4 ms·

The original claim is outlandish and devoid of any perspective, but comparing this to the "War on Terror" is just mind boggling. You do realize that there's a w

The original claim is outlandish and devoid of any perspective, but comparing this to the "War on Terror" is just mind boggling. You do realize that there's a world outside the US where the "War on Terror" has had some pretty devastating effects. Or was that a joke?

Crito 13y ago
Oh fucking christ, I am not having the conversation in two places at once: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7110399 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7110399 My comparison between Hacker Panic to the War on Terror is not meant to imply that a few teenagers getting sent to prison for decades is equivalent in any respect to raining missiles down on wedding parties. It is a statement about the motivation of the people driving it. It isn't motivated by fear of civil rights movements, or a desire to continue segregation under the radar. Rather it is about using irrational fear to facilitate power grabs and justify pointless expenditures (In the case of hackers: any government program that has the word "Cyber" in it. In the case of terrorists: damn near everything else).
- tptacek 13y ago
  Which teenagers in prison for decades were you referring to?
  - Crito 13y ago
    I did not have any specific case in mind, and undoubtedly you are now going to nitpick at me and tell me that there are no cases like that. I meant it as a throw-away example of harm that could conceivably be caused by Hacker Panic to emphasis the absurd difference between the severity of Hacker Panic and the severity of the War on Terror. Just to make you happy though, here, I'll fix it: > "My comparison between Hacker Panic to the War on Terror is not meant to imply that a few teenagers being scolded by cops is equivalent in any respect to raining missiles down on wedding parties."
    - tptacek 13y ago
      You said: "My comparison between Hacker Panic to the War on Terror is not meant to imply that a few teenagers getting sent to prison for decades is equivalent in any respect to raining missiles down on wedding parties." The observation that there may not be any teenagers that have spent a decade in custody, let alone several, is not a nitpick on that claim. By way of comparison, Kevin Mitnick, a high-profile serial-offending adult about whom multiple books were written, spent 5 years in prison.
      - Crito 13y ago
        Here, I'll fix it: > "My comparison between Hacker Panic to the War on Terror is not meant to imply that a few teenagers being scolded by cops is equivalent in any respect to raining missiles down on wedding parties." This is entirely non-material to the point I am making. Frankly, if anything, it strengthens it. You are nitpicking.
- hansjorg 13y ago
  To see the War on Terror as chiefly about domestic power grabs and pointless expenditures is the prerogative of US tax payers and US citizens, but it's also a pretty narrow point of view. If you're going to make coarse, meaningless comparisons and only after that narrowing it down with qualifications, I guess the original article was right. Hacker Panic is the new War on Drugs. Except for all the ways it is not, of course.
  - Crito 13y ago
    It's not just about domestic power, and even if it was, it would not effect the veracity of the comparison. The War on Terror uses racism as a tool. The War on Drugs is waged because of racism. Racism was not simply a tool used by the War on Drugs, it was the reason for it in the first place. Is the Hacker Panic created and driven by fear of hackers, or is fear of hackers merely a tool being used to achieve another goal? I am arguing it is the later. > "I guess the original article was right. Hacker Panic is the new War on Drugs. Except for all the ways it is not, of course." I am saying that the War on Terror is a more apt and useful comparison if we want to answer any "why" questions. The comparison to the War on Drugs does not give us any useful insight.
  - nate_meurer 13y ago
    May I ask you what exactly the War on Terror is "chiefly" about then? For example, perhaps you could tell us exactly what drove the war in Iraq, aside from corporate economic interests. And perhaps you could explain the explosive growth of our government's surveillance powers in terms that don't include "domestic power grab"? Eagerly awaiting your thoughtful analysis.
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  The problem with the U.S. "War on Terror" is not that it is an irrational program that was trumped up to facilitate corruption. The problem is that it is a program that was created rationally in response to a truly horrible set of terrorist attacks. That is a problem because most U.S. citizens don't want to be corrupt. What they want is to serve a good cause, and be effective in doing so. The "War on Terror" gives them both. And that's a problem because it makes it much, much harder for people waging that "war" to perceive the tradeoffs they create, and the lines they cross.
  - Crito 13y ago
    The War on Terror is an irrational response. The attacks presented an existential threat to the country only so far as we overreacted to the threats. Even if we assume that invasions of countries were a justified and rational response, we still invaded the wrong countries. The fear of terrorism was itself irrational, 4k people is a rounding error in the grand scheme of things, but humans are awful at evaluating risk.

