5 ms·

irrelevant, its Bruce Schneier

by gridmaths 13y ago

anigbrowl 13y ago
I'll just suspend my critical faculties then.
- gridmaths 13y ago
  IMO, you can ignore the arguably bad reputation of The Atlantic, and focus all your critical faculties on the article itself [ which happens to be written by Bruce Schneier :]
- bigiain 13y ago
  So exactly how are you demonstrating any use of your "critical facilities" by dismissing Schneier's entire article with no thought-through critisism, but just "Tha Atlantic? Meh…" followed by "There is nothing in this article." You clearly haven't _read_ the article, and have some axe to grind against the website. Fine - but don't try and claim this is your use of critical facilities.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    I have read it, twice. Also, I'm not the same person who critiqued the Atlantic in the first place. Here are my objections to his position: 1. Schneier is calling for people to break the law at great risk to themselves on the ground that the government's current position is immoral (but not illegal). 2. While saying that it's scary what we don't know, he makes no effort to educate his audience on what we do know, such as how this sort of activity comes to be legal and constitutional in the first place, the answers to which lie in the 1970s (see my other comments on Smith v. Maryland today, for example). 3. Schneier has absolutely nothing to say on how this state of affairs might be fixed, or what it is that US citizens should demand of their senators and state representatives to repair the situation through democratic means. My answer to that question is that that we need a constitutional amendment that creates an explicit right to privacy and another that narrows the power of Congress to abdicate its oversight of the Executive branch, which latter is conveniently required to maximize its defensive capabilities. I also think it's high time that the AUMF was rescinded. 4. Schneier has made a fine career out of complaining about the security state but shows no leadership when it comes to rolling it back. We all hate the TSA's instrusive searches and silly rules, yes? But when the TSA proposed loosening the restrictions on what you could take onto a plane, to allow practical exceptions like small pocketknives and so on, airlines lobbied heavily against it on behalf of their staff (who, in fairness, would be facing an elevated risk). Despite years of complaining about the TSA, Schneier did not AFAIK write anything about the proposed changes, let alone express support or encourage others to do so. Although the proposed rule change was pretty small, it would have represented at least a minor victory for common sense instead of security theater. But when it was offered up from public debate, Schneier didn't even consider it worth mentioning to his readers. Schneier's great at stoking readers' outrage - not so good at educating them or helping them channel it effectively. In my view, his punditry is emotional rather than analytical.
    - bigiain 13y ago
      "I'm not the same person who critiqued the Atlantic in the first place." Apologies - I should have noticed that. Having said that, I stand by my call for evidence of application of critical facilities if that's what's being claimed - a call to which you're risen with flying colours. I _broadly_ agree with all of your points - but in my opinion you're selling him short with your final summation sentence "In my view, his punditry is emotional rather than analytical." As I see it, he's built a reputation (and career) about being well-informed on security issues, and also being able to communicate those issues at a "popular media" level - perhaps sometimes oversimplifying, but almost always informing enough that a curious reader has enough knowledge and keywords to search for further information (and, like in this article, often providing many many more detailed and specific links). And while it would be even better if he provided solutions to some of the problems he writes about - educating the wider general public that the problems exist at all does a nett good for society. Expecting him to "show leadership" (or even have any solutions) as a prerequisite to pointing out problems seems unduly onerous.
      - anigbrowl 13y ago
        Glad we could get on the same page, even though we don't agree on some things. I try not to post snark or one-line zingers, in general, but having been through many civil liberties debates on HN sometimes I let frustration get the better of me. Thanks for your kind remarks.
    - sillysaurus 13y ago
      That's more like it! Please post top-level comments of this quality next time. This could have been a valuable discussion if more people saw it and weren't distracted by the Atlantic ad-hominem.
    - flyinRyan 13y ago
      >1. Schneier is calling for people to break the law at great risk to themselves on the ground that the government's current position is immoral (but not illegal). Man do I hate this objection. Would you have behaved the same in Nazi germany? "Come on! You're asking people to break the law! It's illegal to tell anyone about our plant for murdering disabled people.". Well, yes. Because a corrupt entity has control of the laws and is making it illegal to point out the illegal activities said entity is engaging in.

