4 ms·

It is unethical to attribute words to someone that they did not use, especially when presented as a quote. Misuse of technology can have tragic consequences, an

It is unethical to attribute words to someone that they did not use, especially when presented as a quote. Misuse of technology can have tragic consequences, and it is important to remain factual in our statements in order to accurately convey the gravity of such situations. Every life lost due to the misuse of technology is deeply reprehensible, and it is crucial that we strive for honesty and accuracy in our discourse, and this means both sides of the discussion. You and me.

aa-jv 4y ago
>It is unethical to attribute words to someone that they did not use, especially when presented as a quote. In a discussion about the use of technology that can be used to effect ethnic cleansing, you want to argue about the ethics of "attributing words to someone they did not use" as a straw man .. ? An attempt was made to minimize the impact of this crime against humanity - thats what it is, a crime against humanity - and I made the comparison with other attempts to minimize crimes against humanity in order to indicate the fallacy of the position that "this is not a crime against humanity". That's called a rhetoric method, and if it upset your sensibilities, it might be more due to the fact that your sensibilities on this issue are completely out of whack. It is a fact that the mass collection of biometric data always leads to abuse and further crimes against humanity. So why justify its collection?
- theCrowing 4y ago
  It appears that your perspective on the matter at hand diverges from mine, and I suspect that you may have ulterior motives beyond simply discussing the factual information that is relevant to the conversation. Regardless, I hope you have a pleasant day.
  - aa-jv 4y ago
    My agenda is to disallow the minimization of crimes against humanity, which is what this is. Your agenda appears to be to justify it in an attempt to minimize the impact. Unfortunately, it appears you are therefore aligned with the criminals themselves. In which case, I hope your day is spent considering the ills of your life. Nobody should be attempting to justify these kinds of crimes against humanity. There is simply no excuse for the mass collection of human biometric data - especially in a region where crimes against humanity and war crimes are consistently (daily) being committed by the so-called 'morally authoritative' parties involved ..
    - theCrowing 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - aa-jv 4y ago
        I do not believe that is the case at all. I believe I have a rational, sane approach to the commission of crimes against humanity, whereas your view seeks to justify those crimes - which can only be done under conditions of extreme delusion. "Therefore, the assertion that the data of the whole afghan population is readily accessible seems somewhat exaggerated" No, this is not correct. The assertion that the data of the whole afghan population is readily accessible is not negated by the 'mere' existence of 'only two devices'. These two facts are not related. The truth is this: 1. The entire Afghan populations' biometric data was captured and is now in the hands of a totalitarian-authoritarian body that will actually use it to murder people. 2. This biometric data has started to leak - for example, the two devices easily obtained by CCC hackers. 3. It can be asserted with confidence that further leaks are possible. None of this justifies the capture of human biometric data.
        theCrowing 4y ago
        Your comments are anything but rational and I am not disregarding the fact that alone the existence of two unwiped devices is absolutely repulsive. I am just arguing for a factual discussion and the actual representation of the information at hand instead of making assumptions and insinuations like you do. The only thing that will come from being dishonest and passive aggressive is that no one will take you seriously.
        aa-jv 4y ago
        Please examine your use of vitriol. It may reveal an aspect of this argument you have not fully considered.
lynx23 4y ago
You "remaining factual" actually smells of deliberately downplaying the issue, for some reason. What that reason might be, is open for discussion.
- theCrowing 4y ago
  wtf. Since when is being true to the information we have at hand "deliberately downplaying the issue"? The only thing I did was to argue for more nuanced communication. Especially because I know linus and his way of communicating since he took over from Constanze and Frank.
  - lynx23 4y ago
    If you are so close to Linus, I suggest you take the discussion about this communication style up with him directly, instead of airing your personal quibbles/laundry with him on HN.
glenstein 4y ago
>attribute words to someone that they did not use, especially when presented as a quote. Misuse of technology can have tragic conse It's called a paraphrase. It's not a journalist secretly fabricating a quote to leak ahead of an election, it's a comment section where the context is visible and the paraphrase functions to restate an element of the argument that merits special attention. I've never before seen people get confused about this idea except on hn.
- theCrowing 4y ago
  What statement of mine is he paraphrasing in his comments?
  - glenstein 4y ago
    Can you acknowledge that a paraphrase is not the same as attributing a verbatim quote? You're free to object to one just as much as the other but this was not an instance of the latter.

