Comment by lupatus | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lupatus | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

So, because you can't find fault with my main point that there are scary high-impact potential threats that the US government can and should try to protect us from, you are instead picking apart an imaginary scenario that I spent all of 30 seconds thinking up in order to illustrate my main point? Or, did I miss something?

No crap there are holes in Scenario B. Why don't you describe one that would be realistic since you seem to be good at looking at the details? I gave you all sorts of links about missing plagues and other bomb-making materials.

Or maybe the terrorist's just put up a sign at the launchpad that says "Acme Oil Drilling, Serving Des Moines since 1897!"

Regardless, Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution lists one of the duties of the federal government as "repel Invasions". An invasion occurs when someone or some group enters the land as an enemy and any activity to prevent or discontinue that situation would constitute repelling.

Additionally, Article IV Section 4 says "shall protect each of them [State in the Union] against Invasion".

I know the 4th Amendment talks about being secure in your papers and effects against searches, but this NSA surveillance (from what I've read) seems to be reasonable, warranted, and used in a limited manner (given that the real economy is still in a slump and new politicians get elected to existing posts).

Please try explaining to me again how the NSA looking for potential high-impact terrorist events is not a valid and important government function.

So, because you can't find fault with my main point that there are scary high-impact potential threats that the US government can and should try to protect us from, you are instead picking apart an imaginary scenario that I spent all of 30 seconds thinking up in order to illustrate my main point? Or, did I miss something?

I think you missed the point. He's essentially pointing out the fact that you spent all of 30 seconds thinking up a ridiculous scenario and then expected everyone to take it seriously as something that supports your argument.

An invasion occurs when someone or some group enters the land as an enemy and any activity to prevent or discontinue that situation would constitute repelling.

See, that's precisely the kind of thing that makes it hard to take you seriously. You're essentially redefining words "invade" [1] and "repel" [2].

this NSA surveillance (from what I've read) seems to be reasonable, warranted, and used in a limited manner

You're trying to argue that the NSA surveillance is "warranted" by redefining words "invade" and "repel". I don't think we need to go farther than a dictionary for a counter-argument.

What @mikeash disputed, though, was your attempt to argue that the surveillance is "reasonable" by coming up with that amusing little scenario.

Basically, you argued that the surveillance is reasonable because the magnitude of the outcome of the terrorist threat is serious enough to make the surveillance reasonable, because it's supposed to diminish the probability of the terrorist threat manifesting itself in an outcome like that.

Of course, one big problem is that you tried to support your argument with the aforementioned scenario and then blew up at @mikeash for criticizing you, as if the onus of coming up with the support for your argument was on him and not on you. Another big problem is in your assumption that mass-scale NSA surveillance of everyone in the USA and the world will really drive down the probability of a terrorist threat worst-case outcome, which is a subject of a heated debate, instead of being an assumption you can just take for granted.

[1]: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invade [2]: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/repel

The bigger problem is that line of reasoning doesn't allow for any restraint whatsoever: There was nothing in the argument that wouldn't apply to stationing a police officer in your home.

First, I have not redefined anything. I simply went with dictionary.com instead.

Invasions: an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invasions)

Repel: to keep off or out; fail to mix with: Water and oil repel each other. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/repel)

Second, I mean warranted as in "has a warrant". From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)_ "U.S. government officials have disputed some aspects of the Guardian and Washington Post stories and have defended the program by asserting it cannot be used on domestic targets without a warrant, and that the program receives independent oversight from the executive, judicial, and legislative branches."

Third, I tried to let you people know that my scenarios were a bit factually incorrect by saying that I was "pulling the numbers out of my arse"! That some aspects of Scenario B were wrong beyond just the numbers shouldn't be surprising. Furthermore, where's the nitpicking about Scenario A then? I spent even less time thinking about it, so it should a little easier to pick apart.

I blew up at mikeash not because he was criticizing you, but because he is being blockheaded. As are you.

First, you have redefined both words. We could quibble semantic details ad nauseum, but since your written English is pretty good, I suspect your overall English is good enough that you know exactly what you're doing. Even if it wasn't, the "especially by an army" bit should have been a huge hint about the spirit of the word "invade".

Second, if you want to argue the legal points of whether the surveillance is warranted, you don't need to come up with vague, hand-wavy terrorist threat scenarios. You could just state your legal argument and let some expert out there destroy it ;)

Third, an excuse of "I know this is crap, but" is not a valid excuse. It's like saying to someone, "No offense, but you're a total idiot." Just because you said "no offense", it doesn't mean they shouldn't or can't take offense. Likewise, explicitly stating that you were "pulling the numbers out of your arse" doesn't make your scenario any less ridiculous or a better fit to support your argument in any way.

As for the nitpicking about scenario A, you're welcome to argue against it as much as you want. Again, the onus to do that is on you, so knock yourself out.

Fourth, @foobarqux hit the nail on the head with his comment about restraint. One thing is to argue that "repelling an invasion" is "warranted" by the government, another is to try to classify PRISM and other such surveillance programs as "repelling an invasion" and yet another is arguing about whether the extent of those programs is "warranted" or not. I don't know the Constitution by heart and to the letter, but I'm pretty sure that there's a lot of stuff in it that, taken to extremes, will contradict other stuff in it.

And fifth, if "being blockheaded" means not allowing bullshit arguments to pass as valid just because there's strong emotion behind them -- or because their author is throwing a temper tantrum -- then I hope my cranium gets as cubical as it can.

I bend no words. One of the experiences of colonialists was the Beaver Wars in which the Iroquois invaded and captured the territory of the Huron. The Iroquois would not constitute an army in the traditional sense because they were not uniformed and regimented - they were a force of irregulars, much like Al Qaeda is today. Suppose the Iroquois wanted to invade and recapture New York, that would be an invasion by a force other than an army that New York would need to repel.

And, do you spray insect REPELlent on yourself before you get bug bites or after? Protective measures also constitute repelling.

Also, I originally didn't want to argue the legality of the surveillance. I devised a hand-wavy scenario to illustrate my threat-assessment point.

Because, saying that kittens are as or more dangerous than terrorists IS blockheaded. If I'm wrong, I invite you to go down to your local SPCA and adopt a new pet terrorist.

If you don't want me picking holes in your "realistic" scenario, don't present it. I mean, seriously. Where do you get off in giving me an example of a supposed "realistic" scenario, then complaining when I point out its flaws? It's not my fault that your example was bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com