4 ms·

By otherwise trusted I simply mean that it is included by default, not that you specifically trust the source. Is the the park's reaction much different from u

by ics 12y ago

By otherwise trusted I simply mean that it is included by default, not that you specifically trust the source. Is the the park's reaction much different from using a disassembler? They cover it up so until someone can come to inspect it and then remove it. You can't just look at it and say "yep, that's a perfectly normal bronze sculpture alright" without inspecting it (requiring removal).

Dylan16807 12y ago
The hiding is totally unrelated to removal, which is totally unrelated to realizing that it's a statue. So yes very different. And if they wanted to set up something dangerous, it would be easier to make it hidden. There's no good reason to suspect the statue is dangerous.
- ics 12y ago
  No, it's the universal sign for "this is the thing that needs to be removed". Unfortunately they don't have cones which read "unauthorized object subject to removal immediately" which would get the point across while preserving people's ability to see it until it was removed or properly evaluated. That would make the whole issue of removal look even more Orwellian though, would it not? The reason why I brought up the potential danger of the statue is not because I or anyone expects it to be dangerous. (For a relevant incident though, remember the Boston Aqua Teen Hunger Force stuff... that got a terrible reaction, even though anyone who has ever played with electronics could tell that they were harmless. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare ) I bring it up because it is both department policy and perfectly valid from the perspective of anyone who works to ensure safety in parks. If some circumstance, however crazy, causes someone to become injured by the installation then it's going to be a much bigger headache to Parks and Rec than a bunch of us calling them fascists/communists/whatever else is going on in here. Edit: In case I wasn't clear, the point of my analogy is that... as far as you know it's just an image on the boot screen. As far as you know, it's just a sculpture that's properly installed and isn't going to just roll off as soon as some kids try to climb it (park employees try to stop this too, but it's still common esp. at this park). If it was an official installation, presumably Parks and Rec would have enough confidence in the work itself to say "this is fine" and then take responsibility for it in the future. Perhaps a better analogy would've been if someone pulled a similar stunt on NYPL's public computers or something, shrug. (I have no righteous love for my own analogy here, I just thought it would make the issue a little more clear. I seem to have been wrong about that.)
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    Something getting on my computer has massive potential to be malicious, and has bypassed security to get there. A statue stuck in a park has no more potential to be malicious than a random rock, and has not bypassed meaningful security. That's a big difference. The argument of "it exists, therefore it 'could' be malicious" is trash. They 'could' alter anything in the park to be malicious. In the computer scenario I'm not worried because I know they put the image there. I'm worried because I know they could have put a malicious payload anywhere in the system, and I wouldn't be able to find it. But a park never has security. It's always true that someone could bring a malicious object into a park and stick it somewhere random. It's okay to remove the statue, it's foolish to act like it's scary, and it's annoyingly political that it gets ultra-top-priority and covered with a tarp. And just because department policy is to overreact doesn't make it valid to overreact. I hope Boston is mocked forever for their reaction to blinking lights, especially because they were doing it out of fear of blame. Fear of blame is a terrible motivator.
    - ics 12y ago
      - Smuggling a heavy bronze statue into a park has bypassed security (yes, parks have security). - Statues have potential but very small likelihood of being 'malicious'. - Heavy statues have great potential to cause physical harm when not properly built or installed. - This potential for harm is considered minimal to non-existant when the sculpture is commissioned or otherwise created by people with known identities. - When some idiot goes into a park and stabs somebody, it's a police issue. - When a passerby (or some idiot trying to climb it) gets hurt by large, official looking part of the park, it's a city issue (lawsuit). A random rock that's 100# and 8' off the ground is, potentially, a dangerous rock. Your reasoning around my analogy actually illustrates my point fairly well– I'm afraid there isn't much I can do to bridge our disagreement there. Rather than the city of Boston be mocked for their overreaction, I would be much happier if we improved our education in electronics. And other things, because education is the best way we know how to conquer fear in an institutional setting. The idea that this had "ultra-top priority" because of its political nature is, while possible, extremely unlikely. The chance that its political nature was even noticed by the people responsible for removing it are incredibly slim, and if anything I'm surprised at how long it took for it to get a tarp over it. I've seen much quicker removals of defacements in parks across the city, by park officials to plainclothes police. Despite this, the political nature of the message is wholly irrelevant to the actual issue at hand.