aa-jv 4y ago

>It is unethical to attribute words to someone that they did not use, especially when presented as a quote. In a discussion about the use of technology that can be used to effect ethnic cleansing, you want to argue about the ethics of "attributing words to someone they did not use" as a straw man .. ? An attempt was made to minimize the impact of this crime against humanity - thats what it is, a crime against humanity - and I made the comparison with other attempts to minimize crimes against humanity in order to indicate the fallacy of the position that "this is not a crime against humanity". That's called a rhetoric method, and if it upset your sensibilities, it might be more due to the fact that your sensibilities on this issue are completely out of whack. It is a fact that the mass collection of biometric data always leads to abuse and further crimes against humanity. So why justify its collection?

theCrowing 4y ago
It appears that your perspective on the matter at hand diverges from mine, and I suspect that you may have ulterior motives beyond simply discussing the factual information that is relevant to the conversation. Regardless, I hope you have a pleasant day.
- aa-jv 4y ago
  My agenda is to disallow the minimization of crimes against humanity, which is what this is. Your agenda appears to be to justify it in an attempt to minimize the impact. Unfortunately, it appears you are therefore aligned with the criminals themselves. In which case, I hope your day is spent considering the ills of your life. Nobody should be attempting to justify these kinds of crimes against humanity. There is simply no excuse for the mass collection of human biometric data - especially in a region where crimes against humanity and war crimes are consistently (daily) being committed by the so-called 'morally authoritative' parties involved ..
  - theCrowing 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - aa-jv 4y ago
      I do not believe that is the case at all. I believe I have a rational, sane approach to the commission of crimes against humanity, whereas your view seeks to justify those crimes - which can only be done under conditions of extreme delusion. "Therefore, the assertion that the data of the whole afghan population is readily accessible seems somewhat exaggerated" No, this is not correct. The assertion that the data of the whole afghan population is readily accessible is not negated by the 'mere' existence of 'only two devices'. These two facts are not related. The truth is this: 1. The entire Afghan populations' biometric data was captured and is now in the hands of a totalitarian-authoritarian body that will actually use it to murder people. 2. This biometric data has started to leak - for example, the two devices easily obtained by CCC hackers. 3. It can be asserted with confidence that further leaks are possible. None of this justifies the capture of human biometric data.
      - theCrowing 4y ago
        Your comments are anything but rational and I am not disregarding the fact that alone the existence of two unwiped devices is absolutely repulsive. I am just arguing for a factual discussion and the actual representation of the information at hand instead of making assumptions and insinuations like you do. The only thing that will come from being dishonest and passive aggressive is that no one will take you seriously.
        aa-jv 4y ago
        Please examine your use of vitriol. It may reveal an aspect of this argument you have not fully considered.

lynx23 4y ago

You "remaining factual" actually smells of deliberately downplaying the issue, for some reason. What that reason might be, is open for discussion.

theCrowing 4y ago
wtf. Since when is being true to the information we have at hand "deliberately downplaying the issue"? The only thing I did was to argue for more nuanced communication. Especially because I know linus and his way of communicating since he took over from Constanze and Frank.
- lynx23 4y ago
  If you are so close to Linus, I suggest you take the discussion about this communication style up with him directly, instead of airing your personal quibbles/laundry with him on HN.

glenstein 4y ago

>attribute words to someone that they did not use, especially when presented as a quote. Misuse of technology can have tragic conse It's called a paraphrase. It's not a journalist secretly fabricating a quote to leak ahead of an election, it's a comment section where the context is visible and the paraphrase functions to restate an element of the argument that merits special attention. I've never before seen people get confused about this idea except on hn.

theCrowing 4y ago
What statement of mine is he paraphrasing in his comments?
- glenstein 4y ago
  Can you acknowledge that a paraphrase is not the same as attributing a verbatim quote? You're free to object to one just as much as the other but this was not an instance of the latter.