4 ms·

I followed and covered Ed's career over the years at Ars, and he's a great technologist and one of the Good Guys. EFF board member, anti-DRM activist, one of th

I followed and covered Ed's career over the years at Ars, and he's a great technologist and one of the Good Guys. EFF board member, anti-DRM activist, one of those sounding the alarm on e-voting and mass surveillance. In other words, he's opposed to just about everything that Obama seems to stand for in practice (disregarding the president's rhetoric on these issues). So I have to wonder, is this one of those "keep your enemies closer" things? Anyway, congrats(?) to Prof. Felten. Here's to hoping he can make a difference.

wsxcde 11y ago
Well, he was named CTO of the FTC back in 2010, so it seems he has a good relationship with the Obama administration.
- csoghoian 11y ago
  The Federal Trade Commission is an independent agency. They don't take orders from the President. (I know, because I worked there for a year)
dmix 11y ago
> he's opposed to just about everything that Obama seems to stand for in practice If the gov had to excluded Tech people who didn't fit this profile they wouldn't be able to find anyone left to recruit.
shit_parade2 11y ago
Ridiculous, he isn't a 'good' guy, he works for someone who tortures and murders innocents without qualms or cares. Down vote the truth.
- xnull2guest 11y ago
  What I think that the OP meant was that for the purposes of his role, he is an advocate for the types of civil initiatives supported by most of the HN crowd. In some sense every American that has benefited from torture, assassination, coup, neocolonialization, murder, and enslavement by America's administrations and corporations aren't 'good' people.
  - shit_parade2 11y ago
    Amazing you believe Americans benefit from the torture and murder of innocents. If you willingly work for those who torture and murder innocent people you are not a good person, sorry for all those out there who dont like to hear the truth.
    - xnull2guest 11y ago
      Americans do benefit from torture and murder - in addition to rendition, colonialization, mass propaganda, and all the other things I mentioned. They benefit in monetary and security terms. I am not claiming that this is justification. I do not think it is right or just. But I will defend the fact that on the other side of torture is expediency and quality of information, which America benefits from. This is not something that justifies the actions in the face of morals. But it is a real world fact. If there are no incentives to torture, to assassinate, to surveil, to colonialize, to propagandize - is your claim that these things are done out of pure unadulterated evil, wrong done for its own sake? That they are not done for their benefits, despite and in the face of their immorality? Americans benefited and continue to benefit from America's torture, rendition, murder, assassination, surveillance, propaganda, colonialization, etc in real terms. Again, this doesn't mean it was a good or moral thing to do.
      - ionised 11y ago
        Torture has been shown countless times to be ineffective. At this point I'm willing to believe that torture by US (or anyone else for that matter) operatives is carried out for revenge or sadistic purposes only. And 'Americans' as a whole do not benefit from these things. A wealthy and influential elite however, do.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - lhl 11y ago
        While I agree that Americans have benefited (and continue to benefit of course) from a huge range of morally dubious actions by its government, I have quite a few reservations about the rest of your comment. The main objection is to your belief that morally repugnant actions must benefit the American public (and their de facto consent). Neither of those statements hold. There is a long tradition of those with power and no accountability doing many vile things even when it's obviously counterproductive or there is no greater benefit. Without corrective feedback, political/personal incentives often misalign with larger social good, and there are few corrective measures that can be taken. Just because there is short-term benefit to some does not mean it's any good for the American public. One only needs to look at the history of CIA operations and blowback to see that played out over and over. Even when not explicitly clandestine, these things can flow from pure economic logic - one only needs to follow the development of the military or prison industrial complexes to see that in action. I'll also take exception to your description of torture. Any reading on the effectiveness of torture will show consensus that not only is it not an effectiveness information collection method, it also makes future collection more difficult both from the source and in strategic/game theoretic terms. The costs far outweigh the benefits. Torture is great for getting things you want to hear, whether they are accurate or not, which goes a long way towards explaining its use. That and those misaligned personal incentives. And the banality of evil.
btilly 11y ago
So I have to wonder, is this one of those "keep your enemies closer" things? My bet is that this is simply Obama showing one of his better strengths. Namely that he is able to assemble a diverse team of people with different perspectives, let them all have their positions heard, and then Obama makes the decisions and is able to control the politics. Obama has never looked for yes men, and his team is unlikely to be prone to groupthink. The result of this is an effective executive that can get things done. You may not like those things. But he is good on executing on his ideas. So Ed will get a chance to explain why Hollywood does not need copyright strengthened. However if he fails to change Obama's opinion, he won't be in a position to set policy on that issue. (Given Joe Biden's involvement, I doubt that Obama will budge on that.) But he will be in a position to point out the technical flaws in specific bad proposals and keep Obama from proposing anything which is obviously impossible.
YesThatTom2 11y ago
> he's opposed to just about everything that Obama > seems to stand for in practice (disregarding the > president's rhetoric on these issues). Obama knows his hands are tied by the lobbying efforts of powerful interests that are so strong he can't act as he wishes. Hiring Felton sounds like he wants someone on his team that can come up with the rhetoric that he'll need to be able to match his actions with his words.

