4 ms·

What do you have to gain by going onto Hacker News and posting conspiracies theories about DEA disinformation? Are you working for some kind of anti-US gov agen

by lhnz 14y ago

What do you have to gain by going onto Hacker News and posting conspiracies theories about DEA disinformation? Are you working for some kind of anti-US gov agency perhaps? Er

coldtea 14y ago
>What do you have to gain by going onto Hacker News and posting conspiracies theories about DEA disinformation? Are you working for some kind of anti-US gov agency perhaps? For one, why assume he cares at all about US gov agencies? HN is international. There are people here who could not care less about US agencies. Not to mention there are people who despise their abuses and privacy breaches, including lots of Americans. Second, not everything is a "conspiracy theory". And not every "conspiracy theory" is laughable (e.g about aliens or illuminati). Real-life conspiracies (people, agencies etc, conspiring to do some stuff in secret to gain something) happen all the time. Actually conspiracy (covertly trying to spread misinformation or to gain state information or to steal trade secrets etc) is the very thing secret agencies do. As for your misguided surprise about how an agency could ever use the press to spread misinformation, you might want to read on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
- pyre 14y ago
  The problem is that every statement could be a 'government conspiracy.' E.g.: The DEA can break iMessage encryption Obviously they can't, and they want you to shy away from using iMessage! The DEA can't break iMessage encryption Obviously they can, and they want you to keep/start using it!
  - coldtea 14y ago
    Sure. But that's not an argument against it being possible (or actually true). I mean, in your example there are 3 cases: 1) Obviously that can't, and they want you to shy away from using iMessage! 2) Obviously they can, and they want you to keep/start using it! 3) They can't and they are frank about it. It could be either of the three. We cannot say that it can only be (3) because "(1) and (2) are conspiracies". We cannot even say that (3) is more possible because it doesn't involve a conspiracy. It depends on more information and context to decide. Some situations we know quite well that are unlikely to involve conspiracies ("Jack said he went to Spain for holidays"). Other situations, we know quite well that are more likely to involve conspiracies ("The other 2 co-founders of my startup had a private meeting with a VC without informing me"). Now, something involving state agencies, I'd say is quite likely to involve some kind of conspiracy.
    - sageikosa 14y ago
      Technically, if not done in a public forum, its a conspiracy (two or more parties working together not in the open). In a republic, we tend to look down on those kinds of things when at least one of the parties is a government agency, or an agent of an agency. Conspiracies don't have to result in falsehoods being spread.
- lhnz 14y ago
  I don't care whether you think I was being too specific in my choice of location. If you have read it, the article was about a US government agency. Sure, there are real life conspiracies, but understand this, just because we can define a conspiracy as 'the very thing secret agencies do' does not prove that the DAE is conspiring to release PR articles to spread disinformation. There's no evidence of what the OP suggested but there is a whole lot of paranoia and emotions running wild and it doesn't befit this place.
  - pedrocr 14y ago
    Oh, you were serious about your initial comment. I wasn't asserting that the this was a DEA plant, or assuming any conspiracy. If I had to guess I'd say the DEA is indeed flustered by iMessage. My point, made jokingly, is that it's hard to tell between "real reporting of the DEA being flustered" from "planted reporting to get criminals to use iMessage and get busted". Hopefully encouraging critical inquiry of news sources befits this place.

by lhnz 14y ago

What do you have to gain by going onto Hacker News and posting conspiracies theories about DEA disinformation? Are you working for some kind of anti-US gov agency perhaps? Er

coldtea 14y ago

>What do you have to gain by going onto Hacker News and posting conspiracies theories about DEA disinformation? Are you working for some kind of anti-US gov agency perhaps? For one, why assume he cares at all about US gov agencies? HN is international. There are people here who could not care less about US agencies. Not to mention there are people who despise their abuses and privacy breaches, including lots of Americans. Second, not everything is a "conspiracy theory". And not every "conspiracy theory" is laughable (e.g about aliens or illuminati). Real-life conspiracies (people, agencies etc, conspiring to do some stuff in secret to gain something) happen all the time. Actually conspiracy (covertly trying to spread misinformation or to gain state information or to steal trade secrets etc) is the very thing secret agencies do. As for your misguided surprise about how an agency could ever use the press to spread misinformation, you might want to read on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

pyre 14y ago
The problem is that every statement could be a 'government conspiracy.' E.g.: The DEA can break iMessage encryption Obviously they can't, and they want you to shy away from using iMessage! The DEA can't break iMessage encryption Obviously they can, and they want you to keep/start using it!
- coldtea 14y ago
  Sure. But that's not an argument against it being possible (or actually true). I mean, in your example there are 3 cases: 1) Obviously that can't, and they want you to shy away from using iMessage! 2) Obviously they can, and they want you to keep/start using it! 3) They can't and they are frank about it. It could be either of the three. We cannot say that it can only be (3) because "(1) and (2) are conspiracies". We cannot even say that (3) is more possible because it doesn't involve a conspiracy. It depends on more information and context to decide. Some situations we know quite well that are unlikely to involve conspiracies ("Jack said he went to Spain for holidays"). Other situations, we know quite well that are more likely to involve conspiracies ("The other 2 co-founders of my startup had a private meeting with a VC without informing me"). Now, something involving state agencies, I'd say is quite likely to involve some kind of conspiracy.
  - sageikosa 14y ago
    Technically, if not done in a public forum, its a conspiracy (two or more parties working together not in the open). In a republic, we tend to look down on those kinds of things when at least one of the parties is a government agency, or an agent of an agency. Conspiracies don't have to result in falsehoods being spread.
lhnz 14y ago
I don't care whether you think I was being too specific in my choice of location. If you have read it, the article was about a US government agency. Sure, there are real life conspiracies, but understand this, just because we can define a conspiracy as 'the very thing secret agencies do' does not prove that the DAE is conspiring to release PR articles to spread disinformation. There's no evidence of what the OP suggested but there is a whole lot of paranoia and emotions running wild and it doesn't befit this place.
- pedrocr 14y ago
  Oh, you were serious about your initial comment. I wasn't asserting that the this was a DEA plant, or assuming any conspiracy. If I had to guess I'd say the DEA is indeed flustered by iMessage. My point, made jokingly, is that it's hard to tell between "real reporting of the DEA being flustered" from "planted reporting to get criminals to use iMessage and get busted". Hopefully encouraging critical inquiry of news sources befits this place.