News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by corywatilo on Monday January 25, 2016 @11:44PM (#10971859)
> As president, my most important job is to keep the American people safe

The author, er, the President is incorrect. His most important job is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. He says this constantly, and, politics aside, it is important for every American to remember what the actual duty of the President is, as affirmed when sworn into office.

Side note: Why is this on HN?

Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by rayiner on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @12:02AM (#10971897)
While I appreciate the point you're trying to make, I don't think it's accurate. You're quoting the Presidential Oath, which reads:

> I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Note the order: first responsibility is to execute the office, the second is to protect the Constitution. The responsibilities of the Office of the President are laid out in Article II of the Constitution, starting with Section 2. The very first one is: "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States[.]"

It's not unreasonable for him to say his most important job is to keep America safe. Indeed, the historical evidence shows that one reason the Constitution created a strong executive (where the Articles of Confederation had no executive), is because the failure of the government under the Articles to quell certain internal rebellions.

Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by laotzu on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @11:34AM (#10974227)
The founding fathers had a lot to say about a strong executive who is primarily interested in providing security as opposed to liberty and its inevitable corruption:

>In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

-James Madison, Speech at Constitutional Convention, 1787

>A politic minister will study to lull us into security, by granting us the full extent of our petitions. The warm sunshine of influence would melt down the virtue, which the violence of the storm rendered more firm and unyielding. In a state of tranquillity, wealth and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war, and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our assistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin, and render us easier victims to tyranny. Ye abandoned minions of an infatuated ministry, if peradventure any should yet remain among us!—remember that a Warren and Montgomery are numbered among the dead. Contemplate the mangled bodies of our countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices ? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood, and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude, than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

-Samuel Adams, American Independence Speech, 1776

Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by Steko on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @01:05AM (#10972060)
Just as relevant is the vesting clause that begins Article II:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America

This executive power is the vehicle by which various acts of legislation which "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (I.8) take effect.

Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by akiselev on Monday January 25, 2016 @11:48PM (#10971866)
Because according to the guidelines:

》 On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. (Emphasis mine)

If it's on the front page, enough people have found it interesting and within the guidelines.

Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by ojbyrne on Monday January 25, 2016 @11:51PM (#10971872)
More concretely, The US Prison System is clearly broken and doing great harm. It's an obvious opportunity for making things better, which can lead to entrepreneurial opportunities.
Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by lowmagnet on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @11:16AM (#10974137)
I don't know about that. Thus far, those "entrepreneurial opportunities" have lead toward more incarceration, not less. For-profit prisons have contracts that guarantee a certain level of incarceration, resulting in occupancy of the prisons they run. This is definitely one of those things that I'd much rather not be in the hands of entrepreneurial entities.
Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by mikeash on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @01:03PM (#10974775)
Here's a counterexample:

https://pigeon.ly

They're focused on making it easier and cheaper to communicate with inmates, who often suffer from ridiculous price gouging for things like phone calls.

It's pretty small potatoes compared to private prisons, but it's something.

[deleted]
Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by krapp on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @12:40AM (#10971991)
I suppose by definition, if someone finds a story interesting, that makes them a "good hacker."
Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by voynich61 on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @12:06AM (#10971906)
Your comment is pedantic.

A school bus driver's job is to get kids from their homes to school and back. If she says her most important job is to keep the kids safe, it doesn't mean that she's not going to do her job! Instead, it means that she'll do her job in such a way that it keeps her safe, and in no way implies a conflict of interest between her job description and safety.

Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by jMyles on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @12:13AM (#10971931)
If that's so - and it may well be - then it is different in kind from this matter, where "safety" and liberty are, and have been, in conflict. The job of the POTUS has little do with safety, but much to do with liberty.
Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by notdonspaulding on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @12:21AM (#10971947)
The POTUS is using this "my job is to keep Americans safe" line to make a very tenuous tie to a position he wants to take on solitary confinement.

Using your analogy, imagine the bus driver said "It's my job to keep the kids safe, therefore I'm going to start requiring all the kids to give me their cell phone numbers in case there's an emergency."

Could that be construed as "keeping the kids safe"? Sure, but that wouldn't necessarily make you any more comfortable with the bus driver gaining more intimate access to your children.

I know analogies are never perfect, but another nitpick with this one is that the POTUS holds a position of power and authority that you wouldn't typically have to worry about in your average bus driver, so additional scrutiny into "Just what did he mean by that?" is occasionally warranted.

Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by voynich61 on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @12:44AM (#10971996)
Justifying the move as a step to keep America safe is the right move in this political context. America is generally fearful right now, so Obama's political adversaries will attack this move as eroding the safety the prison system attempts to maintain.

"My job is to keep Americans safe" is an acceptable justification for limiting solitary confinement. It would not be an acceptable justification for extrajudicial killings.

Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by jhancock on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @01:42AM (#10972178)
The U.S. Constitution is structured in traditional contract form. It starts with stating its purpose (preamble) and continues with rules to support methods of execution of purpose.

It is not unreasonable that a U.S. President may consider these recent statements as fitting to "...promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by galago on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @12:21AM (#10971950)
Perhaps its a limitation of our form of democracy, but if voters think the presidents job 'is to keep the American people safe' and they vote in said direction--well, that's the de-facto job. If the president is comfortable outright saying that his effective job is not the one legally defined, that's kind-of a HN topic in itself.
Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by r00fus on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @12:06AM (#10971907)
I'd bet a good portion of the HN reader base has had an uncomfortable police encounter.

