3 ms·

Look, I agree that this is probably commercial spamming, not government, but let's cut out the "tinfoil hat" bullshit accusations, OK? It's ad hominem and it's

by jnbiche 13y ago

Look, I agree that this is probably commercial spamming, not government, but let's cut out the "tinfoil hat" bullshit accusations, OK? It's ad hominem and it's often meant to suppress speculation about possible government misdeeds. Many of those who were accused of wearing tinfoil hats because of their views on government surveillance turned out to be pretty reasonable after all, no?

diminoten 13y ago
By definition, "tinfoil hat" has to do with a poorly supported argument, e.g. a conspiracy theory. If anything, it's begging the question. At any rate, no, I will not stop it. This guy is crying wolf and he needs to be called on it.
- jnbiche 13y ago
  >At any rate, no, I will not stop it. Fine, keep pulling that term out on HN and you will be seen as a provocateur, whether or not you actually are one. Edit: And in case it's not clear, I actually do agree that the "botnet" likely has no connection to the government.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    Seen by you as a provocateur, which frankly I'm alright with, Internet stranger.
hueving 13y ago
>Many of those who were accused of wearing tinfoil hats because of their views on government surveillance turned out to be pretty reasonable after all, no? No. In the security community much of this stuff was given serious thought and systems were developed to defend against these types of things (see TPMs). The only real surprise was the way it was being done to reckless abandon. There is a difference between the tinfoil hat approach of just envisioning things evil organizations/governments might do and assuming an intelligence gathering agency is gathering as much information as it can. The more I think about it, your argument is so bad I wish I didn't even waste the time responding. You are just providing a completely unrelated example to try to give weight to baseless drivel. You could have just as easily used the same argument to support the argument that the moon-landing was faked.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

by jnbiche 13y ago

diminoten 13y ago

By definition, "tinfoil hat" has to do with a poorly supported argument, e.g. a conspiracy theory. If anything, it's begging the question. At any rate, no, I will not stop it. This guy is crying wolf and he needs to be called on it.

jnbiche 13y ago
>At any rate, no, I will not stop it. Fine, keep pulling that term out on HN and you will be seen as a provocateur, whether or not you actually are one. Edit: And in case it's not clear, I actually do agree that the "botnet" likely has no connection to the government.
- diminoten 13y ago
  Seen by you as a provocateur, which frankly I'm alright with, Internet stranger.

hueving 13y ago

>Many of those who were accused of wearing tinfoil hats because of their views on government surveillance turned out to be pretty reasonable after all, no? No. In the security community much of this stuff was given serious thought and systems were developed to defend against these types of things (see TPMs). The only real surprise was the way it was being done to reckless abandon. There is a difference between the tinfoil hat approach of just envisioning things evil organizations/governments might do and assuming an intelligence gathering agency is gathering as much information as it can. The more I think about it, your argument is so bad I wish I didn't even waste the time responding. You are just providing a completely unrelated example to try to give weight to baseless drivel. You could have just as easily used the same argument to support the argument that the moon-landing was faked.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]