5 ms·

I tend to take the opposite of the popular HN view on security issues (to my karmatic dismay), but... "our government regularly classifies things not because t

I tend to take the opposite of the popular HN view on security issues (to my karmatic dismay), but... "our government regularly classifies things not because they need to be secret, but because their release would be embarrassing." - Agreed. "but the U.S. government seems to have successfully destroyed it {wikileaks} as a platform." - Agreed. I don't agree, though, that you should put yourself at personal risk to expose something you don't morally support. I also don't agree that the government shouldn't pursue programs like this. If popular fiction is to be believed, crime is predictable, and the magic answer to finding malicious people is there in the Internet, if we have a superhacker who can bang randomly on a keyboard while making Trekkie-sounding soliloquies. I say eh, let them have a go at it. Because it will ultimately fail to give the desired results, just as airport body scanners have failed to find badguys, just as DHS security checkpoints have failed. Nothing will replace regular brownshoe investigation, and no brave action on the part of individuals will fix our tendency to build corrupt governments who abuse power. No, Bruce, I'm going to take care of my family by not being sent to jail, rather than be a martyr to the doomed cause of dismantling the government's ability to use the net to spy on us.

pfortuny 13y ago
Well, I do not object to your decision. However, I really do think one has a moral obligation to put oneself at personal risk to expose something you don't morally support, provided there is a reasonable gravity. That means: it depends on your (conscience) valuation of both risk & moral gravity. Schneier is stating his view: the defense of the Rule of Law in this case is grave enough to put yourself (and even your family) at risk. There are many people who have done this (and in the States there are quite a few). But as with moral decisions, I shall not judge you. However, I also am with Bruce in this. The Rule of Law is more important than you & your family. When you think of the USSR, you may get to shocking conclusions.
- diminoten 13y ago
  I disagree with the thought that one has a moral obligation to do something about something you find immoral. What argument would you put forth to defend such a statement?
  - sigzero 13y ago
    You were very selective and general in your question while the OP was a tad more specific on what he meant. He isn't saying you have a moral obligation to do something about EVERYTHING you find immoral. That would be incredibly hard to work out in your day to day life. If you come across something that affects millions of people that you find morally repugnant, you start weighing whether you actively do something or walk away. Both of those are "doing something".
    - diminoten 13y ago
      I wasn't selective, intentionally. I'm asking what argument he would supply for ever acting, not merely in certain circumstances. Why does the commenter believe there is ever a point at which a person becomes morally responsible for the acts of others?
      - akiselev 13y ago
        You miss the point, it's not about being morally responsible for the acts of others. It is about the act of self sacrifice to bring to light the immorality of others. This is a "duty" only to the extent that you believe in democracy and the duty of a citizen in it. As for arguments about why you would ever act, it really depends on the person. Most people are far more pragmatic about what it constitutes for their family to be safe and happy whereas others believe (along with their families) that "It is better to die free than to live in shackles." I've noticed the latter especially among immigrants from regions with a history of totalitarian regimes. For example, the majority of Russians who immigrated here after the USSR collapsed remember all too well what it's like to live in an oppressive state. For them, they see history repeating itself and know first hand how arguments like "who cares if you've got nothing to hide" end in people disappearing in the night and neighbors ratting each other out for petty reasons. It is very alarmist but when you're born without the cultural trust for government in America, you see things very differently.
        diminoten 13y ago
        What part of democracy requires I defend a minority? Isn't democracy by its very definition harmful to the minority? You invoke the term like it's supposed to flip a switch in my brain, but I guess I'm not being flipped. What is your actual argument? Specifically, what argument would you give to demonstrate a person who believes in a democracy has a duty to, at a loss, expose the wrongdoing of others?
larrys 13y ago
"I tend to take the opposite of the popular HN view on security issues (to my karmatic dismay), but..." Ironically I can almost guarantee that there are people who will openly state agreement with something that they wouldn't actually ever do (say, something that would send them to jail) in order to not loose karma points. Consequently the popular opinion on HN is not even just based upon an already small group of people who already are homogenized but an even smaller group that fears being downvoted for going against that crowd thought. So much for freedom of speech.
- pfortuny 13y ago
  Wow, this is a sweeping generalization in all the possible senses of the meaning of the word sweeping. Also it helps the dialogue because?
alan_cx 13y ago
"something you don't morally support" Just to pick up on that bit... Im not sure its about morality. As I understand it, its about the law. Or should be. I think employees have a duty to expose big organisations when they break the laws which are set down to govern them. Especially when its an organisation that works in secrecy. The problem with the likes of the NSA is that "we" trust them with to operate secretly on the fundamental understand that the follow the rules our political democratically elected set down for them. The masses cant possibly know if these laws are being followed, so we need insiders to be willing to point it out if they break the law. Its the only chance we have to ever know of our deal is being broken. Personally, I think that if you join a clandestine organisation, by its very nature, you are leaving morality out side the door. Spying is immoral, end of. But, very necessary. Which is why we allow it, but must have laws that they must be trusted to follow. I honestly believe it is a treason like crime for such an organisation to break it's deal with the public who allow them to operate in these ways.
- diminoten 13y ago
  What's immoral about spying?

