4 ms·

If you can't stop China from spying on you, how is "spying back" any more justified than ANY OTHER reaction? After all, it does not change anything. What could

If you can't stop China from spying on you, how is "spying back" any more justified than ANY OTHER reaction? After all, it does not change anything. What could change something, if one were to actually think freely, would be to have no secrets. Then suddenly what was stealing, is now just someone wasting their own time. BOOM. But of course, you can't have slavery and sitting fat on doing nothing without secrets, so that's not within the framework of allowed options.

zwily 13y ago
Sure it changes something - it levels the playing field.
- scarmig 13y ago
  If it levels the playing field where the Chinese and US governments are the players, what are their citizens? The pucks?
  - zwily 13y ago
    Yes. The playing field sucks, no doubt.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  It builds a second tower of poop on it, to reach the first tower of poop. Then the first tower of poop also increases in height, and that cycle never ends. At which point does a "level playing field" come in? Oh, that's right, not ever.
  - zwily 13y ago
    I get that you hate the playing field, and that's fine. I'm not sure your argument really disputes my point though.
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      I get that you hate the playing field, and that's fine. That's nonsense. I'm not sure your argument really disputes my point though. I am pretty sure you don't understand it, so maybe that can make up for your doubt in this matter.
      - chronic25 13y ago
        You are incorrect.
        PavlovsCat 13y ago
        About what even? Haha.
philwelch 13y ago
I'd be very surprised if any government could survive without holding secrets. Lets take something innocuous--medical records. Surely you'd have to keep those secret. And surely a foreign power would want to access those secrets as well, for blackmail if nothing else. But even if a government tried holding no secrets, it would be at an information disadvantage compared to more secretive rivals. For instance, most people are unsatisfied with the notion of abandoning their own privacy (which is a personal form of holding secrets) as a defense against government invasions of privacy, yet this is the same solution you propose that governments attempt against rival governments.
- drgath 13y ago
  Why should governments even have medical records of its citizens?
  - philwelch 13y ago
    I dunno, military hospitals? Public hospitals? Medicare?
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  Lets take something innocuous--medical records. Those are secrets of people, not of nations. But even if a government tried holding no secrets, it would be at an information disadvantage compared to more secretive rivals. For instance, most people are unsatisfied with the notion of abandoning their own privacy (which is a personal form of holding secrets) as a defense against government invasions of privacy, yet this is the same solution you propose that governments attempt against rival governments. There is a huge difference between organizations and people, I never proposed such a thing when it comes to people vs. nations.
  - philwelch 13y ago
    > Those are secrets of people, not of nations. Yes, now please bother to read the next two sentences of my original post and then think about it, because I'm not in the mood to repeat myself.
nemof 13y ago
As long as we live in a world where scarcity exists, we will compete for resources, or compete to provide them. Spying on each other is a natural consequence of needing to have an edge on the competition. Therefore, it's actually harder to justify not doing so if you know that your competition, say China, will do so with little compunction. Whilst we're waiting for this sunny amazing utopia with no walls, no ownership and no scarcity of commodities to happen, espionage and similar behaviours will continue.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  As long as we live in a world where scarcity exists, we will compete for resources, or compete to provide them. When it comes to ideas however, scarcity is artificial. When it comes to the physical scarcity, we are awaiting the heat death of the universe (= competition doesn't lead anyone anywhere, except into a giant joke that's on them), whilst sitting next to a ball of gas which blasts more energy than we could even imagine into space ( = competing over the scraps falling from that table while polluting our planet is also a game only idiots can play with sincerity). Spying on each other is a natural consequence of needing to have an edge on the competition. What need to have an edge? What competition, what danger is man facing, but man? Peaceful progress may be slower than constant war, but so what? What good is progress that just amounts to the "need" for even more bullshit? This expedition isn't going anywhere.
  - nemof 13y ago
    So what are you willing to give up to see this peaceful progress? You're on hacker news, so quite possibly work in the tech industry. Would you give up everything you knew, if it could be shown that technology by its nature encourages the kind of behaviour which feeds back into itself until we're screaming down the road into the future at breakneck speed, needing more and more to sate our desire for progress? Are you prepared to give up the mass production line? Are you prepared to give up cheap disposable items which make us devalue our commodities? Are you prepared to have children by quota, so that we can control the ever increasing size of the human race and don't have to cut ever thinner the quotients of natural resources available to each? You have something I want. It's my nature, I'm inclined to covet. I can either take it by force, by tact or by stealth. Unless you can change my intrinsic nature (me being any given human, anywhere), you cannot solve the issue of scarcity. Only a few ideas put food in bellies, fire in the fireplace and water in the bath. This is a consequence of ideas being somewhat tortuously tied to meatspace, where the more prosaic rules. Nobility is a fine thing, but a poor provider. I will always compete with you, because you are not me. Whether you're an individual or nation state, we are in competition. Either play and win, perhaps draw, or don't and be subsumed.