Also the prospect of going to jail for hacking or whistleblowing crimes is pretty harrowing - look what happened to Aaron Swartz.

Yeah, I'd say it's relevant to discuss here.

Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by ryanlol on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @03:03AM (#10972379)
>Also the prospect of going to jail for hacking or whistleblowing crimes is pretty harrowing - look what happened to Aaron Swartz.

But he'd probably have got off with parole.

Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by ryanlol on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @09:38AM (#10973536)
If you're going to downvote me for repeating the opinion of his own legal representation and several other legal experts commenting on the case, you could at least explain why.

(Although I did mess up parole vs probation)

Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by username223 on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @12:24AM (#10971953)
> I'd bet a good portion of the HN reader base has had an uncomfortable police encounter.

Rich, white tech dudes? I doubt it. Even if they have, a bit of mouthing "sorry, Officer" probably solved the problem.

Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by deelowe on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @01:28AM (#10972134)
Heh... Anyone else getting tired of the backhanded racism against whites?

"Privileged" white male checking in here. I've been harassed by the cops at least 3 times. Two included spending the night in jail. One included a healthy threat of violence. I might not have it as bad as others, but I've had my run-ins buddy.

Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by enraged_camel on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @04:52AM (#10972634)
You do realize that anecdote doesn't make data, right? Because the data is clear: wealthy white males are far, far less likely to get harassed by the police as any other ethnicity/income/gender combo. So the parent's comment, while politically incorrect, is factually on point.
Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by xiaoma on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @06:08AM (#10972831)
This is incorrect. The single major demographic trait most likely to lead to arrest, higher conviction rates and stricter sentencing for the same crime is to be male. Being black (or to a lesser extent, Latino) is also a huge factor, as is being young.

The demographic of elderly Asian women, for example, is not more likely to get harassed by police, face arrest if they are or to be sentenced harshly in the event of a conviction.

Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by IIAOPSW on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @01:19AM (#10972111)
Last time I looked at the stats, 18-30 male is the demographic most often arrested. Black 18-30 male get arrested slightly more often than white 18-30 male (although not as much as you'd expect). If you looked at the numbers and nothing else, the truly "privileged" demographic is actually Asian females. And for the record, yes I'm in the 18-30 male demo and yes I've had a police run in which didn't end in "sorry officer".

Now conviction rates are another story...

Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by int_handler on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @12:39AM (#10971986)
Yeah, just saying, "sorry, Officer," obviously solved the problem for Aaron Swartz.
Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by 1stop on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @01:22AM (#10972122)
Yeah, one privileged guy had problems and everyone remembers it forever... Isn't really comparable to the thousands of underpribileged who's lives are just as tragically ruined...
Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by int_handler on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @09:12PM (#10977764)
Nobody is discounting the problem of police brutality for the thousands of underprivileged. Acknowledging that problem should not mean that we should simply ignore other forms judicial overreach, such as the abuse of the CFAA in Aaron Swartz's case. Both are major problems that need to be discussed.

Keep in mind that another major reason people remember Aaron Swartz because of everything he has contributed to the world of technology [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#Life_and_works

Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by 1stop on Friday January 29, 2016 @11:53PM (#11000564)
I agree that is why he should be remembered. I disagree that is why he is. Of course impossible to seperate the reasons now. But certainly his notoriety is far more widespread after his death, than before.
Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by wfo on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @01:47AM (#10972191)
Yup, cops don't ever abuse their power unless it's against a minority. Cops aren't power hungry or brutal, they just have an unending unexplainable hatred for minorities.

And even if they do abuse or brutalize a white person who cares right? That white person probably had such a good life before then that they deserved it.

It's one thing to focus the conversation on race when we're talking about race, and fight off intentional malicious distractions like "all lives matter". It's entirely another to pretend no issues exist unless they only affect minorities.

Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by username223 on Wednesday January 27, 2016 @02:11AM (#10978711)
Thanks for putting those words in my mouth...

Police have terrifying power, and fail to de-escalate situations much of the time. However, as a middle-aged and middle-class white dude, I have been able to avoid violence and jail on several occasions.

Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by rnhmjoj on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @12:57AM (#10972039)
Read Ian Murdock's last tweets.
Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by corywatilo on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @01:06AM (#10972062)
Whoa...
Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by notdonspaulding on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @12:03AM (#10971898)
I'd like to say I read that line in disbelief that the POTUS could so completely misunderstand his own role in our government, but at this point, I'm afraid I'm used to it.

(For those not from the U.S.: The way it's supposed to work is that Congress makes the law, the President executes the law, the Court upholds the law)

Re:Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement by ggreer on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @02:24AM (#10972287)
From The American System and Misleading Labels[1]:

> Brad Templeton, chairman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, was present; and he said: "The legal status of AIs is ultimately a legislative question, and in the American system of democracy, legislative questions are decided by the Supreme Court."

> Much laughter followed. We all knew it was true. (And Brad has taken a case or two to the Supreme Court, so he was speaking from experience.)

The whole post is worth reading. It's a little dated and a lot oversimplified, but it drives home a useful point: just because something is named X, that doesn't mean it has anything to do with X.

1. http://lesswrong.com/lw/mh/the_american_system_and_misleadin...