Out of morbid curiosity, does the government ever do anything wrong? Whenever you comment on a story involving government, I know, without fail, that you are going to somehow take the "pro-goverment" line.
You've done it here. You did it with Aaron Swartz. I've seen you do it on other threads where civil libertarians are outraged about one thing or another.
So: do you ever actually side with the people? Or is it just all government, all the time with you? I ask because I'm starting to tune you out, and you make such insightful comments on other topics.
Huh? Where are you reading that I'm OK with what happened to Aaron Swartz? I am the opposite of OK with what happened to Aaron Swartz.
Just because I don't use the exact same reasoning as you do to arrive at the same conclusion does not mean I am in a bucket with "people who think Swartz got what he deserved".
What I'm guessing happened is this: you think what happened to Aaron was terrible because the conduct outlawed under CFAA shouldn't be criminal. I think what happened to Aaron was terrible because the sentencing mechanisms under CFAA are insane and scale trivial offenses to multi-year sentences by having them track "damages". Both of us arrive at the same conclusion, that Aaron was maltreated by prosecutors, but by different means.
This way of thinking, where anyone who disagrees with a specific point about Aaron Swartz must somehow be on the side of the government, is a pox on the whole site.
I didn't mean to imply that you thought Aaron "got what he deserved."
Just that you took the most pro-government position I've seen anyone on HN take, both recently and in that (regrettable) thread six months ago.
Perhaps you don't see yourself as pro-government, and it's just been a string of articles where you think the people are in the wrong, not government. That's fine, I'm just trying to understand why you comment the way you do.
UPDATE: I think I see now what my issue is. Whenever the goverment does something wrong, you tend to do two things:
1. You write many, many lines where you point out how great the government is, what a good job they're doing, etc. It's all very "pro-government" and mostly, actually, off topic.
2. You then, at the end, or frequently in some later comment, claim you disagree (sometimes even in ALL CAPS) with the thing the government actually did that was wrong that everyone else is talking about.
So, when people are upset with the government for, say, civil forfeiture, you don't talk about that. Instead, you talk about everything else you can come up with to make the government (or in this case, Ortiz) look good.
I guess that's why I see you as "pro-government" with your comments. Perhaps others do too, and that might be good enough reason to consider toning back the gov-love?
I'm definitely more pro-government than most people on HN.
What happened to Aaron was a travesty. In fact, it's even more a travesty from my vantage point, because it strikes directly at the credibility of the criminal justice system.
The only reason the operators of a flophouse hotel that concealed meth labs and multiple retail heroin dealing operations could possibly appear sympathetic on HN is because the US Attorney's office in Boston poisoned their reputation by threatening Aaron Swartz with a multi-year sentence and 13 felony convictions.
[later]
I reject entirely the idea that the comment to which you're responding is "pro-government". My comment is anti-flophouse. That's not remotely the same thing.
You post is essentially rubber-stamping the government's civil forfeiture laws when it's against someone you (and the government) don't like, like this motel.
That's not justice, and frankly, no one should support the government's use of civil forfeiture, ever, for any reason, full stop.
Civil forfeiture is so abused by the government today as to be evil in and of itself. No "ends justifies the means" argument applies when it comes to civil forfeiture, in this case, or any other. It's that bad.
Of course, the government disagrees, as do you: that's what makes you "pro-government" in this case.
Ridiculous. You could use the exact same logic to call me "pro-government" in supporting the government for suing to shut down a factory that pours mercury into a river.
What the fuck does "pro-government" even mean? What an asinine line to argue. I'm anti-flophouse, like the government. I'm anti-military-occupation, unlike the government. I'm anti-copyright-infringement, like the government. I'm anti-patent-system, unlike the government. I'm anti-meth-lab, like the government. I'm anti-marijuana-prohibition, unlike the government.
Do you want me to go on?
Are you pro-abortion-clinic-bombings? You must be pro-government. Are you anti- workplace- race- discrimination? You must be pro-government. Are you uniformly against every intervention the government pursues? Is that the ideological line I to which I have to hew to meet your approval? I guess I'll have to do without that, then.
Man, you don't understand. They're like, "the establishment" man! You have to oppose everything they're in favor of. And be in favor of everything they oppose. Fight the power!
What would a cheap place do that would prevent such things? Strip search all their customers to make sure they did not have enough heroin to overdose on?
The hotel isn't spawning this sort of shit, it is just attracting it by virtue of being cheap enough for low-lifes to afford. The local authorities are the ones that failed, not the motel.
Not speaking for tptacek, but in my opinion the civil libertarians online, even on HN, get worked up on some pretty misinformed bases. It's slightly more sophisticated than the e-mails your grandma forwards you claiming Obama is a muslim, but not by much.
I apologize in advance if this is completely off-base, but, my personal theory is that due to tptacek's work in security, he is afraid to take a harder stance against government wrongdoing. Perhaps this would risk his (or his company's) eligibility for future security clearance and/or government contracts.
To quote Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it!"
We do zero work at all for the government. Our clients are startups and technology companies, along with large F-500 IT shops. I would personally have a moral problem with assisting the US military in 2013.
I shouldn't have to spell that out simply because I (a) disagree or (b) read news stories more carefully than you do, but every time a story like this comes up, I inevitably do have to defend myself from someone who thinks my opinions are bought and paid for. In reality, arguing against random HN people argues against my own interests.
It's a ridiculous assertion to imply that government employees are so scared of losing their jobs, that they would spend copious amounts of their free time posting pro-government messages on random internet websites.
HN is supposed to be a place that encourages intelligent conversation and freedom of thought. We as a community are supposed to be mature enough to understand that not everyone is going to see things the same way.
The problem is, a lot of left-leaning people are so completely certain that their views are correct, and their correctness seems so obvious to them that they can't imagine how any logical person doesn't perceive reality in the same way. Just as many Conservatives feel the exact same way.
What gets lost in all of the petty arguments is the fact that there is plenty of room in the middle for people who agree with Republicans on some issues, and Democrats on others.
One of the dumbest fucking things our nation has ever done, is allow the formation of distinct political parties. The governance of the United States, or any other country for that matter, should not be conducted like a fucking football game.
I find your argument to have zero constructive value. Aside from the gross exaggeration to attempt to attack the speaker instead of the idea, it is possible that some have a more "law and order" outlook on the world, while others have more of a "fear law and order" outlook. That this is repeatedly demonstrate should surprise no one, and your statement of it as if you've unearthed some grand conspiracy borders on obnoxious. You'll get the up-arrows by people so utterly desperate to be outraged by this story, but you deserve none.
Out of morbid curiosity, does the government ever do anything wrong? Whenever you comment on a story involving government, I know, without fail, that you are going to somehow take the "pro-goverment" line.
You've done it here. You did it with Aaron Swartz. I've seen you do it on other threads where civil libertarians are outraged about one thing or another.
So: do you ever actually side with the people? Or is it just all government, all the time with you? I ask because I'm starting to tune you out, and you make such insightful comments on other topics.