4 ms·

There is a distinction between crime and acts that are morally wrong. For instance hiding Jews from the Nazis would be a crime from the Nazis point of view. But

by olefoo 12y ago

There is a distinction between crime and acts that are morally wrong. For instance hiding Jews from the Nazis would be a crime from the Nazis point of view. But most anyone else would consider it to be the right thing to do. And given the increasing militarization of the police in the US, and the US governments openly acknowledged policy of torture and refusal to prosecute war criminals...[1] You should question whether or not your government is legitimate enough to be trusted in matters criminal and judicial. And since the most likely utility of a program like this one, is to prevent the heimatsicherheit from also wrapping up your friends and family. It may in fact be your moral duty to ensure the safety of others in your affinity group by taking such precautions. 1. as a sidenote the US incarcerates a greater percentage of it's population than soviet Russia ever did, even under Stalin.

robkix 12y ago
> even under Stalin To be fair, Stalin had a habit of just killing people instead of sending them to the Gulag. Not that it excuses the US incarceration rate but your comparison isn't very good.
- olefoo 12y ago
  It was intended to be offensive. Although, the actual numbers are quite disputed and most of the ones we hear should be considered propaganda. Besides which; we're hardly ones to point the finger over genocide these days (Iraq, Pakistan, all those Afghan wedding parties).
maxlybbert 12y ago
> There is a distinction between crime and acts that are morally wrong. For instance hiding Jews from the Nazis would be a crime from the Nazis point of view. But most anyone else would consider it to be the right thing to do. You have a point, but recognize that standing on morals won't get you out of punishment. > You should question whether or not your government is legitimate enough to be trusted in matters criminal and judicial. But it's very hard to opt out of the system. Personally, I won't intentionally do things that could make life harder on myself and others without first knowing some details. I think it's a bad idea to set up a dead man's switch without first knowing what kind of investigation might trigger it. It would be sad to face charges for destruction of evidence due to accidentally triggering the switch for something silly.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > You have a point, but recognize that standing on morals won't get you out of punishment. Is that supposed to be a reason not to do it? You lose rights you don't exercise and it makes vulnerable populations stand out more when they're the only ones trying to protect themselves. The thing about corrupt law enforcement is that, like other forms of crime, their victims are a large number of people but a small percentage of people. You are not likely to be one of them. But if everybody, especially the innocent, takes practical defensive measures then taking defensive measures is no longer evidence of anything. It's like encouraging people to use Tor to check sports scores and read Wikipedia. And because you're innocent, whatever legal consequences may currently be the result of defending yourself are irrelevant to you with high probability because they only come into play if you are already a target. And since that is very unlikely to occur, and if it does you're basically already screwed anyway, discouraging people from doing something that allows the innocent actual targets to claim a stronger defense is probably not in the public interest.
  - maxlybbert 12y ago
    > > You have a point, but recognize that standing on morals won't get you out of punishment. > Is that supposed to be a reason not to do it? Not really. It's meant to be a "be sure you know what you're getting into" warning. > But if everybody, especially the innocent, takes practical defensive measures then taking defensive measures is no longer evidence of anything. It's like encouraging people to use Tor to check sports scores and read Wikipedia. Considering Tor: I'm perfectly OK recommending people check sports scores and read Wikipedia through Tor in the US or other Western countries; but I would feel irresponsible giving that advice to people in, say, North Korea or Iran. > And because you're innocent, whatever legal consequences may currently be the result of defending yourself are irrelevant to you with high probability because they only come into play if you are already a target. And since that is very unlikely to occur, and if it does you're basically already screwed anyway, discouraging people from doing something that allows the innocent actual targets to claim a stronger defense is probably not in the public interest. Remember, in criminal law, there has to be an illegal act and a state of mind (the person acted willfully, recklessly, negligently, etc.). The state of mind is nearly impossible to prove with a confession, so it's generally proven by the circumstances: given that the person was under investigation, is it more likely that they destroyed evidence (1) to hinder that investigation, or (2) as a form of civil disobedience and they were unlucky in that they hadn't realized they were under investigation? Of course, in US criminal law, the question is "do you believe, beyond reasonable doubt, that the person destroyed evidence in an effort to interfere with the investigation?" But once proof that the person was being investigated is used to imply their state of mind, the fact that the accused went through a lot of trouble to set up a dead man's switch is going to look sinister; even if there are activists in the world -- who are not under investigation -- going through the same trouble to set up similar systems. Civil disobedience is admirable, but it's easy to forget that civil disobedience is most effective when people are severely punished for standing on their morals, especially when the punishments are extra-judicial (unnecessarily rough arrests, paperwork snafus with real world consequences, difficulty getting medication ( http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2013/12/28/casual-cruetly/ http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2013/12/28/casual-cruetly/ ), etc.). We recently celebrated Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in the US. According to the Letter From Birmingham Jail ( http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h... ), King made sure to tell protestors that they could be beaten and jailed for their protests ("We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: 'Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?' 'Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?'"). It's admirable that people took him up on the offer, but it's very important that people know what they're signing up for.
CHY872 12y ago
Yeah, but Stalin also had 700,000 people shot in 2 years, so it doesn't work amazingly. A more important point is that you must be pragmatic about such things. If you install a dead man's switch to your computer, you must realise that no matter how morally correct you are, in many countries it's very possible that you'll go to prison if the computer is seized in a useless state (for example, in Britain you'll be on the hook for up to 2 years in jail). In many cases, that'll be professional suicide. So unless you have something to hide that's worth more than that jailtime, this software actually is a hindrance. I think the comment about militarisation and torture is really besides the point - it's clearly unrelated to the issue at hand.