Crito 13y ago

Oh fucking christ, I am not having the conversation in two places at once: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7110399 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7110399 My comparison between Hacker Panic to the War on Terror is not meant to imply that a few teenagers getting sent to prison for decades is equivalent in any respect to raining missiles down on wedding parties. It is a statement about the motivation of the people driving it. It isn't motivated by fear of civil rights movements, or a desire to continue segregation under the radar. Rather it is about using irrational fear to facilitate power grabs and justify pointless expenditures (In the case of hackers: any government program that has the word "Cyber" in it. In the case of terrorists: damn near everything else).

tptacek 13y ago
Which teenagers in prison for decades were you referring to?
- Crito 13y ago
  I did not have any specific case in mind, and undoubtedly you are now going to nitpick at me and tell me that there are no cases like that. I meant it as a throw-away example of harm that could conceivably be caused by Hacker Panic to emphasis the absurd difference between the severity of Hacker Panic and the severity of the War on Terror. Just to make you happy though, here, I'll fix it: > "My comparison between Hacker Panic to the War on Terror is not meant to imply that a few teenagers being scolded by cops is equivalent in any respect to raining missiles down on wedding parties."
  - tptacek 13y ago
    You said: "My comparison between Hacker Panic to the War on Terror is not meant to imply that a few teenagers getting sent to prison for decades is equivalent in any respect to raining missiles down on wedding parties." The observation that there may not be any teenagers that have spent a decade in custody, let alone several, is not a nitpick on that claim. By way of comparison, Kevin Mitnick, a high-profile serial-offending adult about whom multiple books were written, spent 5 years in prison.
    - Crito 13y ago
      Here, I'll fix it: > "My comparison between Hacker Panic to the War on Terror is not meant to imply that a few teenagers being scolded by cops is equivalent in any respect to raining missiles down on wedding parties." This is entirely non-material to the point I am making. Frankly, if anything, it strengthens it. You are nitpicking.
hansjorg 13y ago
To see the War on Terror as chiefly about domestic power grabs and pointless expenditures is the prerogative of US tax payers and US citizens, but it's also a pretty narrow point of view. If you're going to make coarse, meaningless comparisons and only after that narrowing it down with qualifications, I guess the original article was right. Hacker Panic is the new War on Drugs. Except for all the ways it is not, of course.
- Crito 13y ago
  It's not just about domestic power, and even if it was, it would not effect the veracity of the comparison. The War on Terror uses racism as a tool. The War on Drugs is waged because of racism. Racism was not simply a tool used by the War on Drugs, it was the reason for it in the first place. Is the Hacker Panic created and driven by fear of hackers, or is fear of hackers merely a tool being used to achieve another goal? I am arguing it is the later. > "I guess the original article was right. Hacker Panic is the new War on Drugs. Except for all the ways it is not, of course." I am saying that the War on Terror is a more apt and useful comparison if we want to answer any "why" questions. The comparison to the War on Drugs does not give us any useful insight.
- nate_meurer 13y ago
  May I ask you what exactly the War on Terror is "chiefly" about then? For example, perhaps you could tell us exactly what drove the war in Iraq, aside from corporate economic interests. And perhaps you could explain the explosive growth of our government's surveillance powers in terms that don't include "domestic power grab"? Eagerly awaiting your thoughtful analysis.
snowwrestler 13y ago
The problem with the U.S. "War on Terror" is not that it is an irrational program that was trumped up to facilitate corruption. The problem is that it is a program that was created rationally in response to a truly horrible set of terrorist attacks. That is a problem because most U.S. citizens don't want to be corrupt. What they want is to serve a good cause, and be effective in doing so. The "War on Terror" gives them both. And that's a problem because it makes it much, much harder for people waging that "war" to perceive the tradeoffs they create, and the lines they cross.
- Crito 13y ago
  The War on Terror is an irrational response. The attacks presented an existential threat to the country only so far as we overreacted to the threats. Even if we assume that invasions of countries were a justified and rational response, we still invaded the wrong countries. The fear of terrorism was itself irrational, 4k people is a rounding error in the grand scheme of things, but humans are awful at evaluating risk.