6 ms·

Sister of Python Hacker arrested for protest - His essay on protest and change

62 points by jmtulloss 18y ago

tocomment 18y ago
That seems sad. I wish someone had a solution as to a viable method to effect change in government.
- hugh 18y ago
  I think that's called an "election".
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - whalliburton 18y ago
    Hmm. No. That's called a "revolution".
    - randallsquared 18y ago
      I'm not sure I'd call that "viable", either. The vast majority of revolutions do not accomplish their goals, even if you only count the revolutions that succeeded in overthrowing an existing regime. The US War for Independence is remarkable in large part because it actually worked and the result was more freedom (for a while), rather than less.
      - turkishrevenge 18y ago
        So what is to be done? Tolerate a degenerate system of government? How can you elect officials to represent the people, when the very men and women that run for office have absolutely nothing in common with the average citizen? According to your position, maybe our founding fathers should have been more cautious.
        brianmckenzie 18y ago
        The founding fathers didn't have anything in common with the average citizen either - if anything, they were relatively more wealthy than politicians today.
        gaius 18y ago
        Which demonstrates that wealth isn't the problem per se.
        randallsquared 18y ago
        "So what is to be done?" I don't know. It's possible for someone to be almost completely free now, if they have enough money and are familiar with the tools required (crypto, etc). My hope is that increasing technology will prove too disruptive for government as we know it to continue to be effective at protecting its local monopolies, but it doesn't seem like a sure thing, and with higher tech comes higher numbers of existential threats (biowarfare, etc).
      - rbanffy 18y ago
        The cynicist in me would like to point out that pretty most every revolution accomplishes their leaders´ goals. Pretty few of them have the same goals the leaders stated before the crowds that helped them with the revolution. Revolutions are not a very safe solution. Quite the contrary.
    - tocomment 18y ago
      Is there anything simpler? I often wonder what if all the activists, Reddit/Digg readers etc, focused on a single issue at a time, collectively phoned and wrote 1000's of elected officials every day. Would that effect some change? Is there any way to channel of the internet peoples' energy into a single goal?
      - jmtulloss 18y ago
        Obama is running on internet money. The internet might determine the next leader of the free world.
  - nuclear_eclipse 18y ago
    Except we used the 2006 election to enact a large Democratic majority in Congress, and yet nothing has been done by them since the election... What say you to this?
    - pmorici 18y ago
      The main result was that a lot of officials in the administration resigned. ie: Rumsfeld. The only inherent goal of any political party is to stay in power so it isn't surprising the democrats haven't legislated any drastic change. Allowing the mess to perpetuate itself serves to further their political aspirations.
    - logjam 18y ago
      There isn't a "large" Democratic majority in Congress. The Senate is basically evenly split. The House has 35 more Democrats than Republicans, out of 435. They have only been in office since 2007. They are ~50-55 members short of a veto-proof majority. Democrats have tried mightily with what they have. Bush vetoed [via Wikipedia]: 1. July 19, 2006: Vetoed H.R. 810, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, a bill to ease restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Override attempt failed in House, 235-193 (286 needed). 2. May 1, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1591, U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Override attempt failed in House, 222-203 (284 needed). A later version of the bill that excluded certain aspects of the initial legislation that the President disapproved of, H.R. 2206, was enacted as Pub.L. 110-28 with the President's approval. 3. June 20, 2007: Vetoed S. 5, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. 4. October 3, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 976, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 ("SCHIP"). Override attempt failed in House, 273-156 (286 votes needed). 5. November 2, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1495, Water Resources Development Act of 2007. Overridden by House, 361-54 (277 votes needed). Overridden by Senate, 79-14 (62 needed), and enacted as Pub.L. 110-114 over President's veto. 6. November 13, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3043, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008. Override attempt failed in House, 277-141 (279 votes needed). 