5 ms·

Can you share, which of Arthur Schopenhauer's stratagems have you used in your reply? (http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/ http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controve

by 1gor 14y ago

Can you share, which of Arthur Schopenhauer's stratagems have you used in your reply? (http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/ http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/) From the last paragraph I got you're OK with having an unregulated surveillance system in the US which records information about you and makes god-knows-what conclusions from your movements, behaviour etc. And that's absolutely fine, you are entitled to your opinion. But you have taken much efforts trying to ridicule OP's use of words "digital", "encrypted, "instantaneously", "undisclosed" etc. How is this discussion tactics called?

smsm42 14y ago
Of course I'm OK with having unregulated private video recording systems. I have 6 of them around me right now - my Macbook Pro, my iPad, iPhone, two digital cameras and home security system. Why would I want the government to tell me how to use these? Because you're afraid of the government? Fine, it is prudent, but why your fear of the government turns you to regulation which is government? Maybe you mean government should report on information it collects and not collect it without a good reason? But then sensationalist description of the technology has nothing do do with the topic, does it? Then the reporting should be - which information is collected, why and why I should be concerned about it. I would certainly welcome such article. But RT does nothing of the sort. But you have taken much efforts trying to ridicule OP's use of words "digital", "encrypted, "instantaneously", "undisclosed" etc. How is this discussion tactics called? I'm ridiculing them not because they use these words, but because their narrative is non-existant without these words and spooky style of their arrangement. If you strip them, you are left with "Some company has video recording security system, that involves recording data, storing it on the server and then running some algorithms on it. Some law enforcement agencies use it, and the management of the company has worked for the government in the past and now is probably using their past contacts to get government contracts". I do not see anything spooky here, and it's definitely not as sensationalist as the article is, and not nearly as interesting. That's what I am ridiculing them for - for sensationalizing a mundane piece of uninteresting information into a full-blown conspiracy theory.
tptacek 14y ago
He's ridiculing the article's use of the words "digital", "encrypted", "instantaneously", and "undisclosed" because the article's use of those words is in fact ridiculous. To understand why, log out of Hacker News, and then log back in. Your browser and Paul Graham have conspired to instantaneously send sensitive encrypted digital information to an undisclosed location. I hope it's fortified.
- yequalsx 14y ago
  When Paul Graham has instruments of state power and coercion at his disposal then the use of encrypted and undisclosed will be relevant. I do not wish for the state to have access to this information. It being located in an undisclosed location and being encrypted suggests to me that should the government be ordered by a court to reveal the extent of this information it will be hard to determine if full disclosure has occurred. The use of these words my be needlessly alarmist but I don't see evidence of this. The government ought not be engaging in this and it is worthwhile to be alarmed and to try to get others to be alarmed.
  - smsm42 14y ago
    So you would prefer surveillance data (and let it be clear, security is not possible without at least some surveillance being conducted on secured facilities, for example - even a store like 7-11 has video surveillance systems nowdays) be transmitted in the clear, stored accessibly to any malicious intruder in a well-known location without any physical security to speak of?
jonhendry 14y ago
"From the last paragraph I got you're OK with having an unregulated surveillance system in the US which records information about you and makes god-knows-what conclusions from your movements, behaviour etc." And no evidence for this has been supplied. For example, you're assuming the "central database" is one big one run by the government. The term would equally well apply to a computer in a university's security office, which receives feeds from all the university's security cameras, which it likely records digitally, because it's 2012 and that's how we do things now. The location of that university security office is probably "undisclosed" because really who cares if you don't need to go there? It's "disclosed" to people for whom that information is relevant, like people who work there.

by 1gor 14y ago

smsm42 14y ago

Of course I'm OK with having unregulated private video recording systems. I have 6 of them around me right now - my Macbook Pro, my iPad, iPhone, two digital cameras and home security system. Why would I want the government to tell me how to use these? Because you're afraid of the government? Fine, it is prudent, but why your fear of the government turns you to regulation which is government? Maybe you mean government should report on information it collects and not collect it without a good reason? But then sensationalist description of the technology has nothing do do with the topic, does it? Then the reporting should be - which information is collected, why and why I should be concerned about it. I would certainly welcome such article. But RT does nothing of the sort. But you have taken much efforts trying to ridicule OP's use of words "digital", "encrypted, "instantaneously", "undisclosed" etc. How is this discussion tactics called? I'm ridiculing them not because they use these words, but because their narrative is non-existant without these words and spooky style of their arrangement. If you strip them, you are left with "Some company has video recording security system, that involves recording data, storing it on the server and then running some algorithms on it. Some law enforcement agencies use it, and the management of the company has worked for the government in the past and now is probably using their past contacts to get government contracts". I do not see anything spooky here, and it's definitely not as sensationalist as the article is, and not nearly as interesting. That's what I am ridiculing them for - for sensationalizing a mundane piece of uninteresting information into a full-blown conspiracy theory.

tptacek 14y ago

He's ridiculing the article's use of the words "digital", "encrypted", "instantaneously", and "undisclosed" because the article's use of those words is in fact ridiculous. To understand why, log out of Hacker News, and then log back in. Your browser and Paul Graham have conspired to instantaneously send sensitive encrypted digital information to an undisclosed location. I hope it's fortified.

yequalsx 14y ago
When Paul Graham has instruments of state power and coercion at his disposal then the use of encrypted and undisclosed will be relevant. I do not wish for the state to have access to this information. It being located in an undisclosed location and being encrypted suggests to me that should the government be ordered by a court to reveal the extent of this information it will be hard to determine if full disclosure has occurred. The use of these words my be needlessly alarmist but I don't see evidence of this. The government ought not be engaging in this and it is worthwhile to be alarmed and to try to get others to be alarmed.
- smsm42 14y ago
  So you would prefer surveillance data (and let it be clear, security is not possible without at least some surveillance being conducted on secured facilities, for example - even a store like 7-11 has video surveillance systems nowdays) be transmitted in the clear, stored accessibly to any malicious intruder in a well-known location without any physical security to speak of?

jonhendry 14y ago

"From the last paragraph I got you're OK with having an unregulated surveillance system in the US which records information about you and makes god-knows-what conclusions from your movements, behaviour etc." And no evidence for this has been supplied. For example, you're assuming the "central database" is one big one run by the government. The term would equally well apply to a computer in a university's security office, which receives feeds from all the university's security cameras, which it likely records digitally, because it's 2012 and that's how we do things now. The location of that university security office is probably "undisclosed" because really who cares if you don't need to go there? It's "disclosed" to people for whom that information is relevant, like people who work there.