8 ms·

1) There is nothing that indicates that this "encryption upgrade" wasn't planned for some time. Correlation ≠ causation, and all that. 2) The very word "terror

1) There is nothing that indicates that this "encryption upgrade" wasn't planned for some time. Correlation ≠ causation, and all that. 2) The very word "terrorist" is disputed, and depends on your side in any given dispute. It is the "high treason" of the 20th and 21st century, an accusation or insinuation used mainly for political reasons and not for actual utility: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism "In the international community, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition." 3) The fact that 21st century treason is being casually associated with open source is DEEPLY disconcerting to me. I would go to war for a very few things, but any attack on open source is a direct attack on me AFAIC.

tptacek 12y ago
The idea that al Qaeda might not be a terrorist group is a false controversy, as is the idea that participating in open source might be treason.
- atmosx 12y ago
  I think it's safe to assume that a 15 year old kid in Palestine is much more terrorised at the sight of Benjamin Netanyahu than Bin Laden. It's also safe to assume that a kid in Ukraine is terrorised by Russians or by US/EU depending on which side of the country was he lives. So, to you Al Qaeda is a terrorist group and I totally get that (to me too). But you have to understand that to Afghans (and a huge load of populations worldwide) the USA/NATO is the terrorist group. That's why what @lectrick said is right I'm afraid. So either we can assume that all of these parties are terrorists since they indulge in actions of terrorism ?
  - bkmartin 12y ago
    Is it? Which part of Palestine? Gaza or the West Bank? I guess that maybe it is true, since Bin Laden is dead and Netanyahu is alive...you got me there... Ukrainian kids terrorized by US/EU? Really? What are you talking about? Even in the rebel held areas, how has the US/EU EVER terrorized them? To some Afghans, we could be seen that way, but most of the population in Afghanistan would rather not take their chances with the Taliban (A terrorist group). Actions of Terrorism. What exactly are they? Admittedly, we have caused more collateral casualties than I'm comfortable with at times in our fight against terror. But innocent civilians are NEVER OUR TARGET. And that is the differentiating factor here. Terrorists aim to take down societies, not governments. Everyone in that society is considered the enemy. Look at Afghanistan... Taliban goes around beheading people of a different sect of their own faith, they behead non-believers as well as government officials. If you aren't for us, then you are against us mentality. Bin Laden finds a way to fly 2 planes into the twin towers in NYC, killing thousands of innocent people. Not to mention all the previous attempts to blow up those buildings in years prior, lest you forget that. So yes, there is a difference in what we are doing in the war on terror. Have we executed perfectly? No way. Have we overreached and done things that I disagree with? Yep. But one thing is damn certain, the motivations of our actions are not the same as the terrorists.
    - celticninja 12y ago
      The motivation behind the attacks don't matter, the effect on the population being attacked does. The US is/was terrorised by Al-Qaeda and afghans and Pakistanis are being terrorised by the US (e.g drone warfare). This is a site with predominantly US and Western users so Al-Qaeda will always be the terrorists and America the freedom fighters but change the geographic location of the people you are asking and you change the labels being applied.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
    - atmosx 12y ago
      > But innocent civilians are NEVER OUR TARGET. I'm getting for granted that you are the USA. So in order to avoid never-ending discussions here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 They look pretty much civilians to me. ps. You know, the guy who released this video... Is hiding in an Embassy in the UK because he is terrorised by someone who call him a terrorist, food for thought!
      - bkmartin 12y ago
        I see you've been downvoted.. thankfully. If you would watch that video, which I reluctantly did... because I want to make sure that I'm speaking from the right position, then you would see that in the beginning of that there were 2 men with AK-47s in the open plus one with an RPG. Notice throughout they were verifying that weapons were present. Its a terrible tragedy that any innocent people died in that sequence of events as there appears to be 2 journalists that had. But they were not TARGETED EVEN WHEN KNOWN OR THOUGHT TO BE INNOCENT. Notice that they wouldn't even take a kill shot on the injured journalist (which they had no idea he was) until they could verify that he was going to pick up a weapon! So while it is tragic, I don't see how that video proves that was are purposely targeting innocent people.