7. December 12, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3963, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007.[18] Override attempt failed in House, 260-152 (275 votes needed). 8. December 28, 2007: Pocket Vetoed H.R. 1585, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008[19]. A later version of the bill that changed a minor provision of which the President disapproved was quickly passed by Congress (H.R. 4986) and was enacted with the President's approval as Pub.L. 110-181 on 28 January 2008. 9. March 8, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 2082, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.[20][21] Override attempt failed in House, 225-188. 10. May 21, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 2419, 2007 U.S. Farm Bill.[22][23] Overridden by House, 316-108 (283 votes needed). Overridden by Senate, 82-13 (64 votes needed). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-234 over the President's veto. Due to a clerical error, this act was repealed by Pub.L. 110-246. 11. 18 June 2008: Vetoed H.R. 6421, 2007 U.S. Farm Bill, re-passed by Congress to correct a clerical error in HR 2419.[24] Overridden by House, 317-109 (284 votes required). Overridden by Senate, 80-14 (63 votes needed). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-246 over the President's veto. 12. July 15, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 6331, Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act.[25] Overriden by House, 383-41 (283 votes required.) Overriden by Senate, 70-26 (64 votes required). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-275 over the President's veto.
  - randallsquared 18y ago
    Well, "viable" precludes that in many cases, like most national elections in the US.
  - mynameishere 18y ago
    A set of half-a-dozen or so candidates goes into the primaries as potential winners. Last time they were McCain, Romney, Guiliani, Obama, Edwards, and Clinton. Those were the only people who could have become president. The composition of that set of people is more-or-less outside the power of any democratic activity. The people who decide that are the only real voters.
    - gojomo 18y ago
      Instead we should have a call-in show like American Idol, where any talented young American could win? Each of those 'finalists' you mention won many elections to lower offices before becoming credible presidential candidates. That process may be long and arcane and in many ways twisted/irrational, but it's definitely democratic as well.
      - mynameishere 18y ago
        I'm not pretending there's a good alternative. Assigning a head of state to 300 million people is necessarily undemocratic. 1/300,000,000th of a vote? I have more effect on public life by bitching about parking meter tickets. The real solution is moving power to smaller bodies...states, then municipalities....
        fauigerzigerk 18y ago
        But what happens then is that municipalities are going to need to coordinate their actions. They set up higher level bodies and those set up even higher level coordinating entities. You get a pyramid of layers delegating power and the entire thing becomes intransparent and corrupt. That's how the the soviet union "worked". "Soviet" actually means "workers council" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_%28council%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_%28council%29). To a lesser degree that's what the EU suffers from. Citizens have no way of influencing the most powerful institutions directly and therefore these institutions seem remote and aloof.
        byrneseyeview 18y ago
hugh 18y ago
No politics, please (especially not of the whiny-extremist variety). The fact that the guy has occasionally whacked together a few lines of python doesn't make it relevant.
- jmtulloss 18y ago
  Why no politics?
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - gojomo 18y ago
    (1) It's considered off-topic by the site guidelines: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. (2) It's political silly season -- a presidential election year -- here in the US and every other forum without strong topical guidelines is already full-up with politicized crap. Having it here, too, is redundant and dilutes the unique value proposition of this site. (3) If "happened to a sibling of a hacker" is enough to rate a story here, everything is again on-topic.
    - jmtulloss 18y ago
      All good points. I wouldn't normally post something that just presents a political opinion, but in this case I felt that the story was more interesting than that. Here's a guy that wrote some software that I and hundreds of others use every day, and that's why I respect him. However, this is a reminder that there are much bigger things than software happening to real people every day, people who are just like us. These are issues we all have to deal with. I apologize if it's not appropriate.
