12 ms·

Royal pardon for codebreaker Alan Turing

569 points by louthy 13y ago

fmendez 13y ago
It seems to me that the fitting thing to be issued here is an apology, not a pardon.
- finnw 13y ago
  They already did that. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8249792.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8249792.stm
davidgerard 13y ago
Even this, 61 years late and only applying to him, is only a sort-of pardon legally: http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2013/07/putting-right-wrong-done-alan-turing http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2013/07/puttin...
moxic 13y ago
He should get a Royal Apology as well, even if the PM already issued one.
ciderpunx 13y ago
Finally. Though it is the very least that the establishment could do given how Turing was treated.
wreegab 13y ago
> "Alan Turing, the second world war codebreaker who took his own life after undergoing chemical castration following a conviction for homosexual activity, has been granted a posthumous royal pardon 59 years after his death." I don't understand, I thought what was needed was "royal apologies". WTH.
- pcrh 13y ago
  Don't be too concerned by the "Royal" nature of the pardon. In the UK the legislative system is in theory dependent on the Royal prerogative (i.e all laws derive from the will of the head of state, currently Queen Elizabeth II). In practice that is not so, as Her Majesty does not personally deliberate on legislative matters. However, as a journalistic device, describing the decision as "Royal" conveys the journalists and editors feelings as to the importance and sincerity of the pardon.
  - Stratoscope 13y ago
    wreegab was not objecting to the "royal", but to it being a pardon instead of an apology.
    - Brakenshire 13y ago
      The British government has already issued an apology. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8249792.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8249792.stm
Tloewald 13y ago
Somewhere between better than nothing and nothing.
nbody 13y ago
Ridiculous
- louthy 13y ago
  Would you like to expand upon that?
- qwerta 13y ago
  Exactly, it is like saying we forgive you for being...
sarreph 13y ago
The manner in which the document was written makes its authenticity strike me as highly surprising.
edw519 13y ago
How ironic, coming the same week as LGBT education sites are blocked by British "porn" filters. The best pardon to someone who is dead would be to stop doing similar misdeeds to those who are living.
- scarmig 13y ago
  The "porn" filters are stupid and creeping totalitarianism, but it's irresponsible and disrespectful to compare them to what was done to Turing. He was persecuted and prosecuted; publically humiliated; forced to receive hormonal injections that rendered him impotent; banned from traveling to the USA; essentially banned from any jobs involving cryptography or national security; and ultimately committed suicide in large part because of government sanctions. World of difference between that and a porous filter.
  - pcrh 13y ago
    He was persecuted for his sexual orientation, and furthermore this was done despite his obvious contribution to the safety of the nation. This placed sexual mores as more important than national interest. A default information filter is currently being introduced by several ISPs in the UK, it starts by filtering sexual content. This is similar in concept to the attitudes that cause immense suffering to Turing, i.e. controlling the public expression and liberty of the sexual life is being considered as more important that protecting civil liberties such as freedom of information.
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    >forced to receive hormonal injections that rendered him impotent // He wasn't forced to receive hormone injections he chose it in preference to serving a one year imprisonment. As an expert chemist he was no doubt aware of the implications of that choice. My reading of this has always been that his apparent predilection for picking up teenagers made him a massive security risk. Surely had he done the same with teenage girls he too would have been banned from jobs involving high level security clearance. It also strikes me that maybe Turing didn't like that element of his life? [I have a pop-psych theory on this all being related to a fixation on Morcom, his childhood friend who died. But 40-something men lusting for teenagers is common enough that the theory lacks support.]
soperj 13y ago
First step to knighthood?
- codeoclock 13y ago
  You can't be posthumously knighted. Furthermore, the title of Knight is revoked upon death - For example, when Sir Paul McCartney dies he will lose his title.
kirinan 13y ago
This falls under the category of too little too late. I get that traditions change throughout history, I get that some things that are acceptable now were unacceptable even 10 years ago, but this is a case where people should have looked the other way. Alan Turning is both a war hero and one of the greatest minds to ever live. To simply disregard someone like that because of their sexual orientation is both short sighted and a disgusting lack of humanity. Imagine how much further computing would be if he had lived longer? If he had been free to think and live without ridicule and the tests run on him?
- tptacek 13y ago
  Exactly false. People could have looked the other way, and Turing could have lived a longer, happier life, and we could all be that much less aware of the injustice done to hundreds of thousands of other LGBT people throughout the last century. The tragedy is the policy that cost Turing his life, not the fact that an exception wasn't made for him. It cost many more people than Turing.
  - icambron 13y ago
    Yes, wow. To go further, there is something deeply troubling about the parent's line of reasoning: that the tip of its spear is that Turing could have helped computing more, and not that the law was heinous in its treatment of humanity. The priorities required to even think of a point like that baffle me.
    - scintill76 13y ago
