8 ms·

I love the inherent schizophrenia in the US political system. They are so in love with anti censorship technologies when employed against countries they don't l

• excuse-me 14y ago
  Quite right too. If somebody had managed to detect the subversive writings of that terrorist leader Benjamin Franklin in time, the whole revolution business could have been avoided.
  • endlessvoid94 14y ago
    I see your point. It's not a great analogy though. He was a revolutionary, but he was not a terrorist.
    • excuse-me 14y ago
      Would have been if he had lost
      • endlessvoid94 14y ago
        Who did he terrorize?
        • mindstab 14y ago
          The British?
        • excuse-me 14y ago
          There was the 20% of the population that actively opposed the revolution many of whom were attacked had their property seized and were eventually forced to move to Canada. As well as the majority who really just wanted everything to carry on peacefully Alternatively it could be that 100% of the population fully supported the revolution leading to a universal popular uprising of the oppressed - just like Russia in 1917!
          • rmc 14y ago
            The records show 100% of the population were on board.
            • excuse-me 14y ago
              Yes they always do!
            • pyre 14y ago
              If 100% of the population was on-board, then who did they rise up against? Even if it's a single leader, he/she is still part of the population of a country.
              • rmc 14y ago
                I was satiring totalitarian states that tend to produce fake nonsense statistics about how popular they are. e.g. in 2002 Saddam Hussein was re-elected President of Iraq. He got 100% of the votes, and there was 100% turnout ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/16/iraq http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/16/iraq )
            • jlgreco 14y ago
              And that we have always been at war with Eastasia.
          • scarmig 14y ago
            A partisan wouldn't find it hard to call what happened after the war as a sort of ethnic cleansing, though more on political lines than ethnic. On top of that, numerous civilians, particularly those in positions of authority, were subject to a sort of low key terrorism, such as being dipped in hot tar or having their homes burned down. Even being a child of such an official was solid grounds for being attacked. And in the South, people were actually murdered for having Loyalist sympathies. This was actively encouraged by the leadership, by the way, not some decentralized mob violence. On reports that this was happening in New York, for instance, a military official put an halt to it. On hearing this, George Washington immediately intervened to allow it and upbraided the officer for hurting the revolutionary cause. Not actually making the case that American rebels were evil terrorists: just making the case that making such a case wouldn't be too difficult for someone with an agenda, given the standards of how we label things terrorism nowadays.
    • dpeck 14y ago
      I'm going to guess that the loyalists of the day couldn't tell much difference.
    • rufibarbatus 14y ago
      The way you phrased your comment can only lead to arguing semantics of the word “terrorist”. As risk to the establishment, a “subversive” can always be framed as a terrorist with a little bit of creativity. Can you volunteer a significant difference between Franklin and a modern-day terrorist from the establishment ruler's standpoint?
      • chc 14y ago
        He didn't intentionally kill or maim civilian targets with the goal of inciting terror?
        • idonthack 14y ago
          Correct, he just produced and distributed propaganda to encourage people to take up arms against a foreign oppressor. Which, these days, is enough to get you and your family killed by a drone strike: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Alwaki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Alwaki
      • endlessvoid94 14y ago
        Yes, I just meant that he didn't orchestrate and/or carry out the murders of innocent people with the sole purpose of inciting terror. I don't think there's much to argue about here.
      • tomjen3 14y ago
        Yeah Franklin is a guy who has some of the same interests and values as you. You could imagine having dinner with him. You could imagine being him. The modern terrorist is none of these things.
        • rufibarbatus 14y ago
          It's a shame this comment got downvoted. Be it serious or tongue-in-cheek, it was very enlightening.
          • excuse-me 14y ago
    • shrikant 14y ago
      Extremists on your side are revolutionaries. Extremists not on your side are terrorists.
      • excuse-me 14y ago
        Extremists that win are revolutionaries Extremists that lose are terrorists If we aren't sure yet they are insurgents If it ends with nobody winning and the leaders getting Nobel peace prizes (N.Ireland) then they were all just folk dancers that got out of hand.
        • dmoo 14y ago
          I don't think that Betty Williams or Mairead Maguire could be described as extremists, John Hume and David Trimble were not at the extreme end of their respective sides in the conflict either. 'Folk dancers', well if you feel happy about that comment thats up to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Williams_%28Nobel_laureate%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Williams_%28Nobel_laureat... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mairead_Maguire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mairead_Maguire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hume http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hume http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Trimble http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Trimble
          • excuse-me 14y ago
            Yes it's odd how afterwards there were no terrorists, they had been no civil war and yet a few politicians an arms length from the Armalites all got Nobel Prizes for solving a problem that never happened.
    • rhizome 14y ago
      Material supporter?
• panarky 14y ago
  Thank you for your comment. It has been added to your profile and your thoughtcrime score has been updated. We look forward to interviewing you the next time you attempt to cross the border.
  • deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
    • Karunamon 14y ago
      Can we stop this, please? Any post whining about "redditification" is infinitely more annoying than any actual incidence of that phenomenon (if it even exists.)
      • cema 14y ago
        Thank you. This needed to be said.