pfortuny 13y ago

Well, I do not object to your decision. However, I really do think one has a moral obligation to put oneself at personal risk to expose something you don't morally support, provided there is a reasonable gravity. That means: it depends on your (conscience) valuation of both risk & moral gravity. Schneier is stating his view: the defense of the Rule of Law in this case is grave enough to put yourself (and even your family) at risk. There are many people who have done this (and in the States there are quite a few). But as with moral decisions, I shall not judge you. However, I also am with Bruce in this. The Rule of Law is more important than you & your family. When you think of the USSR, you may get to shocking conclusions.

diminoten 13y ago
I disagree with the thought that one has a moral obligation to do something about something you find immoral. What argument would you put forth to defend such a statement?
- sigzero 13y ago
  You were very selective and general in your question while the OP was a tad more specific on what he meant. He isn't saying you have a moral obligation to do something about EVERYTHING you find immoral. That would be incredibly hard to work out in your day to day life. If you come across something that affects millions of people that you find morally repugnant, you start weighing whether you actively do something or walk away. Both of those are "doing something".
  - diminoten 13y ago
    I wasn't selective, intentionally. I'm asking what argument he would supply for ever acting, not merely in certain circumstances. Why does the commenter believe there is ever a point at which a person becomes morally responsible for the acts of others?
    - akiselev 13y ago
      You miss the point, it's not about being morally responsible for the acts of others. It is about the act of self sacrifice to bring to light the immorality of others. This is a "duty" only to the extent that you believe in democracy and the duty of a citizen in it. As for arguments about why you would ever act, it really depends on the person. Most people are far more pragmatic about what it constitutes for their family to be safe and happy whereas others believe (along with their families) that "It is better to die free than to live in shackles." I've noticed the latter especially among immigrants from regions with a history of totalitarian regimes. For example, the majority of Russians who immigrated here after the USSR collapsed remember all too well what it's like to live in an oppressive state. For them, they see history repeating itself and know first hand how arguments like "who cares if you've got nothing to hide" end in people disappearing in the night and neighbors ratting each other out for petty reasons. It is very alarmist but when you're born without the cultural trust for government in America, you see things very differently.
      - diminoten 13y ago
        What part of democracy requires I defend a minority? Isn't democracy by its very definition harmful to the minority? You invoke the term like it's supposed to flip a switch in my brain, but I guess I'm not being flipped. What is your actual argument? Specifically, what argument would you give to demonstrate a person who believes in a democracy has a duty to, at a loss, expose the wrongdoing of others?

larrys 13y ago

"I tend to take the opposite of the popular HN view on security issues (to my karmatic dismay), but..." Ironically I can almost guarantee that there are people who will openly state agreement with something that they wouldn't actually ever do (say, something that would send them to jail) in order to not loose karma points. Consequently the popular opinion on HN is not even just based upon an already small group of people who already are homogenized but an even smaller group that fears being downvoted for going against that crowd thought. So much for freedom of speech.

pfortuny 13y ago
Wow, this is a sweeping generalization in all the possible senses of the meaning of the word sweeping. Also it helps the dialogue because?

alan_cx 13y ago

"something you don't morally support" Just to pick up on that bit... Im not sure its about morality. As I understand it, its about the law. Or should be. I think employees have a duty to expose big organisations when they break the laws which are set down to govern them. Especially when its an organisation that works in secrecy. The problem with the likes of the NSA is that "we" trust them with to operate secretly on the fundamental understand that the follow the rules our political democratically elected set down for them. The masses cant possibly know if these laws are being followed, so we need insiders to be willing to point it out if they break the law. Its the only chance we have to ever know of our deal is being broken. Personally, I think that if you join a clandestine organisation, by its very nature, you are leaving morality out side the door. Spying is immoral, end of. But, very necessary. Which is why we allow it, but must have laws that they must be trusted to follow. I honestly believe it is a treason like crime for such an organisation to break it's deal with the public who allow them to operate in these ways.

diminoten 13y ago
What's immoral about spying?