irrelevant, its Bruce Schneier

anigbrowl 13y ago

I'll just suspend my critical faculties then.

gridmaths 13y ago
IMO, you can ignore the arguably bad reputation of The Atlantic, and focus all your critical faculties on the article itself [ which happens to be written by Bruce Schneier :]
bigiain 13y ago
So exactly how are you demonstrating any use of your "critical facilities" by dismissing Schneier's entire article with no thought-through critisism, but just "Tha Atlantic? Meh…" followed by "There is nothing in this article." You clearly haven't _read_ the article, and have some axe to grind against the website. Fine - but don't try and claim this is your use of critical facilities.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  I have read it, twice. Also, I'm not the same person who critiqued the Atlantic in the first place. Here are my objections to his position: 1. Schneier is calling for people to break the law at great risk to themselves on the ground that the government's current position is immoral (but not illegal). 2. While saying that it's scary what we don't know, he makes no effort to educate his audience on what we do know, such as how this sort of activity comes to be legal and constitutional in the first place, the answers to which lie in the 1970s (see my other comments on Smith v. Maryland today, for example). 3. Schneier has absolutely nothing to say on how this state of affairs might be fixed, or what it is that US citizens should demand of their senators and state representatives to repair the situation through democratic means. My answer to that question is that that we need a constitutional amendment that creates an explicit right to privacy and another that narrows the power of Congress to abdicate its oversight of the Executive branch, which latter is conveniently required to maximize its defensive capabilities. I also think it's high time that the AUMF was rescinded. 4. Schneier has made a fine career out of complaining about the security state but shows no leadership when it comes to rolling it back. We all hate the TSA's instrusive searches and silly rules, yes? But when the TSA proposed loosening the restrictions on what you could take onto a plane, to allow practical exceptions like small pocketknives and so on, airlines lobbied heavily against it on behalf of their staff (who, in fairness, would be facing an elevated risk). Despite years of complaining about the TSA, Schneier did not AFAIK write anything about the proposed changes, let alone express support or encourage others to do so. Although the proposed rule change was pretty small, it would have represented at least a minor victory for common sense instead of security theater. But when it was offered up from public debate, Schneier didn't even consider it worth mentioning to his readers. Schneier's great at stoking readers' outrage - not so good at educating them or helping them channel it effectively. In my view, his punditry is emotional rather than analytical.
  - bigiain 13y ago
    "I'm not the same person who critiqued the Atlantic in the first place." Apologies - I should have noticed that. Having said that, I stand by my call for evidence of application of critical facilities if that's what's being claimed - a call to which you're risen with flying colours. I _broadly_ agree with all of your points - but in my opinion you're selling him short with your final summation sentence "In my view, his punditry is emotional rather than analytical." As I see it, he's built a reputation (and career) about being well-informed on security issues, and also being able to communicate those issues at a "popular media" level - perhaps sometimes oversimplifying, but almost always informing enough that a curious reader has enough knowledge and keywords to search for further information (and, like in this article, often providing many many more detailed and specific links). And while it would be even better if he provided solutions to some of the problems he writes about - educating the wider general public that the problems exist at all does a nett good for society. Expecting him to "show leadership" (or even have any solutions) as a prerequisite to pointing out problems seems unduly onerous.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      Glad we could get on the same page, even though we don't agree on some things. I try not to post snark or one-line zingers, in general, but having been through many civil liberties debates on HN sometimes I let frustration get the better of me. Thanks for your kind remarks.
  - sillysaurus 13y ago
    That's more like it! Please post top-level comments of this quality next time. This could have been a valuable discussion if more people saw it and weren't distracted by the Atlantic ad-hominem.
  - flyinRyan 13y ago
    >1. Schneier is calling for people to break the law at great risk to themselves on the ground that the government's current position is immoral (but not illegal). Man do I hate this objection. Would you have behaved the same in Nazi germany? "Come on! You're asking people to break the law! It's illegal to tell anyone about our plant for murdering disabled people.". Well, yes. Because a corrupt entity has control of the laws and is making it illegal to point out the illegal activities said entity is engaging in.