wsxcde 11y ago

Well, he was named CTO of the FTC back in 2010, so it seems he has a good relationship with the Obama administration.

csoghoian 11y ago
The Federal Trade Commission is an independent agency. They don't take orders from the President. (I know, because I worked there for a year)

dmix 11y ago

> he's opposed to just about everything that Obama seems to stand for in practice If the gov had to excluded Tech people who didn't fit this profile they wouldn't be able to find anyone left to recruit.

shit_parade2 11y ago

Ridiculous, he isn't a 'good' guy, he works for someone who tortures and murders innocents without qualms or cares. Down vote the truth.

xnull2guest 11y ago
What I think that the OP meant was that for the purposes of his role, he is an advocate for the types of civil initiatives supported by most of the HN crowd. In some sense every American that has benefited from torture, assassination, coup, neocolonialization, murder, and enslavement by America's administrations and corporations aren't 'good' people.
- shit_parade2 11y ago
  Amazing you believe Americans benefit from the torture and murder of innocents. If you willingly work for those who torture and murder innocent people you are not a good person, sorry for all those out there who dont like to hear the truth.
  - xnull2guest 11y ago
    Americans do benefit from torture and murder - in addition to rendition, colonialization, mass propaganda, and all the other things I mentioned. They benefit in monetary and security terms. I am not claiming that this is justification. I do not think it is right or just. But I will defend the fact that on the other side of torture is expediency and quality of information, which America benefits from. This is not something that justifies the actions in the face of morals. But it is a real world fact. If there are no incentives to torture, to assassinate, to surveil, to colonialize, to propagandize - is your claim that these things are done out of pure unadulterated evil, wrong done for its own sake? That they are not done for their benefits, despite and in the face of their immorality? Americans benefited and continue to benefit from America's torture, rendition, murder, assassination, surveillance, propaganda, colonialization, etc in real terms. Again, this doesn't mean it was a good or moral thing to do.
    - ionised 11y ago
      Torture has been shown countless times to be ineffective. At this point I'm willing to believe that torture by US (or anyone else for that matter) operatives is carried out for revenge or sadistic purposes only. And 'Americans' as a whole do not benefit from these things. A wealthy and influential elite however, do.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - lhl 11y ago
      While I agree that Americans have benefited (and continue to benefit of course) from a huge range of morally dubious actions by its government, I have quite a few reservations about the rest of your comment. The main objection is to your belief that morally repugnant actions must benefit the American public (and their de facto consent). Neither of those statements hold. There is a long tradition of those with power and no accountability doing many vile things even when it's obviously counterproductive or there is no greater benefit. Without corrective feedback, political/personal incentives often misalign with larger social good, and there are few corrective measures that can be taken. Just because there is short-term benefit to some does not mean it's any good for the American public. One only needs to look at the history of CIA operations and blowback to see that played out over and over. Even when not explicitly clandestine, these things can flow from pure economic logic - one only needs to follow the development of the military or prison industrial complexes to see that in action. I'll also take exception to your description of torture. Any reading on the effectiveness of torture will show consensus that not only is it not an effectiveness information collection method, it also makes future collection more difficult both from the source and in strategic/game theoretic terms. The costs far outweigh the benefits. Torture is great for getting things you want to hear, whether they are accurate or not, which goes a long way towards explaining its use. That and those misaligned personal incentives. And the banality of evil.

btilly 11y ago

So I have to wonder, is this one of those "keep your enemies closer" things? My bet is that this is simply Obama showing one of his better strengths. Namely that he is able to assemble a diverse team of people with different perspectives, let them all have their positions heard, and then Obama makes the decisions and is able to control the politics. Obama has never looked for yes men, and his team is unlikely to be prone to groupthink. The result of this is an effective executive that can get things done. You may not like those things. But he is good on executing on his ideas. So Ed will get a chance to explain why Hollywood does not need copyright strengthened. However if he fails to change Obama's opinion, he won't be in a position to set policy on that issue. (Given Joe Biden's involvement, I doubt that Obama will budge on that.) But he will be in a position to point out the technical flaws in specific bad proposals and keep Obama from proposing anything which is obviously impossible.

YesThatTom2 11y ago

> he's opposed to just about everything that Obama > seems to stand for in practice (disregarding the > president's rhetoric on these issues). Obama knows his hands are tied by the lobbying efforts of powerful interests that are so strong he can't act as he wishes. Hiring Felton sounds like he wants someone on his team that can come up with the rhetoric that he'll need to be able to match his actions with his words.