      Especially ironic when it simultaneously uses phrases like "short sighted" and "disgusting lack of humanity."
- scintill76 13y ago
  Huh? Special people should be allowed to break laws the rest of us have to follow? Gays should not have been persecuted, but only if they were "war heroes" and had "great minds"? No, an unjust law is unjust to everyone! This is not tragic because it was done to somebody special, but it was done to thousands of "boring" others who may not get a pardon. (To say nothing of the original injustice that can't be taken back, or the fact that a pardon is not an admission of injustice.)
StavrosK 13y ago
Wouldn't it be much more forceful if his conviction remained as a mahnmal? Something to point at and say "here's what we did to a brilliant man because we were too small-minded to think otherwise"? All pardoning Turing does now is lead us to eventually forget the tragedy of his conviction.
badclient 13y ago
Pardon? For what? Thanks but no thanks.
- a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
  Buggery. It's been illegal many places for a very long time because it spreads disease. The sodomy laws were effectively repealed and we got AIDS. It was not a coincidence.
  - skinnycow 13y ago
    Ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha. This is so amusingly silly and ignorant. No wonder the commentor's other posts are nearly full scale denial of racism and sexism. Yep. HIV has been waiting around for centuries of humans screwing each other (m/f, f/f, m/m, m/m/f/f/x/y/z) and they just waited until the British Empire came along, passed buggary laws, and then repealed them to take off. I wish I had you peoples' power of self delusion. I could just convince myself of all sorts of things that just fit my world view instead of reality.
  - lostlogin 13y ago
    Do you really think the law made that much difference? Why not just pass a law requiring condom use. Would that make you happy?
  - groovy2shoes 13y ago
    Sexual intercourse of any kind spreads disease. AIDS didn't become an epidemic because of anal intercourse. It's pretty clear that AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases spread just as well from almost any kind sexual activity, and many of them -- including AIDS -- spread from any transfer of bodily fluids at all. Going further, I'd wager that any form of interpersonal contact, even non-sexual, is as likely to spread some form of disease. Why not enact a law which requires any person to don a hazmat suit before venturing into public space? Or better yet, a law which forbids any person from entering public space?
    - a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
acheron 13y ago
75,000 men were convicted under the same law, of whom 26,000 are still alive. [1] Only Turing has been "pardoned". My understanding [2] is that the "pardon" implies there was nothing wrong with the law as such, just that Turing is forgiven for having broken it. So while I guess this is better than nothing, I don't know if it's really the way to go about it. [1] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/130719-0001.htm#13071970000373 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/t... [2] I am not a lawyer, nor British, so give my understanding as much weight as it deserves...
- ska 13y ago
  I think you may have hit on the crux of it. If any stronger repudiation were offered, would that be the government opening itself up to 25000 expensive lawsuits?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - lostlogin 13y ago
    I hope so, it should pay, and heavily. If it was my tax pound I'd support this. The minimum amount of harm this discrimination caused is pretty high, and there is little than can be done to correct this. Financial compensation is about the best thing actually possible, so do it while the victims are still alive. The lame option of waiting until 99% of the victims are dead, then offering some kind of pardon is vastly more likely however.
    - _Simon 13y ago
      "If it was my tax pound I'd support this." Well that's easy to say when it isn't. It is my tax pound and I don't. I don't support the posthumous pardon at all, and those calling for the posthumous knighthood are getting ridiculous. Everyone recognises the value of Turing's input to both the war effort and greater modern life, but sadly the man took his own life. Arguing over whose fault it was it pointless. Pardoning him now does nothing for him. It won't change the impact of his work and it won't produce the work that we lost because of this. Yes the law in the 1950 by todays standards was an ass, but that was the law at the time and the punishment was the punishment. Yes, through 21st century eyes it is abhorrent and I'm extremely glad that the law has changed and what happened to Turing doesn't happen any more, but... It's time that we move on.
Brakenshire 13y ago
The British state already formally apologized five years ago, under Gordon Brown, for Alan Turing's barbaric treatment. I can't see how a pardon adds anything to that. The best response is just to treat people humanely in the present.
- vacri 13y ago
  The apology was "We're sorry. The conviction still stands, however". The pardon takes care of the latter.
NAFV_P 13y ago
Turing died only a few years before the emergence of high level languages. I have often wondered if he would go for FORTRAN or LISP.
- Stratoscope 13y ago
  I like to think the answer would have been "both": Lisp for power and elegance, and Fortran for speed.
grad_ml 13y ago
BBC please do not make any of the royal drama news headlines.
lostlogin 13y ago
Thought I'd stick this link here - great place. http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk Last time I was there, 10 or 15 years ago, they were redecorating the house (can you call it that?). They had a load of really old fittings like taps etc in a skip. I still regret not asking if I could take one or 2. Having a few taps from that amazing place would be so great. I spent days of time there over the course of a year, and met a few of the people who worked their who knew Turing (by sight, not personally). You can see Turing's room at the place too. It was fascinating to talk to people who worked there during the amazing period Turing worked through.