        atmosx 12y ago
  - kasey_junk 12y ago
    I think it is pretty obvious to most people that there is a difference between actions that terrorize someone and big 'T' Terrorism. If there wasn't, any act of violence can be seen as an act of Terrorism. So while the US/NATO armed forces (who display uniforms, have a strict command structure, are bound by international law, etc.) might be seen as an occupation/invasion force, they cannot reasonably called a Terrorist organization. Terrorist organizations systematically target non-combatants in order to achieve their goals, do not display uniforms or have a command structure that can be entreated with. You cannot make a peace treaty with Al Qaeda for instance, you can with NATO. To act as if both groups are equivalent makes it impossible to have useful discussions about the morality of violence. There are many people that feel like there is no moral difference between the violence perpetrated by these groups, but that doesn't mean that they can be lumped together into the same sorts of violent activities.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    Whatever redeeming qualities this comment may have had, it was absolutely certain to lead to a political flame war.
- celticninja 12y ago
  One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I grew up in Northern Ireland in the 70,s and 80's. The distinction between the 2 depended on which street you lived on and which street they lived on. Usually they were no more than a stones throw from one another.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Well, one axis on which we can evaluate this issue: is the group in question (a) fighting for freedom or (b) fighting to prevent women from seeing doctors or driving cars? If (b), we can comfortably assume: "not freedom fighters".
    - celticninja 12y ago
      Your definition of freedom differs from theirs. They belive in the freedom to follow their religion as they belive it should be followed. Their supporters believe in the same freedom. Your definition of freedom (and indeed mine) is very different. But you would be foolish to think that they thought of themselves as the bad guys and that they had no support amongst the local populace. m.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY
- belorn 12y ago
  The term terrorist get diluted when you count all military-age males in a strike zone as terrorists, as is/was the method used by the US military.
meowface 12y ago
Where in the world are you getting #2 and #3? Al Qaeda is very clearly a terrorist group, and no where in that article is it suggested that open source software is either treasonous or related to terrorism, nor does it say the NSA thinks this.
- djb_hackernews 12y ago
  Honest question, what is a terrorist group?
- snarfy 12y ago
  Al Qaeda literally translated means 'the camp'. They would catch people proclaiming they had to 'get back to al qaeda'. There is no organization. That's just TV make believe, a label they put on any group that doesn't like western views and is a possible threat. "It must be another Al Qaeda cell." It's all nonsense.
  - walshemj 12y ago
    This is meaningless semantics a word can have more than one meaning eg "hacker" and one real word example Sinn Féin means Ourselves Alone so that means the IRA and PIRA are not Terrorist organisations?
    - snarfy 12y ago
      The point is there is not one overarching mastermind organization controlling it all, but that's what it's made out to be. They might as well call it COBRA so they can send GI Joe in to save the day. Al Qaeda. Bah. If the IRA didn't exist long before 9/11, they would have been labeled Al Qaeda too.
      - meowface 12y ago
        Your interpretation is not right. Al Qaeda is not all orchestrated by one mastermind, but it is a consortium of related Islamist extremist groups. It's pretty safe to say that anyone who identifies as a member of Al Qaeda is interested in killing civilians.
bayesianhorse 12y ago
Terrorism in this case is pretty much the intended meaning of the word. These campaigns are launched from a position of weakness to instill fear in a stronger enemy, and especially targets civilians. ISIS arguably isn't a terrorist organization anymore, because it is engaging in some sort of nation building. Still their actions are terrible and what most who don't share their particular interpretation of Islam would call "evil".

