Everybody who ever holds it seems to be a really scary fucker with no concept of what they're supposed to be protecting.
Everybody who ever holds it seems to be a really scary fucker with no concept of what they're supposed to be protecting.
OK, I agree that having dealt with the problem is a good reason not to name them. Thank you for explaining.
But if they were systematically giving this information out to parents, how could the parents not have known about it?
If a university offered to give me that information on my kid, I'd suggest that my kid make their lives hell over it, and offer to fund the project.
When describing verifiable wrongdoing, there is no reason not to name names and every reason to name them. Especially when the nature of the described wrongdoing basically guarantees that thousands of people must know about it.
How would one go about that peacefully?
It wouldn't be easy in practice. Such distinctions are nonetheless extremely useful, because they let you tease out why you think something is wrong. And having that kind of understanding is important, because of real rhetorical tricks used all the time by real people in the real world.
It works like this: you find some word/concept that people equate with something they consider horrible. So you notice that people use "genocide" interchangeably with mass murder, mainly because the most mentally accessible examples of genocide are mass murder. Pretty soon everybody is happy to say genocide is horrible, because mass murder is horrible.
Then you quietly shift to using a different meaning of the word "genocide", one that might apply to some non-mass-murder activity you don't like. And you expect and desire the horrible associations to come along. You're trying to associate this other activity with mass murder.
At that point, it doesn't matter whether the other activity is likely to succeed at causing genocide or whatever. You can still claim that it's a tactic of genocide, or that it goes in the direction of genocide. You can rely on at least some people to mentally treat it like the "canonical" tactic of genocide, i.e. mass murder. It's very hard to avoid falling into that kind of connotational trap, because of the way human brains work.
For extra credit, you create the negative connotation, and then exploit it. You'll find people doing that all the time in political debates, switching back and forth between different meanings of the same word, at one point pumping up the negative associations, and at another point attaching them to something different.
All that matters, because rhetoric influences how people treat others and their behavior, up to and including outlawing things and reacting violently.
And this happens all the time with the word "genocide", specifically.
I remember a case where some rich person was funding voluntary sterilizations for poor people in the US. She wasn't forcing anybody. You had to come to her and ask for the money. I don't remember whether she provided any services for actually arranging the sterilizations. Her program disproportionately affected black people. She was therefore accused of genocide, or attempted genocide... and every attempt was made to trade on the association between that and mass murder.
That's not an isolated case. Do a Google search for "soft genocide", and you'll find a bunch of white supremacist loons claiming there's a conspiracy to wipe out whites. They're not so loony that they're actually accusing anybody of mass murder, but they are trading on the association of the word "genocide" with mass murder.
The tactic gets used by people with a certain amount of influence, too. http://news.nationalpost.com/f...
All of which means that, regardless of whether peaceful genocide is actually possible, it's important to keep it conceptually separated from the murderous variety.
You know, I should know better than to respond to this sort of thing, but I will anyway.
The post I was replying to claimed that the word "genocide" was defined in a very specific way, and alluded to certain countries having issues with including other things in that definition. Which makes it completely obvious that that post was referring to a formal definition arrived at in some treaty process, probably a UN one, since the UN has tons of conventions in that area and loves to make up definitions.
I pointed out that the word had an accepted meaning before that treaty negotiation (or whatever it was) ever started, and that the results of that negotiation didn't necessarily bind the rest of us to interpret the word in that way in ordinary discussions. The prior accepted meaning I was talking about was the one you mentioned, established by Lemkin's original use and the ensuing general discourse on the subject.
I did NOT say anything about the original etymology, only about people trying to redefine an existing word. Where the word and its meaning originally came from wasn't relevant, so I didn't talk about that. The point (actually a small side point) is that, wherever it came from, it had a meaning before "the USSR, Belgium, Sweden, and the Dominican Republic" (and whoever else) started trying to formalize it.
As I understand it, your source for the word is more or less correct, although in fact the Armenian genocide was not the only genocide that Lemkin had in mind, nor the only one he mentioned, nor even the first one he mentioned, when he first put the word out there. But, correct as it may be, your source is also irrelevant, because nobody, including me, was talking about the original source of the word.
For that matter, you seem to insinuate that I somehow suggested that the Armenian genocide wasn't genocide. I didn't do that. Read it again. For that matter, the person I was responding to didn't suggest it either. It's just plain not what we were talking about.
As long as we're giving each other advice, let me advise you to look at the whole context, read closely, understand what's being discussed, and think for 5 seconds before you type. It will make you look less stupid.
“A war of extermination will continue to be waged between the two races until the Indian race becomes extinct.”
– California Governor Peter H. Burnett, January 1851
Source, with a shit-ton more similar quotes from politicians and leading citizens: http://obrag.org/?p=1412.
By the way, wiping people out has been pretty common in historical conquests in general. People only seem to have really even started feeling guilty about it in the last few hundred years.
First of all, genocide had a well accepted meaning before a bunch of self-appointed lexicographers in the UN or whatever got in a room to come up with their own definition. Humpty Dumpty and all that.
Second, mass killing is the reason genocide has a bad name in the first place. Most people, other than politicians, patriots, and similar freaks, have a lot bigger problem with going around shooting people in order to destroy their culture than with, say, trying to reason them out of it. The mass killing is actually Wrong with a capital W. Genocide by truly peaceful means isn't in the same league, if it's even wrong at all.
But that's an inconvenient thing for the political class to admit, because it might force them to face hard questions about their wars and some of their punishments.
There are two parts to this: "wiretap-like" ephemeral communication, and "personal-papers-like" data stored in devices (and, more importantly in this debate, in associated cloud services).