elchief 13y ago
Lots of complaining on here, but I was glad to see it. The government certainly didn't have to. It doesn't have to pardon everyone convicted of a crime that is no longer a crime. It was a good thing to do for a good man, and I commend them.
- MLR 13y ago
  There have been countless people prosecuted due to unjust laws; society changes, and as that happens laws change. Every single one of those people should be given a pardon, or none of them should.
mydpy 13y ago
About f*cking time, but is it enough? No, but hopefully we won't need to worry about things like this in the future. Progress is progress and I'll take it.
microtherion 13y ago
The infinite tape of justice winds slowly, but grinds exceedingly fine.
bitsteak 13y ago
Scumbag Hacker News: Admires spies only after they're dead.
- lostlogin 13y ago
  You really compare the NSA to activities at Bletchley Park, fighting Nazis?
  - infinity0 13y ago
    Unfortunately, that is just what the British intelligence community are doing over here. It's a fucking disgrace, but I wonder if the timing of this pardon is because of that. They had the chance to do this a year ago, but didn't.
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    NSA are fighting terrorism, which probably includes some Nazis somewhere in the mix. That aside it does seem the current groundswell of public opinion is firmly against all spying?
- thrillgore 13y ago
  SO MUCH EDGE
Rogerh91 13y ago
You know, I was just reading a WSJ special on how returning PTSD-afflicted veterans were lobotomized... Reading back on what happened to Turing and countless other homosexuals gives me those same chills. What a simple pleasure it is to live in the era we do now. No, not everything is perfect, but so much has improved, and it's up to all of us to improve things even further, and to keep the momentum going.
Datsundere 13y ago
59 years late.
kimonos 13y ago
It would have been better if he was still alive when he was pardoned...
alan_cx 13y ago
This is politically motivated nonsense. At right wing government trying to prove its not homophobic. Yes the Queen issued the pardon, but it wont have been done without the government being consulted. Pardoning one person like this when thousands suffered is an insult. They should have either pardoned everyone who was convicted under these laws, or none of them. Favouring one man because of his historical significance is creating a two tier justice system. And frankly, I find the whole thing problematic. Judging the past by todays standards is just wrong to my mind. He did break the law as it stood, right or wrong. Its not like we now have evidence he was innocent of the charges. What do we do, go over all the past laws that have been repealed, pardoning every one who was convicted along the way? That would be insane. What about the reverse? Surely if we are to pardon people who got convicted under laws that we have now repealed, we should go back and try any one in the past who has committed acts which are now crimes but were not then. Yes, Turing is of huge historical significance. What happened to him was awful and tragic. If the notion that he wiped 2 years of WW2 is not over exaggerated, millions owe him their lives and freedoms. There for not just a great scientist, but a world figure of huge significance. But, this is not the right way to honour him. And from what I can see, is shameless political points scoring by a weak government concerned with its gay credentials. If it were me, I would have left the conviction alone, let it stand as a reminders of our stupid homophobic past (1), and perhaps done something like having a national Turing Day, which could celebrate science and open humanity. Or something like that. (1) Not so stupid. Problem back then was that the vast majority of people were disgusted by homosexuality. So, obviously they kept it quiet. If they got found out, they suffered. Problem for organisation concerned with secrecy, is that the social pressure placed on gay people made them easy and obvious targets for espionage. They were easily black mailed. Now a days, most people have no problem with homosexuality, so the threat of being outed is weak. The problem back then was not government, its was the social attitude in general to gay people. There for, to me it is wrong for the public to point fingers at the government. Had the public not been so prejudiced, the government could have kept their genius employed, and alive. Its our fault as a society. Government had to operate in that context. It had no choice really. And of course many people in that government would have had the same attitude as the public. But in the end, it was our fault, our shame, as a society. And that is what we should remember.
- 13y ago
tekkanphan 13y ago
They should give a royal apology
sanoli 13y ago
Yes, they apologized 5 years ago, and now there's a pardon. As an important abolitionist from my country once wrote, "Justice that is late is not justice".
kopos 13y ago
Should this not have been an "apology" instead of a "pardon"?
- cmpaul 13y ago
  Prime Minister Gordon Brown had already issued an apology in 2009.
infruset 13y ago
Wait. Someone who has a title and shitloads of money just because they were born is pardoning one of the greatest geniuses of the 20th century, as an act of kindness? How does such an undeserving leftover of the middle ages even have a say in this?
- johneth 13y ago
  You're misunderstanding the power that the Queen has. Just because it's a 'Royal pardon', it doesn't mean that she actually pushed for it. The opposite is true, in fact (the Queen is a symbolic head of state, and does not interfere politically - anything you hear the Queen doing is almost certainly at the request of the UK government).
  - infruset 13y ago
