3 ms·

You are saying France did bad shit, and that's true, you forgot Napoleon slaughters throughout Europe, Nazis collaboration and Petain, colonial rule and enslavi

You are saying France did bad shit, and that's true, you forgot Napoleon slaughters throughout Europe, Nazis collaboration and Petain, colonial rule and enslaving of American, African and Asian nations, nuclear tests, and I forgot a lot. Still, you are hardly touching the subject. We are speaking about the here and now, how we should abide by the international law when responding to cyber threats, in the context of a transparent and globalized world.

gus_massa 6y ago
This was like 35 year ago [1]. I'd say this was already a "transparent and globalized world". [1] Suddenly, I'm feeling old.
- henearkr 6y ago
  No, this is just a different topic. What I brought up was an example of good response to a cyber threat. You bring up some bad things, be it old or new it does not matter, it still is a different topic. My point was to illustrate what I call a good response. The bad ones just illustrate the bad responses, that's all. Good for contrasting, maybe. But the way you bring it does not seem to make clear anything, to the contrary. And it is not even remotely about "cyber" anything, nor about journalism or the right to know the truth about anything. And for contrasting we already have the example at hand, the case of Julian Assange! So I really don't understand your point. Sounds like you hate France and you disliked that I used a French example as a good response to a cyber threat. I don't know why you want so much to avoid giving a nice role to France, personally I don't care, but I am a positive person, so I'd like you to find a good response example by an other country (easy, there are plenty) to balance my comment, instead of balancing it trying to find a bad cyber-response from France (which you failed to do). Also, the world was hardly as transparent as today. No social media, hardly any internet, newspapers in different languages but few people knowing anything else than their mother tongue... Years after, there was investigation by news agencies in France about the Rainbow Warrior tragedy. The government did not throw them in jail! So that, too, is really different from the Assange case.

gus_massa 6y ago

This was like 35 year ago [1]. I'd say this was already a "transparent and globalized world". [1] Suddenly, I'm feeling old.

henearkr 6y ago
No, this is just a different topic. What I brought up was an example of good response to a cyber threat. You bring up some bad things, be it old or new it does not matter, it still is a different topic. My point was to illustrate what I call a good response. The bad ones just illustrate the bad responses, that's all. Good for contrasting, maybe. But the way you bring it does not seem to make clear anything, to the contrary. And it is not even remotely about "cyber" anything, nor about journalism or the right to know the truth about anything. And for contrasting we already have the example at hand, the case of Julian Assange! So I really don't understand your point. Sounds like you hate France and you disliked that I used a French example as a good response to a cyber threat. I don't know why you want so much to avoid giving a nice role to France, personally I don't care, but I am a positive person, so I'd like you to find a good response example by an other country (easy, there are plenty) to balance my comment, instead of balancing it trying to find a bad cyber-response from France (which you failed to do). Also, the world was hardly as transparent as today. No social media, hardly any internet, newspapers in different languages but few people knowing anything else than their mother tongue... Years after, there was investigation by news agencies in France about the Rainbow Warrior tragedy. The government did not throw them in jail! So that, too, is really different from the Assange case.