4 ms·

Your language and name calling stands out, it looks like an authorian in damage control mode trying to influence the more dumb demography into distrusting criti

by Yaa101 13y ago

Your language and name calling stands out, it looks like an authorian in damage control mode trying to influence the more dumb demography into distrusting critique against FISA and the US government. I suggest you better try that in a different place where that dumber demography reads.

jholman 13y ago
I strongly recommend that everyone be highly critical of FISA. The US government at large is a more complicated subject, but criticism there is also a great idea. I think it's obvious in my comment that I admire resistance against FISA and NSLs. I believe that Google has conducted such resistence (though I may have been deceived), and insofar as that is true, I admire Google for doing so (and I admire Calyx for doing so). This should be plainly obvious from my comment. Given that, the fact that you claim I'm trying to trick people into not critiquing FISA and the US govt, I can only conclude that you didn't actually read my comment. With allies like you, who needs a malicious government. Regarding name-calling, perhaps that's a fair point. But I think not. I asked if Mr Schwabe actually read the article he keeps citing (since it's inconsistent with his claim about it), and I think that's legitimate. And I called his reasoning laughable, but his reasoning IS laughable; he thinks the best case is the null case, which is crazy, because there are lots of better possibilities imaginable, like the possibility that Google is championing user rights and winning (maybe that's wishful thinking, but it IS a possibility).
mrschwabe 13y ago
Kudos friend. I share your sentiment. Regardless of jholman's allegiance - you elude to an important point that should be understood by anyone reading HN. There are people on the payroll of military contractors actively engaged in discussions online via fake accounts on all the major social networks. "Operation Earnest Voice" is has reportedly a budget of $200m. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-oper... A lot of the discussions on HN these days really do look suspect.
- jholman 13y ago
  Yaa101's sentiment is that I sound pro-NSA. That's a joke. Why would you agree with that? I strongly agree with you about astroturfing though, and I think it's depressing and reprehensible. And, in case I haven't made this disclosure in a place where you've read it, I am at this time gainfully employed by Google, and I'm sure this distorts my thinking. I really really want to believe that Google is not evil, because if Google is evil than I have to decide if I quit this awesome job, etc etc, and that desire probably has some effect on my judgement. I encourage everyone to be cautious about everything everyone says, including me. I don't think there's a lot of astroturfing on HN, though, if any. (For one thing, HN is pretty fringe). But also, the comments never say "don't worry it's all okay". Most of the comments raise crazy conspiracy theories, and other ones point out actual holes in crazy conspiracy theories. Hmn, though there are also people jumping on every most-recent theory that makes things look okay, actually... and that would be good astroturfing, so maybe I take it back. Actually, upon consideration, if I was the NSA, I'd post more theories like yours. Not that I'm accusing you personally. (Again, to protect against Poe's Law: this paragraph was sincere, not parody.) What I'd like to see more of, in these discussions about surveillance, is theories putting the facts together in ways that make sense, and theories that are actually consistent with the facts we have. When you said that that PCWorld link backed up claims of Google-NSA backroom deals, that made no sense. Just read it. When you said (in a more-recent comment) that the CIA is invested in many SiVa companies... well, I don't agree with your conclusions, but your pattern of reasoning is a lot more plausible. Partly because you didn't go too far, like saying "this proves that Google is just a CIA front company". Because it doesn't prove much of anything... but it IS part of the set of facts that are interesting. I am perpetually disappointed at how everyone seems to read one or two articles, and feel they have enough facts to stop reading and form an opinion.

by Yaa101 13y ago

jholman 13y ago

I strongly recommend that everyone be highly critical of FISA. The US government at large is a more complicated subject, but criticism there is also a great idea. I think it's obvious in my comment that I admire resistance against FISA and NSLs. I believe that Google has conducted such resistence (though I may have been deceived), and insofar as that is true, I admire Google for doing so (and I admire Calyx for doing so). This should be plainly obvious from my comment. Given that, the fact that you claim I'm trying to trick people into not critiquing FISA and the US govt, I can only conclude that you didn't actually read my comment. With allies like you, who needs a malicious government. Regarding name-calling, perhaps that's a fair point. But I think not. I asked if Mr Schwabe actually read the article he keeps citing (since it's inconsistent with his claim about it), and I think that's legitimate. And I called his reasoning laughable, but his reasoning IS laughable; he thinks the best case is the null case, which is crazy, because there are lots of better possibilities imaginable, like the possibility that Google is championing user rights and winning (maybe that's wishful thinking, but it IS a possibility).

mrschwabe 13y ago

Kudos friend. I share your sentiment. Regardless of jholman's allegiance - you elude to an important point that should be understood by anyone reading HN. There are people on the payroll of military contractors actively engaged in discussions online via fake accounts on all the major social networks. "Operation Earnest Voice" is has reportedly a budget of $200m. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-oper... A lot of the discussions on HN these days really do look suspect.

jholman 13y ago
Yaa101's sentiment is that I sound pro-NSA. That's a joke. Why would you agree with that? I strongly agree with you about astroturfing though, and I think it's depressing and reprehensible. And, in case I haven't made this disclosure in a place where you've read it, I am at this time gainfully employed by Google, and I'm sure this distorts my thinking. I really really want to believe that Google is not evil, because if Google is evil than I have to decide if I quit this awesome job, etc etc, and that desire probably has some effect on my judgement. I encourage everyone to be cautious about everything everyone says, including me. I don't think there's a lot of astroturfing on HN, though, if any. (For one thing, HN is pretty fringe). But also, the comments never say "don't worry it's all okay". Most of the comments raise crazy conspiracy theories, and other ones point out actual holes in crazy conspiracy theories. Hmn, though there are also people jumping on every most-recent theory that makes things look okay, actually... and that would be good astroturfing, so maybe I take it back. Actually, upon consideration, if I was the NSA, I'd post more theories like yours. Not that I'm accusing you personally. (Again, to protect against Poe's Law: this paragraph was sincere, not parody.) What I'd like to see more of, in these discussions about surveillance, is theories putting the facts together in ways that make sense, and theories that are actually consistent with the facts we have. When you said that that PCWorld link backed up claims of Google-NSA backroom deals, that made no sense. Just read it. When you said (in a more-recent comment) that the CIA is invested in many SiVa companies... well, I don't agree with your conclusions, but your pattern of reasoning is a lot more plausible. Partly because you didn't go too far, like saying "this proves that Google is just a CIA front company". Because it doesn't prove much of anything... but it IS part of the set of facts that are interesting. I am perpetually disappointed at how everyone seems to read one or two articles, and feel they have enough facts to stop reading and form an opinion.