    Granted. But still, symbolically, that's how it sounds, so maybe there's a problem with this system? What I mean is that even if it's done at the request of the government, that's only a description of the political backstage, but in public it is expressed as the monarchy's doing ("royal" pardon).
    - hahainternet 13y ago
      > so maybe there's a problem with this system? There are many problems. When you find a better system to replace it with, then let us know. Until then throwing away a millenia of history so we can have President Cameron sounds like hell to me.
      - infruset 13y ago
        Well, any democratic system in which no citizen is institutionally above every other citizen by mere reason of being born certainly seems better to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to troll. It's just that I would have a really hard time living in a country where such privileges by birth exist.
Kliment 13y ago
The actual pardon: http://cryptome.org/2013/12/turing-pardon.pdf http://cryptome.org/2013/12/turing-pardon.pdf
bluecalm 13y ago
Instead of pardoning bullshit get him a chapter in elementary school history books. Chapter about a man, who greatly contributed to modern science and the war effort and was prosecuted by bigoted fanatics running the country. Then warn about similar attitudes displayed today and teach the children to recognize them along with their gloomy consequences. That would do some actual good instead of insignificant PR gesture of pardoning.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
Have we ruled out the possibility that the UK government is more desperate to legitimize code breaking than to exonerate a mistreated war hero? I don't think that's the case, but these days it's getting harder to be sure.
enen 13y ago
Anyone know a good movie/book on his life?
nayefc 13y ago
Unrelated to the topic, but: > He said the research Turing carried out during the war at Bletchley Park undoubtedly shortened the conflict and saved thousands of lives. Clear example of "history is written by the victors". The Allies were as guilty in the war as the other side. Neither side's goal was to "shorten the conflict and save lives" but to "defeat the other side" with no regards to human life.
SimonPStevens 13y ago
What I find most intriguing about this is the how a law that was enforced only 50 years ago has so quickly become abhorrent to the majority of the population. It's an interesting thought experiment to consider which laws we routinely use today to punish people will become morally unacceptable in the next 50 years. Copyright and patent laws, and laws used against Snowden's whistle blowing are some obvious ones that are due for changes, but what's more interesting is if history continues to repeat itself it seems likely that some things we consider wrong now will become acceptable in the near future and the reverse is also true. This is much harder to predict. (Humans driving cars is a reverse example. I think in the next 50 years it will become illegal for humans to drive cars manually except on private racing circuits)
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  I doubt that we would need to make human driving illegal. More likely automated cars become so popular and cheap that a generation grows up without learning how to drive manually and outside of a subset of enthusiasts human driven cars simply start to disappear from the market. We already have driving assistance systems like ABS and computers which will automatically apply brakes which can reduce the risk of accidents but we don't mandate that all vehicles on the road use them.
  - SimonPStevens 13y ago
    Computer breaking is still relatively new. Give the law time to catch up. Seatbelts were optional when I was a child, but mandatory now (UK). But yes, I do agree. Human driving may well just become unpopular rather than illegal.
- gizmo686 13y ago
  The cases you cite seem fundamentally different from the anti-gay laws under discussion. Copyright and patent laws, even if we look back and say they were stupid, we would still be able to point to the problems that they were designed to solve (of which they have solved somewhat), and view them as a reasonable attempt. Similarly, we would recognize that humans driving cars was okay not because of of a poor moral system, but rather because we had no better alternative. I suspect that some of the areas we will look back on in a similar way are drug laws and sex laws (we still have prostitution, child porn, and statutory rape, all of which seem immoral only in a cultural sense).
thrillgore 13y ago
Finally.
jackmaney 13y ago
Way too little, way too late.
huherto 13y ago
The queen was already reigning when Alan Turing was brought to trail. May be the queen is who needs to be pardoned.
vithlani 13y ago
Let this be a reminder to all hackers and geniuses out there: protect yourself from your society. You exist purely at the mercy of your physical realm. It does not matter how essential your discoveries, how profitable, how useful to mankind, how breathtaking. If you are perceived as being a risk (through something simple like your sexuality) you will be ground to dust. The decision will be made (perhaps justifiably) but it will be executed by the worst sort of petty human being: bureaucrats, under achievers, jealous men and beasts in human form who have been handed down power by the state. They will unleash a torrent of hellfire in your life. This beast does not discriminate: weather a gathering of Sikhs in a park, tribes of Africans or a sole genius with an arguably significant contribution to the war effort - to the beast they are all one once the order has been given. Always ensure you have some form of protection and a way out. The British establishment should be ashamed of themselves. They have tolerated homosexuality for centuries among the upper classes up to and including the royals. To grind down a man on the level of Turing with for such an absurd reason is an act of criminal stupidity. All the more so after his efforts during the war. The computer science community all the world over should reject this "pardon" and ask the queen to stuff it up her posterior.

