3 ms·

I don't think the weapons analogy is a good one. For the developer of the software the purchase of the "weapon" is also essentially makes all other instances of

I don't think the weapons analogy is a good one. For the developer of the software the purchase of the "weapon" is also essentially makes all other instances of that weapon useless forever (assuming customers patch promptly). Perhaps restricting the analogy to nuclear weapons would make sense. Only nation states (software companies) and terrorists (malicious hackers... and perhaps intelligence agencies) would be interested in purchasing such weapons.

hawkice 12y ago
I think that is one of many salient differences between the scenarios. My thought is: if one argument is good and another is bad, clearly the reason for the difference does not exist within the properties they share. It must exist where the arguments are different, or more likely in this case (as what the poster said and what I said are so similar), in the outside world of facts and understanding. But if the shape of the argument allows for things that may successfully convince you, then clearly that information is not enough to dismiss it outright. It should be the start of a dialog with the parent comment. Now, for something completely different: If, for some reason, you want to actually engage _me_ on this particular policy issue, angle your thought at this: my understanding is that it's 2014, and if you want to regulate the information people share or sell over the internet you've accepted a challenge I do not envy. I would be particularly skeptical you could do this without building a comprehensive computer spying system and perhaps outlawing crypto (it's been tried), as you're trying to read communications of highly security-conscious people. As for if Mitnick is a good person (or similar things under discussion here), I have not met him.
- razster 12y ago
  If and when you do meet him, just take all he says with a grain of salt. Very full of himself :)

hawkice 12y ago

I think that is one of many salient differences between the scenarios. My thought is: if one argument is good and another is bad, clearly the reason for the difference does not exist within the properties they share. It must exist where the arguments are different, or more likely in this case (as what the poster said and what I said are so similar), in the outside world of facts and understanding. But if the shape of the argument allows for things that may successfully convince you, then clearly that information is not enough to dismiss it outright. It should be the start of a dialog with the parent comment. Now, for something completely different: If, for some reason, you want to actually engage _me_ on this particular policy issue, angle your thought at this: my understanding is that it's 2014, and if you want to regulate the information people share or sell over the internet you've accepted a challenge I do not envy. I would be particularly skeptical you could do this without building a comprehensive computer spying system and perhaps outlawing crypto (it's been tried), as you're trying to read communications of highly security-conscious people. As for if Mitnick is a good person (or similar things under discussion here), I have not met him.

razster 12y ago
If and when you do meet him, just take all he says with a grain of salt. Very full of himself :)