      - menloparkbum 18y ago
        I used to use a lot of Ian's earlier work on webware back in the day. I found this much more interesting than the article about the guy who scrubbed a Lamborghini for 2 days straight.
rw 18y ago
Finally, a post on anarchism on HN that doesn't imply anarchism means "being greedy."
- randallsquared 18y ago
  However, speaking as an anarchist, not all anarchists are against institutions in general. That is, all anarchists (I believe) would say they're against the State, but some anarchists include more than some of us would in that term.
  - rw 18y ago
    I am implying that on HN "anarchist" often refers to a particular niche, anarcho-capitalism, which is mostly unconcerned with notions of cooperation, voluntaryism and humanism.
    - gojomo 18y ago
      Huh? Anarcho-capitalism relies on cooperation, voluntarism, and humanism as much as any other anarchism. It just posits that respect for property, including giant consensual property constructs like capital/corporations, is the best basis for creative cooperation.
      - rw 18y ago
        Demand curves are not democracy.
        gojomo 18y ago
        Both democracy and demand curves are means, not ends.
        stcredzero 18y ago
        Hallelujah! Markets are great because they are a decentralized method for regulating resources that can adjust for changing conditions. One wants them in situations where there are too many factors and actors to be regulated by something as large and slow moving as a government. Markets aren't to be worshiped. They are a tool. Governments and laws are good for certain things too. I would like murder and violence to be illegal. I want human rights to be a given. Democracies aren't perfect, but they do embody a mechanism for ensuring the above. Unfortunately, they also allow their constituents to turn them into non-democracies. Democracies require constant maintenance.
jrockway 18y ago
If the government is going to file charges against the protesters for "conspiracy to riot", shouldn't the people that were maced for holding a flower file charges against the government for assault? I would. The way you "beat the system" is not by standing around holding a flower -- you beat it by ruining the pepper-spraying guy's life. Once people's lives start getting ruined for hurting people exercising their right to free expression, they're going to stop doing it. (As an aside, I have some savings that I call "fuck you" money. It's so that if I'm ever arrested, I can pay a good lawyer to get the charges dropped quickly. Generally a good idea, I think.) BTW, at the '68 DNC, the government lost its case against the protesters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Seven http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Seven Unfortunately, the charges against the cops didn't stick either, which is probably why things like this keep happening.
- biohacker42 18y ago
  Those kids probably don't have any "fuck you" money. and as you say the charges against the cops didn't stick. Dare I generalize and say that charges against cops usually don't stick. So what's the solution? I'm not sure, the best thing I can think of is 1 year terms for elected police chiefs. Police too hard or too soft, lose the election. Police just right, stay in office another year.
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  It's hard to win a case against a cop in this country. Radley Balko has chronicled the plight of many citizens who were victims of paramilitary SWAT raids for the suspicion of committing non-violent offenses. In most cases no action is taken against the cops, even if an innocent person or a non-violent offender is killed in the raid. This can get you started: http://www.cato.org/raidmap/ http://www.cato.org/raidmap/ Even more disturbing have been cases of people being severely beat by police officers in jails. Rather than helping bring the culprits to justice, police departments rally around their own and it is rare that any charges are filed against officers. Here's one case: http://www.theagitator.com/2006/08/02/jesse-lee-williams-jr/ http://www.theagitator.com/2006/08/02/jesse-lee-williams-jr/ (NSFW, a picture of the victim in the hospital after the beating) If police can get away with murder in this country, then I doubt that a little pepper spray will be noticed. Government is a monopoly of power. They have it, you don't. There is no justice if your assailant has a badge.
jm4 18y ago
So now the sister of a programmer being arrested at a political rally qualifies as Hacker News? The signal to noise ratio here decreases every day. sigh