569 points by louthy 13y ago

fmendez 13y ago

It seems to me that the fitting thing to be issued here is an apology, not a pardon.

finnw 13y ago
They already did that. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8249792.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8249792.stm

davidgerard 13y ago

Even this, 61 years late and only applying to him, is only a sort-of pardon legally: http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2013/07/putting-right-wrong-done-alan-turing http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2013/07/puttin...

moxic 13y ago

He should get a Royal Apology as well, even if the PM already issued one.

ciderpunx 13y ago

Finally. Though it is the very least that the establishment could do given how Turing was treated.

wreegab 13y ago

> "Alan Turing, the second world war codebreaker who took his own life after undergoing chemical castration following a conviction for homosexual activity, has been granted a posthumous royal pardon 59 years after his death." I don't understand, I thought what was needed was "royal apologies". WTH.

pcrh 13y ago
Don't be too concerned by the "Royal" nature of the pardon. In the UK the legislative system is in theory dependent on the Royal prerogative (i.e all laws derive from the will of the head of state, currently Queen Elizabeth II). In practice that is not so, as Her Majesty does not personally deliberate on legislative matters. However, as a journalistic device, describing the decision as "Royal" conveys the journalists and editors feelings as to the importance and sincerity of the pardon.
- Stratoscope 13y ago
  wreegab was not objecting to the "royal", but to it being a pardon instead of an apology.
  - Brakenshire 13y ago
    The British government has already issued an apology. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8249792.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8249792.stm

Tloewald 13y ago

Somewhere between better than nothing and nothing.

nbody 13y ago

Ridiculous

louthy 13y ago
Would you like to expand upon that?
qwerta 13y ago
Exactly, it is like saying we forgive you for being...

sarreph 13y ago

The manner in which the document was written makes its authenticity strike me as highly surprising.

edw519 13y ago

How ironic, coming the same week as LGBT education sites are blocked by British "porn" filters. The best pardon to someone who is dead would be to stop doing similar misdeeds to those who are living.

scarmig 13y ago
The "porn" filters are stupid and creeping totalitarianism, but it's irresponsible and disrespectful to compare them to what was done to Turing. He was persecuted and prosecuted; publically humiliated; forced to receive hormonal injections that rendered him impotent; banned from traveling to the USA; essentially banned from any jobs involving cryptography or national security; and ultimately committed suicide in large part because of government sanctions. World of difference between that and a porous filter.
- pcrh 13y ago
  He was persecuted for his sexual orientation, and furthermore this was done despite his obvious contribution to the safety of the nation. This placed sexual mores as more important than national interest. A default information filter is currently being introduced by several ISPs in the UK, it starts by filtering sexual content. This is similar in concept to the attitudes that cause immense suffering to Turing, i.e. controlling the public expression and liberty of the sexual life is being considered as more important that protecting civil liberties such as freedom of information.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  >forced to receive hormonal injections that rendered him impotent // He wasn't forced to receive hormone injections he chose it in preference to serving a one year imprisonment. As an expert chemist he was no doubt aware of the implications of that choice. My reading of this has always been that his apparent predilection for picking up teenagers made him a massive security risk. Surely had he done the same with teenage girls he too would have been banned from jobs involving high level security clearance. It also strikes me that maybe Turing didn't like that element of his life? [I have a pop-psych theory on this all being related to a fixation on Morcom, his childhood friend who died. But 40-something men lusting for teenagers is common enough that the theory lacks support.]

soperj 13y ago

First step to knighthood?

codeoclock 13y ago
You can't be posthumously knighted. Furthermore, the title of Knight is revoked upon death - For example, when Sir Paul McCartney dies he will lose his title.

kirinan 13y ago

This falls under the category of too little too late. I get that traditions change throughout history, I get that some things that are acceptable now were unacceptable even 10 years ago, but this is a case where people should have looked the other way. Alan Turning is both a war hero and one of the greatest minds to ever live. To simply disregard someone like that because of their sexual orientation is both short sighted and a disgusting lack of humanity. Imagine how much further computing would be if he had lived longer? If he had been free to think and live without ridicule and the tests run on him?

tptacek 13y ago
Exactly false. People could have looked the other way, and Turing could have lived a longer, happier life, and we could all be that much less aware of the injustice done to hundreds of thousands of other LGBT people throughout the last century. The tragedy is the policy that cost Turing his life, not the fact that an exception wasn't made for him. It cost many more people than Turing.
- icambron 13y ago
  Yes, wow. To go further, there is something deeply troubling about the parent's line of reasoning: that the tip of its spear is that Turing could have helped computing more, and not that the law was heinous in its treatment of humanity. The priorities required to even think of a point like that baffle me.
  - scintill76 13y ago
    Especially ironic when it simultaneously uses phrases like "short sighted" and "disgusting lack of humanity."
scintill76 13y ago
Huh? Special people should be allowed to break laws the rest of us have to follow? Gays should not have been persecuted, but only if they were "war heroes" and had "great minds"? No, an unjust law is unjust to everyone! This is not tragic because it was done to somebody special, but it was done to thousands of "boring" others who may not get a pardon. (To say nothing of the original injustice that can't be taken back, or the fact that a pardon is not an admission of injustice.)