zwily 13y ago

Sure it changes something - it levels the playing field.

scarmig 13y ago
If it levels the playing field where the Chinese and US governments are the players, what are their citizens? The pucks?
- zwily 13y ago
  Yes. The playing field sucks, no doubt.
PavlovsCat 13y ago
It builds a second tower of poop on it, to reach the first tower of poop. Then the first tower of poop also increases in height, and that cycle never ends. At which point does a "level playing field" come in? Oh, that's right, not ever.
- zwily 13y ago
  I get that you hate the playing field, and that's fine. I'm not sure your argument really disputes my point though.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    I get that you hate the playing field, and that's fine. That's nonsense. I'm not sure your argument really disputes my point though. I am pretty sure you don't understand it, so maybe that can make up for your doubt in this matter.
    - chronic25 13y ago
      You are incorrect.
      - PavlovsCat 13y ago
        About what even? Haha.

philwelch 13y ago

I'd be very surprised if any government could survive without holding secrets. Lets take something innocuous--medical records. Surely you'd have to keep those secret. And surely a foreign power would want to access those secrets as well, for blackmail if nothing else. But even if a government tried holding no secrets, it would be at an information disadvantage compared to more secretive rivals. For instance, most people are unsatisfied with the notion of abandoning their own privacy (which is a personal form of holding secrets) as a defense against government invasions of privacy, yet this is the same solution you propose that governments attempt against rival governments.

drgath 13y ago
Why should governments even have medical records of its citizens?
- philwelch 13y ago
  I dunno, military hospitals? Public hospitals? Medicare?
PavlovsCat 13y ago
Lets take something innocuous--medical records. Those are secrets of people, not of nations. But even if a government tried holding no secrets, it would be at an information disadvantage compared to more secretive rivals. For instance, most people are unsatisfied with the notion of abandoning their own privacy (which is a personal form of holding secrets) as a defense against government invasions of privacy, yet this is the same solution you propose that governments attempt against rival governments. There is a huge difference between organizations and people, I never proposed such a thing when it comes to people vs. nations.
- philwelch 13y ago
  > Those are secrets of people, not of nations. Yes, now please bother to read the next two sentences of my original post and then think about it, because I'm not in the mood to repeat myself.

nemof 13y ago

As long as we live in a world where scarcity exists, we will compete for resources, or compete to provide them. Spying on each other is a natural consequence of needing to have an edge on the competition. Therefore, it's actually harder to justify not doing so if you know that your competition, say China, will do so with little compunction. Whilst we're waiting for this sunny amazing utopia with no walls, no ownership and no scarcity of commodities to happen, espionage and similar behaviours will continue.

PavlovsCat 13y ago
As long as we live in a world where scarcity exists, we will compete for resources, or compete to provide them. When it comes to ideas however, scarcity is artificial. When it comes to the physical scarcity, we are awaiting the heat death of the universe (= competition doesn't lead anyone anywhere, except into a giant joke that's on them), whilst sitting next to a ball of gas which blasts more energy than we could even imagine into space ( = competing over the scraps falling from that table while polluting our planet is also a game only idiots can play with sincerity). Spying on each other is a natural consequence of needing to have an edge on the competition. What need to have an edge? What competition, what danger is man facing, but man? Peaceful progress may be slower than constant war, but so what? What good is progress that just amounts to the "need" for even more bullshit? This expedition isn't going anywhere.
- nemof 13y ago
  So what are you willing to give up to see this peaceful progress? You're on hacker news, so quite possibly work in the tech industry. Would you give up everything you knew, if it could be shown that technology by its nature encourages the kind of behaviour which feeds back into itself until we're screaming down the road into the future at breakneck speed, needing more and more to sate our desire for progress? Are you prepared to give up the mass production line? Are you prepared to give up cheap disposable items which make us devalue our commodities? Are you prepared to have children by quota, so that we can control the ever increasing size of the human race and don't have to cut ever thinner the quotients of natural resources available to each? You have something I want. It's my nature, I'm inclined to covet. I can either take it by force, by tact or by stealth. Unless you can change my intrinsic nature (me being any given human, anywhere), you cannot solve the issue of scarcity. Only a few ideas put food in bellies, fire in the fireplace and water in the bath. This is a consequence of ideas being somewhat tortuously tied to meatspace, where the more prosaic rules. Nobility is a fine thing, but a poor provider. I will always compete with you, because you are not me. Whether you're an individual or nation state, we are in competition. Either play and win, perhaps draw, or don't and be subsumed.