On the far more important personal papers side, there has simply never, ever been a time in the past when you could expect as a matter of course to get somebody's personal papers surreptitiously, from a third party. Yes, you might have gotten lucky and been able to do that, but in the vast majority of cases you were going to have to go directly and overtly to that person and seize those papers.
That's a HUGE change. It's new with cloud storage and remote device access. It's total bullshit to pretend that it resembles anything in the past.
Nor is it new that the target of an investigation can obscure or obfuscate the content of those papers, or destroy those papers when you come after them, or hide them and refuse to tell you where they are, or any number of other things. People hid their letters all the time. There's nothing new in kind here.
As for matters of degree, well, yeah, modern encryption is easier and more effective than old methods of securing your papers. On the other hand, the "papers" being secured are incomparably more detailed, information-rich, and difficult to avoid creating, and you carry all of them with you all the time. What you would have gotten on somebody if you managed to find their hidden letters even 20 years ago is not even close to what you can get on somebody burrowing through their phone today.
So if there has been any change in the practical circumstances recently, it's that searches of "personal papers" have become more productive, not less. And encryption would only partially undo that.
On the less important wiretap side, yes, there have been wiretaps for about 100 years. They were pretty controversial even in those illiberal times, but they crept by the US Supreme Court (1926, I think it was). However, in the WaPo article, we had talk about "standard American practice for the past couple of hundred years".
That puts the time before wiretaps into play. And I choose to look at all of the time before wiretaps, which includes most of the time during which the common law developed, the time during which legal expectations about privacy evolved, and the time at which the US constitution was written. In the context of that time, wiretaps are a pretty damned recent blip. They were a technological windfall for spooks, and spooks' addiction to them doesn't justify perpetuating that windfall when the technology changes.
 The person who made the "last couple of hundred years" comment was admittedly not Rogers, who apparently confined himself to disingenuously advocating for technical measures he has to know can't possibly work, and which would be suspiciously amenable to exactly the sort of abuse his agency is famous for. The "couple of hundred years" comment was from deputy AG David Bitkower. So maybe I should have named Bitkower as a sack of shit, too.
There's no point in my replying to such total clueless incomprehension of my three paragraphs of explanation.
But I do want to correct this misapprehension, because I can see where it might come from:
You can't just call anything you like a sack of shit without providing any sort of argument to the negative.
The "sack of shit" I meant was Mike Rogers, personally. I wouldn't want anybody to think I hadn't meant to insult that sack of shit.
There's no "centuries-old social compact" or whatthefuck ever, let alone one around warrants.
What a sack of shit.
And, yeah, the idea that you're going to have this magic key that only good guys can use is also technically and operationally impossible... as every single person in the NSA or anywhere else in the federal intelligence or law enforcement agencies knows damned well. I assume they want to create it so that they can steal it and use it for mass attacks. If they don't want me to believe that, well, they need to overcome their decades-long pattern of established behavior.
The word "shyster" is not and never has been an anti-semitic slur, nor does it arise from any anti-semitic slur.
It does not mean "Jew" or even any particular kind of Jew. It has never been selectively applied to Jews.
Take down the Web site. Eliminate all official downloads.
First, people shouldn't be encouraged to use unmaintained software.
Second, if somebody really depends on it, they're put on notice that they now have to step up and support it.
Predisclosure is very risky. You don't really know which members of your "predisclosure list" have good control over who finds out and which don't. And even with perfect control, if you're going to patch something the size of Amazon at all, you're going to have to tell a lot of people. Are you sure you want every individual who happens to have a certain job at Amazon to have the chance to exploit other people's systems?
You're not really trusting organizations. You're trusting collections of individuals. And with that many individuals, you are going to have some bad actors. But you'd have a problem even if you could think of organizations as units with perfect policy enforcement. Suppose the NSA comes to you and says they're running a big Xen cluster (they probably are somewhere). And it's critical to national and maybe global security (it could very possibly be). Do they get on the list? How are you going to feel when they use that preannouncement to break into somebody else's system?
Furthermore, people inferred that there was probably a Xen vulnerability from Amazon's downtime, before the official announcement. So how, exactly, was that better than having the Xen project actually announce that fact, with or without details or a patch?
Also, it's not so easy to really know what's a "critical deployment". The fact is that, whether you're Xen or you're bash, you don't really know who's using your stuff. You don't really know what's critical. And you definitely don't know who's trustworthy.
And all of THAT assumes that you even control the disclosure at all. If you find a problem in your software, that problem is "new to you". That does not mean that a bunch of other people don't already know about it. Especially the sort of people who make a business of exploiting these things. So you don't even know for sure who you're depriving of the knowledge.
There's always an exception. Maybe Xen is that exception. But the idea that predisclosure should be the normal approach for software in general, whether open source or otherwise, is a very dangerous one.
Thank you for the correction on how much you get to know about the insides.
FPGAs aren't in any sense "open source hardware". Their physical embodiment is opaque and unmodfiable, although you do get at least some vague idea how they're organized. They're just devices that run a rather unusual form of software. That may or may not be a problem, but it's still true.
Being concerned about back doors isn't the only reason you'd want something to be open source... maybe you'd just like to be able to adapt and improve it. Or maybe not; hardware is a pretty unforgiving environment, and it's not obvious that that many people want to mess with it. Regardless of whether open source hardware is needed, it really doesn't exist in any significant way.
"Significant" matters there, by the way.I said "basically NO open source hardware", and "basically" was in there for a reason. I can also have truly open source CPUs custom fabbed, but it's not something anybody does or will probably ever do.
To do two things at once is to do neither. -- Publilius Syrus