StavrosK 13y ago

Wouldn't it be much more forceful if his conviction remained as a mahnmal? Something to point at and say "here's what we did to a brilliant man because we were too small-minded to think otherwise"? All pardoning Turing does now is lead us to eventually forget the tragedy of his conviction.

badclient 13y ago

Pardon? For what? Thanks but no thanks.

a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
Buggery. It's been illegal many places for a very long time because it spreads disease. The sodomy laws were effectively repealed and we got AIDS. It was not a coincidence.
- skinnycow 13y ago
  Ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha. This is so amusingly silly and ignorant. No wonder the commentor's other posts are nearly full scale denial of racism and sexism. Yep. HIV has been waiting around for centuries of humans screwing each other (m/f, f/f, m/m, m/m/f/f/x/y/z) and they just waited until the British Empire came along, passed buggary laws, and then repealed them to take off. I wish I had you peoples' power of self delusion. I could just convince myself of all sorts of things that just fit my world view instead of reality.
- lostlogin 13y ago
  Do you really think the law made that much difference? Why not just pass a law requiring condom use. Would that make you happy?
- groovy2shoes 13y ago
  Sexual intercourse of any kind spreads disease. AIDS didn't become an epidemic because of anal intercourse. It's pretty clear that AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases spread just as well from almost any kind sexual activity, and many of them -- including AIDS -- spread from any transfer of bodily fluids at all. Going further, I'd wager that any form of interpersonal contact, even non-sexual, is as likely to spread some form of disease. Why not enact a law which requires any person to don a hazmat suit before venturing into public space? Or better yet, a law which forbids any person from entering public space?
  - a8da6b0c91d 13y ago

acheron 13y ago

75,000 men were convicted under the same law, of whom 26,000 are still alive. [1] Only Turing has been "pardoned". My understanding [2] is that the "pardon" implies there was nothing wrong with the law as such, just that Turing is forgiven for having broken it. So while I guess this is better than nothing, I don't know if it's really the way to go about it. [1] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/130719-0001.htm#13071970000373 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/t... [2] I am not a lawyer, nor British, so give my understanding as much weight as it deserves...

ska 13y ago
I think you may have hit on the crux of it. If any stronger repudiation were offered, would that be the government opening itself up to 25000 expensive lawsuits?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- lostlogin 13y ago
  I hope so, it should pay, and heavily. If it was my tax pound I'd support this. The minimum amount of harm this discrimination caused is pretty high, and there is little than can be done to correct this. Financial compensation is about the best thing actually possible, so do it while the victims are still alive. The lame option of waiting until 99% of the victims are dead, then offering some kind of pardon is vastly more likely however.
  - _Simon 13y ago
    "If it was my tax pound I'd support this." Well that's easy to say when it isn't. It is my tax pound and I don't. I don't support the posthumous pardon at all, and those calling for the posthumous knighthood are getting ridiculous. Everyone recognises the value of Turing's input to both the war effort and greater modern life, but sadly the man took his own life. Arguing over whose fault it was it pointless. Pardoning him now does nothing for him. It won't change the impact of his work and it won't produce the work that we lost because of this. Yes the law in the 1950 by todays standards was an ass, but that was the law at the time and the punishment was the punishment. Yes, through 21st century eyes it is abhorrent and I'm extremely glad that the law has changed and what happened to Turing doesn't happen any more, but... It's time that we move on.

Brakenshire 13y ago

The British state already formally apologized five years ago, under Gordon Brown, for Alan Turing's barbaric treatment. I can't see how a pardon adds anything to that. The best response is just to treat people humanely in the present.

vacri 13y ago
The apology was "We're sorry. The conviction still stands, however". The pardon takes care of the latter.

NAFV_P 13y ago

Turing died only a few years before the emergence of high level languages. I have often wondered if he would go for FORTRAN or LISP.

Stratoscope 13y ago
I like to think the answer would have been "both": Lisp for power and elegance, and Fortran for speed.

grad_ml 13y ago

BBC please do not make any of the royal drama news headlines.

lostlogin 13y ago

Thought I'd stick this link here - great place. http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk Last time I was there, 10 or 15 years ago, they were redecorating the house (can you call it that?). They had a load of really old fittings like taps etc in a skip. I still regret not asking if I could take one or 2. Having a few taps from that amazing place would be so great. I spent days of time there over the course of a year, and met a few of the people who worked their who knew Turing (by sight, not personally). You can see Turing's room at the place too. It was fascinating to talk to people who worked there during the amazing period Turing worked through.

elchief 13y ago

Lots of complaining on here, but I was glad to see it. The government certainly didn't have to. It doesn't have to pardon everyone convicted of a crime that is no longer a crime. It was a good thing to do for a good man, and I commend them.

