Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomjen3 | Hacker News Reader

It does not matter if they are safe (which they aren't), it matters that they be removed.

A little fud now and then is a good thing.

If you're willing to say anything to make the other side look bad, why should anyone give you credence?

There is a big difference between a little fud and being willing to say anything. These machines have been called, by a reputable scientist, as potentially very dangerous. I see no problem making sure everybody knows that they are dangerous, nor do I particular care to present both sides of the argument.

These machines have been called, by a reputable scientist, as potentially very dangerous.

And 1 out of 5 dentists recommend sugar gum. There are enough scientists in the world that you can always find one who shares your belief. Scientific consensus is a much more reliable indicator of correct beliefs.

...nor do I particular care to present both sides of the argument.

I can think of half a dozen pieces of evidence that would change my belief about whether or not backscatter devices are safe. What evidence would you need to convince you that they are safe?

This isn't about whether they are safe or not (a subject I don't give much of anything about), but about getting them banned. If we can't get them banned for privacy issues (as they should be) but we can get them banned for something else, then I will take that.

And it was a leading scientist.

Maybe they shouldn't, but when you're going up against the kind of ruthlessness that will stop at nothing to invade your privacy by any means, limiting your angles of attack for ethical concerns might not be palatable for everyone. I'd like these machines to be banned for privacy concerns as well, but if they're banned for safety concerns that I made up, that's still better than them being put in every airport.

That's a dangerous path to go down; if we abandon factual standards or arguing issues on the legal merits, then what's left is basically just marketing. And there will always be someone who can afford better marketing.

It's like torture; one can't torture on behalf of the 'good guys' and say it's for a higher purpose, because acceptance of torture as a legitimate means of inquiry is exactly the sort of thing that divides good government from bad (this, of course, assumes one is opposed to the practice in the first place).

I think the point is that we're already at that place. These machines are only there because of what you call marketing. You may think a knife is an elegant weapon for a more civilized age, but you're still screwed if you bring one to a gunfight. It's a difficult choice.

True, but that genie has been out the bottle for thousands of years. It is called being human.

> A little fud now and then is a good thing

This, my friend, is the problem with politics and science today.(And probably all of human history, but I was going for affect.)

I would love to have a debate over the privacy issues with a population that has been thinking critically about the issues.

But until then, I have to work with what we have.

The AIT machines are 100% about politics. This is not science.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com