by olefoo 12y ago

robkix 12y ago

> even under Stalin To be fair, Stalin had a habit of just killing people instead of sending them to the Gulag. Not that it excuses the US incarceration rate but your comparison isn't very good.

olefoo 12y ago
It was intended to be offensive. Although, the actual numbers are quite disputed and most of the ones we hear should be considered propaganda. Besides which; we're hardly ones to point the finger over genocide these days (Iraq, Pakistan, all those Afghan wedding parties).

maxlybbert 12y ago

> There is a distinction between crime and acts that are morally wrong. For instance hiding Jews from the Nazis would be a crime from the Nazis point of view. But most anyone else would consider it to be the right thing to do. You have a point, but recognize that standing on morals won't get you out of punishment. > You should question whether or not your government is legitimate enough to be trusted in matters criminal and judicial. But it's very hard to opt out of the system. Personally, I won't intentionally do things that could make life harder on myself and others without first knowing some details. I think it's a bad idea to set up a dead man's switch without first knowing what kind of investigation might trigger it. It would be sad to face charges for destruction of evidence due to accidentally triggering the switch for something silly.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> You have a point, but recognize that standing on morals won't get you out of punishment. Is that supposed to be a reason not to do it? You lose rights you don't exercise and it makes vulnerable populations stand out more when they're the only ones trying to protect themselves. The thing about corrupt law enforcement is that, like other forms of crime, their victims are a large number of people but a small percentage of people. You are not likely to be one of them. But if everybody, especially the innocent, takes practical defensive measures then taking defensive measures is no longer evidence of anything. It's like encouraging people to use Tor to check sports scores and read Wikipedia. And because you're innocent, whatever legal consequences may currently be the result of defending yourself are irrelevant to you with high probability because they only come into play if you are already a target. And since that is very unlikely to occur, and if it does you're basically already screwed anyway, discouraging people from doing something that allows the innocent actual targets to claim a stronger defense is probably not in the public interest.
- maxlybbert 12y ago
  > > You have a point, but recognize that standing on morals won't get you out of punishment. > Is that supposed to be a reason not to do it? Not really. It's meant to be a "be sure you know what you're getting into" warning. > But if everybody, especially the innocent, takes practical defensive measures then taking defensive measures is no longer evidence of anything. It's like encouraging people to use Tor to check sports scores and read Wikipedia. Considering Tor: I'm perfectly OK recommending people check sports scores and read Wikipedia through Tor in the US or other Western countries; but I would feel irresponsible giving that advice to people in, say, North Korea or Iran. > And because you're innocent, whatever legal consequences may currently be the result of defending yourself are irrelevant to you with high probability because they only come into play if you are already a target. And since that is very unlikely to occur, and if it does you're basically already screwed anyway, discouraging people from doing something that allows the innocent actual targets to claim a stronger defense is probably not in the public interest. Remember, in criminal law, there has to be an illegal act and a state of mind (the person acted willfully, recklessly, negligently, etc.). The state of mind is nearly impossible to prove with a confession, so it's generally proven by the circumstances: given that the person was under investigation, is it more likely that they destroyed evidence (1) to hinder that investigation, or (2) as a form of civil disobedience and they were unlucky in that they hadn't realized they were under investigation? Of course, in US criminal law, the question is "do you believe, beyond reasonable doubt, that the person destroyed evidence in an effort to interfere with the investigation?" But once proof that the person was being investigated is used to imply their state of mind, the fact that the accused went through a lot of trouble to set up a dead man's switch is going to look sinister; even if there are activists in the world -- who are not under investigation -- going through the same trouble to set up similar systems. Civil disobedience is admirable, but it's easy to forget that civil disobedience is most effective when people are severely punished for standing on their morals, especially when the punishments are extra-judicial (unnecessarily rough arrests, paperwork snafus with real world consequences, difficulty getting medication ( http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2013/12/28/casual-cruetly/ http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2013/12/28/casual-cruetly/ ), etc.). We recently celebrated Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in the US. According to the Letter From Birmingham Jail ( http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h... ), King made sure to tell protestors that they could be beaten and jailed for their protests ("We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: 'Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?' 'Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?'"). It's admirable that people took him up on the offer, but it's very important that people know what they're signing up for.

CHY872 12y ago

Yeah, but Stalin also had 700,000 people shot in 2 years, so it doesn't work amazingly. A more important point is that you must be pragmatic about such things. If you install a dead man's switch to your computer, you must realise that no matter how morally correct you are, in many countries it's very possible that you'll go to prison if the computer is seized in a useless state (for example, in Britain you'll be on the hook for up to 2 years in jail). In many cases, that'll be professional suicide. So unless you have something to hide that's worth more than that jailtime, this software actually is a hindrance. I think the comment about militarisation and torture is really besides the point - it's clearly unrelated to the issue at hand.