MLR 13y ago
There have been countless people prosecuted due to unjust laws; society changes, and as that happens laws change. Every single one of those people should be given a pardon, or none of them should.

mydpy 13y ago

About f*cking time, but is it enough? No, but hopefully we won't need to worry about things like this in the future. Progress is progress and I'll take it.

microtherion 13y ago

The infinite tape of justice winds slowly, but grinds exceedingly fine.

bitsteak 13y ago

Scumbag Hacker News: Admires spies only after they're dead.

lostlogin 13y ago
You really compare the NSA to activities at Bletchley Park, fighting Nazis?
- infinity0 13y ago
  Unfortunately, that is just what the British intelligence community are doing over here. It's a fucking disgrace, but I wonder if the timing of this pardon is because of that. They had the chance to do this a year ago, but didn't.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  NSA are fighting terrorism, which probably includes some Nazis somewhere in the mix. That aside it does seem the current groundswell of public opinion is firmly against all spying?
thrillgore 13y ago
SO MUCH EDGE

Rogerh91 13y ago

You know, I was just reading a WSJ special on how returning PTSD-afflicted veterans were lobotomized... Reading back on what happened to Turing and countless other homosexuals gives me those same chills. What a simple pleasure it is to live in the era we do now. No, not everything is perfect, but so much has improved, and it's up to all of us to improve things even further, and to keep the momentum going.

Datsundere 13y ago

59 years late.

kimonos 13y ago

It would have been better if he was still alive when he was pardoned...

alan_cx 13y ago

This is politically motivated nonsense. At right wing government trying to prove its not homophobic. Yes the Queen issued the pardon, but it wont have been done without the government being consulted. Pardoning one person like this when thousands suffered is an insult. They should have either pardoned everyone who was convicted under these laws, or none of them. Favouring one man because of his historical significance is creating a two tier justice system. And frankly, I find the whole thing problematic. Judging the past by todays standards is just wrong to my mind. He did break the law as it stood, right or wrong. Its not like we now have evidence he was innocent of the charges. What do we do, go over all the past laws that have been repealed, pardoning every one who was convicted along the way? That would be insane. What about the reverse? Surely if we are to pardon people who got convicted under laws that we have now repealed, we should go back and try any one in the past who has committed acts which are now crimes but were not then. Yes, Turing is of huge historical significance. What happened to him was awful and tragic. If the notion that he wiped 2 years of WW2 is not over exaggerated, millions owe him their lives and freedoms. There for not just a great scientist, but a world figure of huge significance. But, this is not the right way to honour him. And from what I can see, is shameless political points scoring by a weak government concerned with its gay credentials. If it were me, I would have left the conviction alone, let it stand as a reminders of our stupid homophobic past (1), and perhaps done something like having a national Turing Day, which could celebrate science and open humanity. Or something like that. (1) Not so stupid. Problem back then was that the vast majority of people were disgusted by homosexuality. So, obviously they kept it quiet. If they got found out, they suffered. Problem for organisation concerned with secrecy, is that the social pressure placed on gay people made them easy and obvious targets for espionage. They were easily black mailed. Now a days, most people have no problem with homosexuality, so the threat of being outed is weak. The problem back then was not government, its was the social attitude in general to gay people. There for, to me it is wrong for the public to point fingers at the government. Had the public not been so prejudiced, the government could have kept their genius employed, and alive. Its our fault as a society. Government had to operate in that context. It had no choice really. And of course many people in that government would have had the same attitude as the public. But in the end, it was our fault, our shame, as a society. And that is what we should remember.

13y ago

tekkanphan 13y ago

They should give a royal apology

sanoli 13y ago

Yes, they apologized 5 years ago, and now there's a pardon. As an important abolitionist from my country once wrote, "Justice that is late is not justice".

kopos 13y ago

Should this not have been an "apology" instead of a "pardon"?

cmpaul 13y ago
Prime Minister Gordon Brown had already issued an apology in 2009.

infruset 13y ago

Wait. Someone who has a title and shitloads of money just because they were born is pardoning one of the greatest geniuses of the 20th century, as an act of kindness? How does such an undeserving leftover of the middle ages even have a say in this?

johneth 13y ago
You're misunderstanding the power that the Queen has. Just because it's a 'Royal pardon', it doesn't mean that she actually pushed for it. The opposite is true, in fact (the Queen is a symbolic head of state, and does not interfere politically - anything you hear the Queen doing is almost certainly at the request of the UK government).
- infruset 13y ago
  Granted. But still, symbolically, that's how it sounds, so maybe there's a problem with this system? What I mean is that even if it's done at the request of the government, that's only a description of the political backstage, but in public it is expressed as the monarchy's doing ("royal" pardon).
  - hahainternet 13y ago
    > so maybe there's a problem with this system? There are many problems. When you find a better system to replace it with, then let us know. Until then throwing away a millenia of history so we can have President Cameron sounds like hell to me.
    - infruset 13y ago
      Well, any democratic system in which no citizen is institutionally above every other citizen by mere reason of being born certainly seems better to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to troll. It's just that I would have a really hard time living in a country where such privileges by birth exist.