by ics 12y ago

Dylan16807 12y ago

The hiding is totally unrelated to removal, which is totally unrelated to realizing that it's a statue. So yes very different. And if they wanted to set up something dangerous, it would be easier to make it hidden. There's no good reason to suspect the statue is dangerous.

ics 12y ago
No, it's the universal sign for "this is the thing that needs to be removed". Unfortunately they don't have cones which read "unauthorized object subject to removal immediately" which would get the point across while preserving people's ability to see it until it was removed or properly evaluated. That would make the whole issue of removal look even more Orwellian though, would it not? The reason why I brought up the potential danger of the statue is not because I or anyone expects it to be dangerous. (For a relevant incident though, remember the Boston Aqua Teen Hunger Force stuff... that got a terrible reaction, even though anyone who has ever played with electronics could tell that they were harmless. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare ) I bring it up because it is both department policy and perfectly valid from the perspective of anyone who works to ensure safety in parks. If some circumstance, however crazy, causes someone to become injured by the installation then it's going to be a much bigger headache to Parks and Rec than a bunch of us calling them fascists/communists/whatever else is going on in here. Edit: In case I wasn't clear, the point of my analogy is that... as far as you know it's just an image on the boot screen. As far as you know, it's just a sculpture that's properly installed and isn't going to just roll off as soon as some kids try to climb it (park employees try to stop this too, but it's still common esp. at this park). If it was an official installation, presumably Parks and Rec would have enough confidence in the work itself to say "this is fine" and then take responsibility for it in the future. Perhaps a better analogy would've been if someone pulled a similar stunt on NYPL's public computers or something, shrug. (I have no righteous love for my own analogy here, I just thought it would make the issue a little more clear. I seem to have been wrong about that.)
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  Something getting on my computer has massive potential to be malicious, and has bypassed security to get there. A statue stuck in a park has no more potential to be malicious than a random rock, and has not bypassed meaningful security. That's a big difference. The argument of "it exists, therefore it 'could' be malicious" is trash. They 'could' alter anything in the park to be malicious. In the computer scenario I'm not worried because I know they put the image there. I'm worried because I know they could have put a malicious payload anywhere in the system, and I wouldn't be able to find it. But a park never has security. It's always true that someone could bring a malicious object into a park and stick it somewhere random. It's okay to remove the statue, it's foolish to act like it's scary, and it's annoyingly political that it gets ultra-top-priority and covered with a tarp. And just because department policy is to overreact doesn't make it valid to overreact. I hope Boston is mocked forever for their reaction to blinking lights, especially because they were doing it out of fear of blame. Fear of blame is a terrible motivator.
  - ics 12y ago
    - Smuggling a heavy bronze statue into a park has bypassed security (yes, parks have security). - Statues have potential but very small likelihood of being 'malicious'. - Heavy statues have great potential to cause physical harm when not properly built or installed. - This potential for harm is considered minimal to non-existant when the sculpture is commissioned or otherwise created by people with known identities. - When some idiot goes into a park and stabs somebody, it's a police issue. - When a passerby (or some idiot trying to climb it) gets hurt by large, official looking part of the park, it's a city issue (lawsuit). A random rock that's 100# and 8' off the ground is, potentially, a dangerous rock. Your reasoning around my analogy actually illustrates my point fairly well– I'm afraid there isn't much I can do to bridge our disagreement there. Rather than the city of Boston be mocked for their overreaction, I would be much happier if we improved our education in electronics. And other things, because education is the best way we know how to conquer fear in an institutional setting. The idea that this had "ultra-top priority" because of its political nature is, while possible, extremely unlikely. The chance that its political nature was even noticed by the people responsible for removing it are incredibly slim, and if anything I'm surprised at how long it took for it to get a tarp over it. I've seen much quicker removals of defacements in parks across the city, by park officials to plainclothes police. Despite this, the political nature of the message is wholly irrelevant to the actual issue at hand.