a rare risk is a poor use of one's time.

buboard 8y ago

> This is cowardice. That's offensive. These men have the right to do displays of virtue (such as only talking with an open door). Why do you presume that men must risk their jobs ? It sounds like some some macho-requirement.

CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
> Why do you presume that men must risk their jobs ? It sounds like some some macho-requirement. One of the cornerstones of their entire industry accounting for the uncertainty of the future. They're already risking their jobs (and, indeed, their companies) every day. Contrast that with a statistically insignificant number of false accusations. If they are truly afraid of false accusations (like they say) rather than true accusations, then they haven't clearly done the math. (If, on the other hand, they're afraid of true accusations, they should proactively cease to sexually harass women and maybe they'll have a less guilty conscience.) I'm not imposing a macho-requirement on anyone, just asking that they exercise some sense of consistency here.
- buboard 8y ago
  i think you got it wrong. they are not risking their jobs, they are risking other people's money.
- mikelyons 8y ago
  You should take the time to learn why your argument is so flaccid and insubstantial.
- nickpsecurity 8y ago
  You're looking at this with statistical, risk management. There's a subset of risk management that focused on what's called "catastrophic," risk management. That's when the impact of the event, which is rare but can happen, is so high that one is willing to go the extra mile to prevent it. This includes obvious examples like nuclear powerplants having ridiculous security or classified systems being air gapped with dedicated, physical lines. However, there's less-obvious cases where the same thinking is employed: One company's head of security at WTC started doing evacuation drills after the 1990's bombing thinking something destructive to whole building is worth having a plan for. He said all but 5 people got out in 2001. In same place, a bank was running OpenVMS clusters on high-quality hardware with a far-away site in case something happened to the building (standard concern, too). They claimed those nodes were the last thing that failed with no transactions lost. Everything else was destroyed. People often consider hurricanes, tornados, flood levels, wild fires, and earthquakes before moving into an area. Lots of folks avoid Tornado Alley and the Southern/Southeastern Coast for that reason. One person thinking floods might get bad in Texas put an inflatable, rubber circle filled with water around their house. It was only one floodwaters went around instead of through. Likewise, the Hurricane Architecture article said author [statistically-unnecessarily] went with dedicated servers and architecture for super-high volume. Became main source for news during flood for entire state with tons of traffic. Kept folks informed. Lots of people either don't put political/religious/relationship/work information social media or periodically delete it to make digging up previous dirt on them harder. It either takes no effort (former) or small effort (latter). The endless volume of folks getting quoted before being slammed online or being fired at work suggests this is a rational practice. Also, as Schneier says about crypto, the number and effectiveness of such attacks seem to go up overtime where traditional, risk assessment is nearly impossible. Certain appliances, like toasters and tumble dryers, cause a disproportionate amount of homes to be destroyed. Many homeowners make sure they're only used when someone is there to react to damage. For toasters, some people also unplug them when not in use (idk if that matters). At least "person is there" is a costless precaution that prevent loss of entire home. Another which is sometimes labeled discrimination is folks staying out of the hood to avoid being violently assaulted. There's quite a few hoods in Memphis, TN near me. Most people, regardless of race or gender, avoid them if they can since they don't want to be mugged, raped, beaten, or killed. When weighing that, people consider the psychological effect it would have on them. If they don't live there, the choice is (a) go meet people, do stuff, etc where I almost certainly won't experience violence or (b) go do same stuff where said violence is reported (or not) several times a day in those same places. Most people, again all groups, do (a) to avoid cost of (b) since it's never worth it to them. Some do (b), though, for a variety of reasons. Just saying it to acknowledge they exist. In the main article, these are rational, successful people are similarly facing a catastrophic risk that's got an entire movement behind the tools that make it work. They don't know odds of it happening but do know the cost is end-of-career and frequency is increasing. They are rightly thinking in terms of catastrophic, risk mitigation where the entire class of risk is mitigated since the cost is unbearable. Although I disagree on specifics, they're definitely right to mitigate a catastrophic risk increasing in frequency. It's what they usually do. Me too.

repolfx 8y ago

You're assuming those stats are correct. I've seen very different stats that say the problem is huge. But realistically, regardless of what the stats are, if you read news stories about powerful men being shot down through false or trivial accusations every day, stats aren't going to be the main thing on your mind, are they?

CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
The news sensationalizes. When I was arrested many years ago, the news spun it as though I had hacked into millions of computers and used them to DDoS the FBI, and then somehow use that to take over their computers. In reality, I had found that they had an unsecured arbitrary file upload (i.e. had zero authorization guarding it) and told them about it on Twitter. Not the best move, but a far cry from what the media accused me of. If you expect me to take the word of reporters above that of scientists, well, that ain't happening.