Kliment 13y ago

The actual pardon: http://cryptome.org/2013/12/turing-pardon.pdf http://cryptome.org/2013/12/turing-pardon.pdf

bluecalm 13y ago

Instead of pardoning bullshit get him a chapter in elementary school history books. Chapter about a man, who greatly contributed to modern science and the war effort and was prosecuted by bigoted fanatics running the country. Then warn about similar attitudes displayed today and teach the children to recognize them along with their gloomy consequences. That would do some actual good instead of insignificant PR gesture of pardoning.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

Have we ruled out the possibility that the UK government is more desperate to legitimize code breaking than to exonerate a mistreated war hero? I don't think that's the case, but these days it's getting harder to be sure.

enen 13y ago

Anyone know a good movie/book on his life?

nayefc 13y ago

Unrelated to the topic, but: > He said the research Turing carried out during the war at Bletchley Park undoubtedly shortened the conflict and saved thousands of lives. Clear example of "history is written by the victors". The Allies were as guilty in the war as the other side. Neither side's goal was to "shorten the conflict and save lives" but to "defeat the other side" with no regards to human life.

SimonPStevens 13y ago

What I find most intriguing about this is the how a law that was enforced only 50 years ago has so quickly become abhorrent to the majority of the population. It's an interesting thought experiment to consider which laws we routinely use today to punish people will become morally unacceptable in the next 50 years. Copyright and patent laws, and laws used against Snowden's whistle blowing are some obvious ones that are due for changes, but what's more interesting is if history continues to repeat itself it seems likely that some things we consider wrong now will become acceptable in the near future and the reverse is also true. This is much harder to predict. (Humans driving cars is a reverse example. I think in the next 50 years it will become illegal for humans to drive cars manually except on private racing circuits)

jiggy2011 13y ago
I doubt that we would need to make human driving illegal. More likely automated cars become so popular and cheap that a generation grows up without learning how to drive manually and outside of a subset of enthusiasts human driven cars simply start to disappear from the market. We already have driving assistance systems like ABS and computers which will automatically apply brakes which can reduce the risk of accidents but we don't mandate that all vehicles on the road use them.
- SimonPStevens 13y ago
  Computer breaking is still relatively new. Give the law time to catch up. Seatbelts were optional when I was a child, but mandatory now (UK). But yes, I do agree. Human driving may well just become unpopular rather than illegal.
gizmo686 13y ago
The cases you cite seem fundamentally different from the anti-gay laws under discussion. Copyright and patent laws, even if we look back and say they were stupid, we would still be able to point to the problems that they were designed to solve (of which they have solved somewhat), and view them as a reasonable attempt. Similarly, we would recognize that humans driving cars was okay not because of of a poor moral system, but rather because we had no better alternative. I suspect that some of the areas we will look back on in a similar way are drug laws and sex laws (we still have prostitution, child porn, and statutory rape, all of which seem immoral only in a cultural sense).

thrillgore 13y ago

Finally.

jackmaney 13y ago

Way too little, way too late.

huherto 13y ago

The queen was already reigning when Alan Turing was brought to trail. May be the queen is who needs to be pardoned.

vithlani 13y ago

Let this be a reminder to all hackers and geniuses out there: protect yourself from your society. You exist purely at the mercy of your physical realm. It does not matter how essential your discoveries, how profitable, how useful to mankind, how breathtaking. If you are perceived as being a risk (through something simple like your sexuality) you will be ground to dust. The decision will be made (perhaps justifiably) but it will be executed by the worst sort of petty human being: bureaucrats, under achievers, jealous men and beasts in human form who have been handed down power by the state. They will unleash a torrent of hellfire in your life. This beast does not discriminate: weather a gathering of Sikhs in a park, tribes of Africans or a sole genius with an arguably significant contribution to the war effort - to the beast they are all one once the order has been given. Always ensure you have some form of protection and a way out. The British establishment should be ashamed of themselves. They have tolerated homosexuality for centuries among the upper classes up to and including the royals. To grind down a man on the level of Turing with for such an absurd reason is an act of criminal stupidity. All the more so after his efforts during the war. The computer science community all the world over should reject this "pardon" and ask the queen to stuff it up her posterior.