tptacek 12y ago

The idea that al Qaeda might not be a terrorist group is a false controversy, as is the idea that participating in open source might be treason.

atmosx 12y ago
I think it's safe to assume that a 15 year old kid in Palestine is much more terrorised at the sight of Benjamin Netanyahu than Bin Laden. It's also safe to assume that a kid in Ukraine is terrorised by Russians or by US/EU depending on which side of the country was he lives. So, to you Al Qaeda is a terrorist group and I totally get that (to me too). But you have to understand that to Afghans (and a huge load of populations worldwide) the USA/NATO is the terrorist group. That's why what @lectrick said is right I'm afraid. So either we can assume that all of these parties are terrorists since they indulge in actions of terrorism ?
- bkmartin 12y ago
  Is it? Which part of Palestine? Gaza or the West Bank? I guess that maybe it is true, since Bin Laden is dead and Netanyahu is alive...you got me there... Ukrainian kids terrorized by US/EU? Really? What are you talking about? Even in the rebel held areas, how has the US/EU EVER terrorized them? To some Afghans, we could be seen that way, but most of the population in Afghanistan would rather not take their chances with the Taliban (A terrorist group). Actions of Terrorism. What exactly are they? Admittedly, we have caused more collateral casualties than I'm comfortable with at times in our fight against terror. But innocent civilians are NEVER OUR TARGET. And that is the differentiating factor here. Terrorists aim to take down societies, not governments. Everyone in that society is considered the enemy. Look at Afghanistan... Taliban goes around beheading people of a different sect of their own faith, they behead non-believers as well as government officials. If you aren't for us, then you are against us mentality. Bin Laden finds a way to fly 2 planes into the twin towers in NYC, killing thousands of innocent people. Not to mention all the previous attempts to blow up those buildings in years prior, lest you forget that. So yes, there is a difference in what we are doing in the war on terror. Have we executed perfectly? No way. Have we overreached and done things that I disagree with? Yep. But one thing is damn certain, the motivations of our actions are not the same as the terrorists.
  - celticninja 12y ago
    The motivation behind the attacks don't matter, the effect on the population being attacked does. The US is/was terrorised by Al-Qaeda and afghans and Pakistanis are being terrorised by the US (e.g drone warfare). This is a site with predominantly US and Western users so Al-Qaeda will always be the terrorists and America the freedom fighters but change the geographic location of the people you are asking and you change the labels being applied.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - atmosx 12y ago
    > But innocent civilians are NEVER OUR TARGET. I'm getting for granted that you are the USA. So in order to avoid never-ending discussions here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 They look pretty much civilians to me. ps. You know, the guy who released this video... Is hiding in an Embassy in the UK because he is terrorised by someone who call him a terrorist, food for thought!
    - bkmartin 12y ago
      I see you've been downvoted.. thankfully. If you would watch that video, which I reluctantly did... because I want to make sure that I'm speaking from the right position, then you would see that in the beginning of that there were 2 men with AK-47s in the open plus one with an RPG. Notice throughout they were verifying that weapons were present. Its a terrible tragedy that any innocent people died in that sequence of events as there appears to be 2 journalists that had. But they were not TARGETED EVEN WHEN KNOWN OR THOUGHT TO BE INNOCENT. Notice that they wouldn't even take a kill shot on the injured journalist (which they had no idea he was) until they could verify that he was going to pick up a weapon! So while it is tragic, I don't see how that video proves that was are purposely targeting innocent people.
      - atmosx 12y ago
- kasey_junk 12y ago
  I think it is pretty obvious to most people that there is a difference between actions that terrorize someone and big 'T' Terrorism. If there wasn't, any act of violence can be seen as an act of Terrorism. So while the US/NATO armed forces (who display uniforms, have a strict command structure, are bound by international law, etc.) might be seen as an occupation/invasion force, they cannot reasonably called a Terrorist organization. Terrorist organizations systematically target non-combatants in order to achieve their goals, do not display uniforms or have a command structure that can be entreated with. You cannot make a peace treaty with Al Qaeda for instance, you can with NATO. To act as if both groups are equivalent makes it impossible to have useful discussions about the morality of violence. There are many people that feel like there is no moral difference between the violence perpetrated by these groups, but that doesn't mean that they can be lumped together into the same sorts of violent activities.
- danielweber 12y ago
  Whatever redeeming qualities this comment may have had, it was absolutely certain to lead to a political flame war.
celticninja 12y ago
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I grew up in Northern Ireland in the 70,s and 80's. The distinction between the 2 depended on which street you lived on and which street they lived on. Usually they were no more than a stones throw from one another.
- tptacek 12y ago
  Well, one axis on which we can evaluate this issue: is the group in question (a) fighting for freedom or (b) fighting to prevent women from seeing doctors or driving cars? If (b), we can comfortably assume: "not freedom fighters".
  - celticninja 12y ago
    Your definition of freedom differs from theirs. They belive in the freedom to follow their religion as they belive it should be followed. Their supporters believe in the same freedom. Your definition of freedom (and indeed mine) is very different. But you would be foolish to think that they thought of themselves as the bad guys and that they had no support amongst the local populace. m.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY
belorn 12y ago
The term terrorist get diluted when you count all military-age males in a strike zone as terrorists, as is/was the method used by the US military.

meowface 12y ago

Where in the world are you getting #2 and #3? Al Qaeda is very clearly a terrorist group, and no where in that article is it suggested that open source software is either treasonous or related to terrorism, nor does it say the NSA thinks this.

djb_hackernews 12y ago
Honest question, what is a terrorist group?
snarfy 12y ago
Al Qaeda literally translated means 'the camp'. They would catch people proclaiming they had to 'get back to al qaeda'. There is no organization. That's just TV make believe, a label they put on any group that doesn't like western views and is a possible threat. "It must be another Al Qaeda cell." It's all nonsense.
- walshemj 12y ago
  This is meaningless semantics a word can have more than one meaning eg "hacker" and one real word example Sinn Féin means Ourselves Alone so that means the IRA and PIRA are not Terrorist organisations?
  - snarfy 12y ago
    The point is there is not one overarching mastermind organization controlling it all, but that's what it's made out to be. They might as well call it COBRA so they can send GI Joe in to save the day. Al Qaeda. Bah. If the IRA didn't exist long before 9/11, they would have been labeled Al Qaeda too.
    - meowface 12y ago
      Your interpretation is not right. Al Qaeda is not all orchestrated by one mastermind, but it is a consortium of related Islamist extremist groups. It's pretty safe to say that anyone who identifies as a member of Al Qaeda is interested in killing civilians.

bayesianhorse 12y ago

Terrorism in this case is pretty much the intended meaning of the word. These campaigns are launched from a position of weakness to instill fear in a stronger enemy, and especially targets civilians. ISIS arguably isn't a terrorist organization anymore, because it is engaging in some sort of nation building. Still their actions are terrible and what most who don't share their particular interpretation of Islam would call "evil".