• chaostheory 14y ago
  What's even more sad is the repercussions that I see for the startup and technology scene. I believe our freedoms and our rights are what gives the US a huge edge in terms of creativity compared to countries like China and Singapore. Our intellectual freedoms are what leads to huge innovations, that tends to surprise a lot of people still. Without these freedoms I feel that we'll slowly lose one of our major advantages in the coming decades.
• gavinlynch 14y ago
  "But when the software could be used closer to home, they target developers like they are one step away from terrorists. The hypocrisy is... challenging" So you see this border interrogation as part of a systematic policy to intimidate developers entering the United States with expertise in cryptographic dev? Gotta be honest, that seems like a wild and illogical extrapolation to me based on this anecdotal story. So the end game of the United States government is what exactly, in this effort? To keep people with cryptographic talent outside of the US? 1) Why? I presume your point is that the government is attempting in a very, very, very round-about way to stifle free speech? Please inform me if this is not your point, I don't want to put words in your mouth. 2) What would that accomplish. We live in an era of instant communication and transportation of software. Developers can work on products from anywhere in the globe. If this man was denied entry to the United States, what is stopping him from simply working for his company from abroad? The answer: nothing. It would serve pretty much zero purpose to run a campaign of intimidation against an incredibly small subset of the developer population... Programmers with cryptographic expertise who frequently travel in and outside of the United States... I don't get it. What about all of those with crypto experience who are already in the US and don't travel. Aren't they a threat? Are they being targeted? Where are their stories? Doesn't the government, when they are looking to either break or make these same crypto software, draw from the same talent pool as private industry here in America? Why would they run that talent out of town? If the US government wanted to suppress cryptographic research or otherwise circumvent it in an effort to subvert Free Speech, don't you think there are more precise and non-haphazard-and-idiotic ways of doing it? This goes against the general sentiment of comments I've seen in this article, but I just have to say it. I think the idea is ridiculous and above all, completely inefficient for the goals everyone is ascribing to the border agents and the government here. Logic doesn't really back this up. I can't imagine the point of this. I am not naive enough to think the government doesn't do some shady stuff, but I simply don't see the point and don't see this as an effective tool in whatever their war on developers is supposed to be.
  • ScottBurson 14y ago
    Everything you say makes sense, but alas, the government is not always observed to be strong on logic. But okay, given your argument, what do you think happened here, and why? Do you think this report is a complete fabrication?
• kmfrk 14y ago
  This is a minor derail, but please don't use the term "schizophrenia" to be equal to dissociative identity disorder. "Cognitive dissonance" is better and doesn't use other people's actual conditions as pejoratives. Just a pet peeve I have, don't mean to call you out or anything. :)
  • mst 14y ago
    And in any case, many DID systems are perfectly co-operative so that wouldn't really apply either. "Hypocrisy" or "self contradiction" would IMO be even better.
• Spoom 14y ago
  I'm guessing what happened was something like the following: - They asked him what he did for work (as they pretty much always do at a border crossing, in my experience). - He said he developed software. - They asked what kind of software. - He said CryptoCat. - The officer, knowing that there are export restrictions on cryptography, gave him a longer secondary interview. I don't think they're targeting anyone here, though I wonder just how much knowledge the interviewer had about cryptography specifically.
  • horsehead 14y ago
    Agreed. I think this incident has been blown way out of proportion. I am disappointed it has received so much attention ... the news article doesn't even give voice or opportunity to comment to anyone other than the complainer in the story. ....
    • drone 14y ago
      Hardly even a news article - it's someone making supposition from a handful of tweets. Good fodder for the intertubess.
  • darklajid 14y ago
    I'll bite. Disclaimer: Never been to the US, don't plan to do it, limited insight into the laws over there. How are export restrictions relevant for people entering the country? Aren't US export restrictions only affecting US citizens or corporations? According to his twitter page that guys from Montreal / Beirut? And how does the whole idea of export restrictions for decentralized internet projects work? I do believe this might've been blown out of proportions, but your answer seems a little too naive/easy, from this armchair here.
    • drone 14y ago
      Actually, he was leaving the country[1], but I'm pretty sure that's ultimately beside the point. I have sincere doubts that cryptography was the reason for his detainment. By his own admission he had been detained four times in the previous three weeks[2]. Tweets quite often in support of Wikileaks/Assange/Manning, hails from Lebanon[3], makes strong indications that he is an activist, and just got done speaking at a human rights conference[4] - I have a hard time believing they stopped him because he wrote an encrypted chat program. Did they ask him about cryptography? They probably did, but I'd bet dollars to donuts he brought it up first. [1] https://twitter.com/kaepora/status/210363454954016769 https://twitter.com/kaepora/status/210363454954016769 [2] https://twitter.com/kaepora/status/210367538759086083 https://twitter.com/kaepora/status/210367538759086083 [3] https://twitter.com/kaepora/status/210386514369191936 https://twitter.com/kaepora/status/210386514369191936 [4] https://twitter.com/kaepora/status/208388821346299904 https://twitter.com/kaepora/status/208388821346299904
• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• narrator 14y ago
  You really think that the government even cares about behaving consistently at all any more? They just ask the PR people to whip up whatever they think will move the situation in the direction they want and they craft the message and the media plays along. The people in operations operate independently from the PR people so their actions are rarely consistent with the message the PR people are feeding to the public.