62 points by jmtulloss 18y ago

tocomment 18y ago

That seems sad. I wish someone had a solution as to a viable method to effect change in government.

hugh 18y ago
I think that's called an "election".
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- whalliburton 18y ago
  Hmm. No. That's called a "revolution".
  - randallsquared 18y ago
    I'm not sure I'd call that "viable", either. The vast majority of revolutions do not accomplish their goals, even if you only count the revolutions that succeeded in overthrowing an existing regime. The US War for Independence is remarkable in large part because it actually worked and the result was more freedom (for a while), rather than less.
    - turkishrevenge 18y ago
      So what is to be done? Tolerate a degenerate system of government? How can you elect officials to represent the people, when the very men and women that run for office have absolutely nothing in common with the average citizen? According to your position, maybe our founding fathers should have been more cautious.
      - brianmckenzie 18y ago
        The founding fathers didn't have anything in common with the average citizen either - if anything, they were relatively more wealthy than politicians today.
        gaius 18y ago
        Which demonstrates that wealth isn't the problem per se.
      - randallsquared 18y ago
        "So what is to be done?" I don't know. It's possible for someone to be almost completely free now, if they have enough money and are familiar with the tools required (crypto, etc). My hope is that increasing technology will prove too disruptive for government as we know it to continue to be effective at protecting its local monopolies, but it doesn't seem like a sure thing, and with higher tech comes higher numbers of existential threats (biowarfare, etc).
    - rbanffy 18y ago
      The cynicist in me would like to point out that pretty most every revolution accomplishes their leaders´ goals. Pretty few of them have the same goals the leaders stated before the crowds that helped them with the revolution. Revolutions are not a very safe solution. Quite the contrary.
  - tocomment 18y ago
    Is there anything simpler? I often wonder what if all the activists, Reddit/Digg readers etc, focused on a single issue at a time, collectively phoned and wrote 1000's of elected officials every day. Would that effect some change? Is there any way to channel of the internet peoples' energy into a single goal?
    - jmtulloss 18y ago
      Obama is running on internet money. The internet might determine the next leader of the free world.
- nuclear_eclipse 18y ago
  Except we used the 2006 election to enact a large Democratic majority in Congress, and yet nothing has been done by them since the election... What say you to this?
  - pmorici 18y ago
    The main result was that a lot of officials in the administration resigned. ie: Rumsfeld. The only inherent goal of any political party is to stay in power so it isn't surprising the democrats haven't legislated any drastic change. Allowing the mess to perpetuate itself serves to further their political aspirations.
  - logjam 18y ago
    There isn't a "large" Democratic majority in Congress. The Senate is basically evenly split. The House has 35 more Democrats than Republicans, out of 435. They have only been in office since 2007. They are ~50-55 members short of a veto-proof majority. Democrats have tried mightily with what they have. Bush vetoed [via Wikipedia]: 1. July 19, 2006: Vetoed H.R. 810, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, a bill to ease restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Override attempt failed in House, 235-193 (286 needed). 2. May 1, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1591, U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Override attempt failed in House, 222-203 (284 needed). A later version of the bill that excluded certain aspects of the initial legislation that the President disapproved of, H.R. 2206, was enacted as Pub.L. 110-28 with the President's approval. 3. June 20, 2007: Vetoed S. 5, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. 4. October 3, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 976, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 ("SCHIP"). Override attempt failed in House, 273-156 (286 votes needed). 5. November 2, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1495, Water Resources Development Act of 2007. Overridden by House, 361-54 (277 votes needed). Overridden by Senate, 79-14 (62 needed), and enacted as Pub.L. 110-114 over President's veto. 6. November 13, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3043, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008. Override attempt failed in House, 277-141 (279 votes needed). 7. December 12, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3963, Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007.[18] Override attempt failed in House, 260-152 (275 votes needed). 8. December 28, 2007: Pocket Vetoed H.R. 1585, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008[19]. A later version of the bill that changed a minor provision of which the President disapproved was quickly passed by Congress (H.R. 4986) and was enacted with the President's approval as Pub.L. 110-181 on 28 January 2008. 9. March 8, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 2082, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.[20][21] Override attempt failed in House, 225-188. 10. May 21, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 2419, 2007 U.S. Farm Bill.[22][23] Overridden by House, 316-108 (283 votes needed). Overridden by Senate, 82-13 (64 votes needed). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-234 over the President's veto. Due to a clerical error, this act was repealed by Pub.L. 110-246. 11. 18 June 2008: Vetoed H.R. 6421, 2007 U.S. Farm Bill, re-passed by Congress to correct a clerical error in HR 2419.[24] Overridden by House, 317-109 (284 votes required). Overridden by Senate, 80-14 (63 votes needed). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-246 over the President's veto. 12. July 15, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 6331, Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act.[25] Overriden by House, 383-41 (283 votes required.) Overriden by Senate, 70-26 (64 votes required). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-275 over the President's veto.
- randallsquared 18y ago
  Well, "viable" precludes that in many cases, like most national elections in the US.
- mynameishere 18y ago
  A set of half-a-dozen or so candidates goes into the primaries as potential winners. Last time they were McCain, Romney, Guiliani, Obama, Edwards, and Clinton. Those were the only people who could have become president. The composition of that set of people is more-or-less outside the power of any democratic activity. The people who decide that are the only real voters.
  - gojomo 18y ago
    Instead we should have a call-in show like American Idol, where any talented young American could win? Each of those 'finalists' you mention won many elections to lower offices before becoming credible presidential candidates. That process may be long and arcane and in many ways twisted/irrational, but it's definitely democratic as well.
    - mynameishere 18y ago
      I'm not pretending there's a good alternative. Assigning a head of state to 300 million people is necessarily undemocratic. 1/300,000,000th of a vote? I have more effect on public life by bitching about parking meter tickets. The real solution is moving power to smaller bodies...states, then municipalities....
      - fauigerzigerk 18y ago
        But what happens then is that municipalities are going to need to coordinate their actions. They set up higher level bodies and those set up even higher level coordinating entities. You get a pyramid of layers delegating power and the entire thing becomes intransparent and corrupt. That's how the the soviet union "worked". "Soviet" actually means "workers council" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_%28council%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_%28council%29). To a lesser degree that's what the EU suffers from. Citizens have no way of influencing the most powerful institutions directly and therefore these institutions seem remote and aloof.
        byrneseyeview 18y ago

hugh 18y ago

No politics, please (especially not of the whiny-extremist variety). The fact that the guy has occasionally whacked together a few lines of python doesn't make it relevant.

