Hacker News Reader

They excluded a few countries and two usernames. Medium-level infection reached 18 countries.

I think it's foolish to defend alleged NSA operations when the NSA won't even acknowledge such operations.

If the government wants to have a debate about the rules of digital warfare (or a particular war), then let's. If they don't, then why should we defend their secret tactics? We have no idea what the motives and objectives are of these operations. And we have little knowledge about how they've affected people, innocent or otherwise.

Your casual analogy to parking vans outside homes seems reasonable. Until you consider what that actually means in our real life. For instance, vans outside homes has been a large part of the war on drugs which has imprisoned a staggering number of black youth. What do you think is the analogous fallout of this malware? Drone strikes? Defend those.

The notation that a debate on the rules of digital warfare will do anything is questionable.

Arms control limitations (SALT,START), the hague convention, etc, work because there are means of verifying countries adhere to what they agree on (and ostensibly punishing those who don't).

Given the difficulty of attributing cyber attacks (e.g. Sony), much less cyber espionage, there's little reason to think this is possible in this case. And that's just for direct action.

If we're talking about tactics and capabilities, it's impossible. How are you going to make sure there aren't 30 people somewhere writing malware for a government? You can't, at least absent far more invasive spying or some kind of DRM that makes writing malware illegal.

My point was mostly that I will not defend secret war/aggression/cybercrime especially in light of recent history. I'm surprised so many people here defend this malware claiming that it's (1) justified and (2) targeted. Since, we have no idea what it's for and it's heavily infected 18 countries. I'd guess they also support targeted torture and rectal hydration too. Just as long as it's not citizens. Except for just the really bad citizens.

No one in this thread has said they support torture. This malware has nothing g to do with torture. What was the point of that fake argument? Supporting targeted malware is not supporting torture.

When the state conducting torture and assassinations without due process of its own citizens is the one making the calls about who to round up or kill via metadata they are vis a vis.

There was some sarcasm in my comment above and I didn't fully detail what I meant.

The point was that something doesn't become ok just because it's targeted at non-citizens or the targets are more limited than simply everyone. (Unless other context can justify it... but we're being kept in the dark). It's still dragnet surveillance. Similarly torture is wrong and no amount of "targeting" can change that. So I think there's a disconnect in people who oppose mass surveillance but approve of this. I presume many people ok with this malware are opposed to torture; it wasn't to be taken literally.

Surveillance is situationally justifiable. Torture is not. This isn't a complex problem.

I think that surveillance and dragnet surveillance are fundamentally different and not comparable.

If so, then it's hard to imagine how you could distinguish between those in such a way that labels the methods described in the article as dragnet surveillance, rather than non-dragnet.

> Case in point: Hate speech is illegal in Germany, which is understandable given German history, but a violation of free speech rights in the U.S.

Germany gave up that part of their free speech because of the horrors they inflicted upon the world, they wanted to prevent happening ever again no matter what. I've yet to see the USA make any kind of adjustment for the atrocities, torture, murders, war crimes they pulled.

Point is, the USA doesn't have any more slack left over. So yeah targeted surveillance that might otherwise considered fine and just if it were done by the "good guys" or even just a responsible party, is going to be met with a large amount of suspicion. And for good reason. These are powerful capabilities the USA doesn't even seem to be able to keep in check internally, who knows what it'll be used for (at the very least it'll show up in economic/corporate espionage, that's a certainty).

> Germany gave up that part of their free speech because of the horrors they inflicted upon the world, they wanted to prevent happening ever again no matter what. I've yet to see the USA make any kind of adjustment for the atrocities, torture, murders, war crimes they pulled.

This comparison really isn't apt or constructive. Not only has none of the top US leadership been indicted for war crimes in the ICC or by the UN, but the German state and quite a number of the German people knowingly participated in the extinction of at least 12 million people. Whether you think that the Iraq War was right or legal or not doesn't matter unless there is an indictment and conviction. In addition, the sum total of the crimes-- whatever they may be-- do not add up to total societal or national culpability.

There is this Bush guy, easily the most hated US president to date by rest of the world (ie those +-95% of human race outside US). Let's not get too much into his lackey Rumsfeld... If in some ridiculous alternate reality Iraq would defeat US & UK and would actually went on and conquer them as nations, theye guys (joined by UK PM for examlpe) could easily end up in similar trial and be hanged.

As you know, rules and history are written by vinners ;)

There is this Bush guy, easily the most hated US president to date by rest of the world (ie those +-95% of human race outside US). Let's not get too much into his lackey Rumsfeld... If in some ridiculous alternate reality Iraq would defeat US & UK and would actually went on and conquer them as nations, theye guys (joined by UK PM for examlpe) could easily end up in similar trial and be hanged.

That really doesn't matter to my argument above, though, does it? Whether or not the world hates the guy doesn't make him a war criminal. And whether or not he's hated doesn't change the fact that there hasn't been an indictment, much less a conviction, outside of Malaysia.

To briefly comment on your alternate scenario it's important to point out that Victor's Justice is not the same as a War Crimes trial.

As you know, rules and history are written by vinners ;)

History PhD here and I can say with confidence that this isn't true. In the US there is and was an enormous amount of literature by former Confederates and neo-Confederates defending the antebellum American South and the American Civil War. Similarly, in the aftermath of the Second World War there was a large number of exculpatory memoirs by German generals. These more or less informed the historical literature in the aftermath of the Second World War for an entire generation.

History is written by the writers.

But the US doesn't recognize the ICC's authority ...

and parking a van outside every home in America

Have you really still not realized that this is exactly what is happening?

How many more Snowden's do you need?

Re-read the comment chain. Was not denying the existence of mass surveillance. But the comment at the top of this chain states that targeted malware (the subject of the OP) is distinct from mass surveillance. Which seems to be mostly true.

The van is now in your pocket, living room, and office.

Joke's on you, my living room IS my office!