3 ms·

This was fascinating, thank you. I expected to read about legal threats against the folks collecting this data and am glad that those didn't materialize. Also

This was fascinating, thank you. I expected to read about legal threats against the folks collecting this data and am glad that those didn't materialize. Also I only realized after finishing the article what a breath of fresh air it was to read something that came straight from another human's brain without LLM intermediation. Thank you to the author for that too.

Onavo 2mo ago
>I expected to read about legal threats against the folks collecting this data and am glad that those didn't materialize. That's because the author folded over and played nice. Imagine if he exercised his first amendment rights.
- dalemyers 2mo ago
  They are Australian. Don't everyone is from the US just because they speak English.
  - Onavo 2mo ago
    Regardless, he chose to fold.
    - moffkalast 2mo ago
      Revealing his own country's defences online doesn't seem like the best idea tbf. Even though all of what they found and more is arguably already tracked with satellites with orders of magnitude more accuracy by every superpower, I'm sure second and third rate ones wouldn't mind the help.
  - rexpop 2mo ago
    The rights delineated in the American Constitution are understood to precede the government being held to account for them. Furthermore, they are held to be universal, natural rights.
    - tomlockwood 2mo ago
      Says who?
    - gambiting 2mo ago
      ...is that what Americans believe?
    - chabska 2mo ago
      You would think that the right to bear arms would extend to Iran developing a nuclear warhead though.
      - MacsHeadroom 2mo ago
        Natural rights belong to individuals, not states. Iran is a government; governments hold powers, not inalienable rights. The analogy collapses before reaching the question of nuclear weapons.
        asdfsa32 2mo ago
        But do Iranians have a right for self-determination? How about Israelis?
        FartinMowler 2mo ago
        Interesting interpretation given the the 2nd Amendment gives the right to "a well regulated militia" and not to individuals including crazed yahoos and criminals. Sadly for millions of butchered Americans, US courts have agreed with your interpretation.
        theodric 2mo ago
        No, it does not. What it states is: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," (thus shedding light on the government's interest in the matter, since anything not illegal is legal by default) "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" (thus confirming the right of people - which includes crazed yahoos, and excludes some but not all criminals - not the government, to have weapons) This is the current understanding within American jurisprudence. People are of course free to disagree with it, but when it comes to laws, the government's understanding of what the law means takes precedence both de jure and de facto. The Bill of Rights does not enumerate what a citizen is and is not allowed to do, but rather lays out a number of cases in a non-exhaustive manner in which it restricts the government from infringing on liberties that are understood to have pre-existed it.
  - danparsonson 2mo ago
    Hehe some are, in fact, English :-)
- digitalmonstars 2mo ago
  [flagged]
- ifwinterco 2mo ago
  There are no rights, there are only privileges (that can be revoked at any time), regardless of which country you live in. That is the brutal truth
  - IAmBroom 1mo ago
    It is the brutal truth for an atheist, but not for most people. (I am an atheist, but I believe a logically derived set of rights can largely be agreed upon. These are, however, sadly still just an agreement.)
geoduck14 2mo ago
>Also I only realized after finishing the article what a breath of fresh air it was to read something that came straight from another human's brain without LLM intermediation. I found it a little difficult to follow

Onavo 2mo ago

>I expected to read about legal threats against the folks collecting this data and am glad that those didn't materialize. That's because the author folded over and played nice. Imagine if he exercised his first amendment rights.

dalemyers 2mo ago
They are Australian. Don't everyone is from the US just because they speak English.
- Onavo 2mo ago
  Regardless, he chose to fold.
  - moffkalast 2mo ago
    Revealing his own country's defences online doesn't seem like the best idea tbf. Even though all of what they found and more is arguably already tracked with satellites with orders of magnitude more accuracy by every superpower, I'm sure second and third rate ones wouldn't mind the help.
- rexpop 2mo ago
  The rights delineated in the American Constitution are understood to precede the government being held to account for them. Furthermore, they are held to be universal, natural rights.
  - tomlockwood 2mo ago
    Says who?
  - gambiting 2mo ago
    ...is that what Americans believe?
  - chabska 2mo ago
    You would think that the right to bear arms would extend to Iran developing a nuclear warhead though.
    - MacsHeadroom 2mo ago
      Natural rights belong to individuals, not states. Iran is a government; governments hold powers, not inalienable rights. The analogy collapses before reaching the question of nuclear weapons.
      - asdfsa32 2mo ago
        But do Iranians have a right for self-determination? How about Israelis?
      - FartinMowler 2mo ago
        Interesting interpretation given the the 2nd Amendment gives the right to "a well regulated militia" and not to individuals including crazed yahoos and criminals. Sadly for millions of butchered Americans, US courts have agreed with your interpretation.
        theodric 2mo ago
        No, it does not. What it states is: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," (thus shedding light on the government's interest in the matter, since anything not illegal is legal by default) "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" (thus confirming the right of people - which includes crazed yahoos, and excludes some but not all criminals - not the government, to have weapons) This is the current understanding within American jurisprudence. People are of course free to disagree with it, but when it comes to laws, the government's understanding of what the law means takes precedence both de jure and de facto. The Bill of Rights does not enumerate what a citizen is and is not allowed to do, but rather lays out a number of cases in a non-exhaustive manner in which it restricts the government from infringing on liberties that are understood to have pre-existed it.
- danparsonson 2mo ago
  Hehe some are, in fact, English :-)
digitalmonstars 2mo ago
[flagged]
ifwinterco 2mo ago
There are no rights, there are only privileges (that can be revoked at any time), regardless of which country you live in. That is the brutal truth
- IAmBroom 1mo ago
  It is the brutal truth for an atheist, but not for most people. (I am an atheist, but I believe a logically derived set of rights can largely be agreed upon. These are, however, sadly still just an agreement.)

geoduck14 2mo ago

>Also I only realized after finishing the article what a breath of fresh air it was to read something that came straight from another human's brain without LLM intermediation. I found it a little difficult to follow