jmtulloss 18y ago
Why no politics?
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- gojomo 18y ago
  (1) It's considered off-topic by the site guidelines: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. (2) It's political silly season -- a presidential election year -- here in the US and every other forum without strong topical guidelines is already full-up with politicized crap. Having it here, too, is redundant and dilutes the unique value proposition of this site. (3) If "happened to a sibling of a hacker" is enough to rate a story here, everything is again on-topic.
  - jmtulloss 18y ago
    All good points. I wouldn't normally post something that just presents a political opinion, but in this case I felt that the story was more interesting than that. Here's a guy that wrote some software that I and hundreds of others use every day, and that's why I respect him. However, this is a reminder that there are much bigger things than software happening to real people every day, people who are just like us. These are issues we all have to deal with. I apologize if it's not appropriate.
    - menloparkbum 18y ago
      I used to use a lot of Ian's earlier work on webware back in the day. I found this much more interesting than the article about the guy who scrubbed a Lamborghini for 2 days straight.

rw 18y ago

Finally, a post on anarchism on HN that doesn't imply anarchism means "being greedy."

randallsquared 18y ago
However, speaking as an anarchist, not all anarchists are against institutions in general. That is, all anarchists (I believe) would say they're against the State, but some anarchists include more than some of us would in that term.
- rw 18y ago
  I am implying that on HN "anarchist" often refers to a particular niche, anarcho-capitalism, which is mostly unconcerned with notions of cooperation, voluntaryism and humanism.
  - gojomo 18y ago
    Huh? Anarcho-capitalism relies on cooperation, voluntarism, and humanism as much as any other anarchism. It just posits that respect for property, including giant consensual property constructs like capital/corporations, is the best basis for creative cooperation.
    - rw 18y ago
      Demand curves are not democracy.
      - gojomo 18y ago
        Both democracy and demand curves are means, not ends.
        stcredzero 18y ago
        Hallelujah! Markets are great because they are a decentralized method for regulating resources that can adjust for changing conditions. One wants them in situations where there are too many factors and actors to be regulated by something as large and slow moving as a government. Markets aren't to be worshiped. They are a tool. Governments and laws are good for certain things too. I would like murder and violence to be illegal. I want human rights to be a given. Democracies aren't perfect, but they do embody a mechanism for ensuring the above. Unfortunately, they also allow their constituents to turn them into non-democracies. Democracies require constant maintenance.

jrockway 18y ago

If the government is going to file charges against the protesters for "conspiracy to riot", shouldn't the people that were maced for holding a flower file charges against the government for assault? I would. The way you "beat the system" is not by standing around holding a flower -- you beat it by ruining the pepper-spraying guy's life. Once people's lives start getting ruined for hurting people exercising their right to free expression, they're going to stop doing it. (As an aside, I have some savings that I call "fuck you" money. It's so that if I'm ever arrested, I can pay a good lawyer to get the charges dropped quickly. Generally a good idea, I think.) BTW, at the '68 DNC, the government lost its case against the protesters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Seven http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Seven Unfortunately, the charges against the cops didn't stick either, which is probably why things like this keep happening.

biohacker42 18y ago
Those kids probably don't have any "fuck you" money. and as you say the charges against the cops didn't stick. Dare I generalize and say that charges against cops usually don't stick. So what's the solution? I'm not sure, the best thing I can think of is 1 year terms for elected police chiefs. Police too hard or too soft, lose the election. Police just right, stay in office another year.
Prrometheus 18y ago
It's hard to win a case against a cop in this country. Radley Balko has chronicled the plight of many citizens who were victims of paramilitary SWAT raids for the suspicion of committing non-violent offenses. In most cases no action is taken against the cops, even if an innocent person or a non-violent offender is killed in the raid. This can get you started: http://www.cato.org/raidmap/ http://www.cato.org/raidmap/ Even more disturbing have been cases of people being severely beat by police officers in jails. Rather than helping bring the culprits to justice, police departments rally around their own and it is rare that any charges are filed against officers. Here's one case: http://www.theagitator.com/2006/08/02/jesse-lee-williams-jr/ http://www.theagitator.com/2006/08/02/jesse-lee-williams-jr/ (NSFW, a picture of the victim in the hospital after the beating) If police can get away with murder in this country, then I doubt that a little pepper spray will be noticed. Government is a monopoly of power. They have it, you don't. There is no justice if your assailant has a badge.

jm4 18y ago

So now the sister of a programmer being arrested at a political rally qualifies as Hacker News? The signal to noise ratio here decreases every day. sigh