4 ms·
Ugh. In light of recent events you can't seriously be using the phrase "tinfoil hat" in good conscience. As to whether you're right or not, I don't know. But p
by willurd 13y ago
Ugh. In light of recent events you can't seriously be using the phrase "tinfoil hat" in good conscience.
As to whether you're right or not, I don't know. But please figure out a less lazy way of getting your point across. The whole "tinfoil hat" argument is a fallacy used to marginalize people and shut them up without actually providing any evidence. And if you have evidence, then you don't need it.
- Karunamon 13y agoThat "if you have evidence" cuts both ways. You can't deny that Recent shenangians have pulled the paranoid delusionals out of the woodwork...
- willurd 13y agoHas it? Examples? (I'm not saying it hasn't; I don't know) I don't deny that some people do actually have paranoid delusions. But there's a big difference between a paranoid delusion and a (conspiracy) theory. The point I'm trying to make is that in light of recent conspiracies, we have to cut the conspiracy theorists some slack.
- Karunamon 13y agoI disagree. They are bound to the same burden of proof everyone else is.
- willurd 13y agoI agree, as I stated above in another comment. When asked whether the burden of proof is on them, I replied: "It is. That doesn't mean we have to marginalize people who have theories, even if they don't have any evidence to back them up. My approach is to entertain all possibilities until they are proven to me to be false. In that way I attempt to avoid tunnel vision."
- res0nat0r 13y agoBy recent events I'm assuming you are referring to the NSA. Note: What the NSA has been doing is well known and has been outlined in detail in the press all the way back to 2008. The country just hasn't cared enough to pay attention until the current exciting manhunt underway.
- willurd 13y agoThis is the first I'm hearing of it, and I imagine the first a lot of other people are hearing of it. Two things: 1. Just because it's old news, doesn't mean it isn't news for a lot of people. 2. My point still stands: some conspiracy theories do turn out to be true (do a search for "conspiracy theories that were proven true"), so wholesale calling conspiracy theorists nut jobs, or saying they are "tinfoil hat" wearers is unbelievably shortsighted.
- res0nat0r 13y agoI guess the larger point is: the current NSA issue should in no way be considered a conspiracy since it has been well known, and not hidden (if you have been paying attention) from the outset. Also jumping to a conspiracy theory re: what tptacek is saying is shortsighted, unless you have actual relevant evidence to support said conspiracy.
- nitrogen 13y agoTwo months ago the mainstream would have called anyone talking about the NSA a nutjob, and anybody not looking closely probably thinks Snowden is a vile traitor. No matter how "known" the issue is, every new piece of evidence helps convince a few more people to care.
- tptacek 13y agoNo, this isn't true; rather, it's something people on HN and Reddit say to make themselves feel smarter. In cryptography, it has been article of faith for decades that the NSA is actively working to subvert the security of public cryptography. The problem with the rdrand conspiracy theory isn't that it's unreasonable to believe the NSA is trying to backdoor something; it's that it's a stupid backdoor, and that the logic that delivers you to the conclusion that it's a backdoor also concludes that everything else must be a backdoor.
- pbsd 13y agoOne would think that burden of evidence would be on the side of the accusers of backdooring. So far all I have seen is inaccurate speculation.
- willurd 13y agoIt is. That doesn't mean we have to marginalize people who have theories, even if they don't have any evidence to back them up. My approach is to entertain all possibilities until they are proven to me to be false. In that way I attempt to avoid tunnel vision.
- cmccabe 13y agoCare to buy some of my tiger repellent? It's been 100% effective so far!
- willurd 13y agoHow many tigers have you repelled? Which species? I'm particularly worried about bengal tigers in my apartment complex. Can it handle those?
- cmccabe 13y agoI don't have "any evidence to back it up" but it "has not proven to be false." So because you're "avoiding tunnel vision" you should purchase some. Luckily, I'm willing to let it go for $999 a can. Don't marginalize me, bro.
- willurd 13y agoI was actually going to suggest $1099. Can I pay that instead?
- lostnet 13y agoThat is how the legal system works, so do you seriously plan to arrest the NSA? But the topic here is about maintaining a secure system. You must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that every element is either secure or allowed to be owned by your antagonist. Technically no one should have ever trusted something that can not be observed (and it sounds like the people responsible didn't.) If you chose to trust intel for no good reason, then you must now untrust them given that there is a reason. As a company they would be idiots to introduce such a thing. But if every US company can clearly be threatened with even worse outcomes into going against its own market interests then such an argument does not apply. As a side note, I do think there was already plenty of evidence that the US was actively forcing companies to do the NSA's bidding. The encryption export laws were largely designed to keep everyone who makes encryption products perpetually afraid of losing all their right to export anything mostly by "governmental discretion" on handling the companies inevitable 'incidents' of support talking to the wrong person about how RSA worked.