News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by mcphilip on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @10:18AM (#6725662)
It's not quite so simple as considering all leaks of government information heroic. For instance, would it have been heroic to leak news that U.S. code breakers had cracked enemy codes in WW2?
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by jellicle on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @10:30AM (#6725770)
Even better, what if the government was closing in a child pornographer with chemical weapons and a nuke, and the leak allowed him to rape more children while nuking a nunnery and poisoning an orphanage?
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by timje1 on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @10:41AM (#6725864)
You forgot ...thus lowering house prices in a wide area. Now the electorate are on your side!
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by scott_karana on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @01:58PM (#6727485)
Wouldn't that only make the buyers happy, and the sellers upset? ;)
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by eru on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @08:36PM (#6729967)
You'd expect so. But the buyers are looking for a greater fool to flip the real estate to at a higher price later.
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by alwaysdoit on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @02:36PM (#6727821)
This is possibly a reasonable argument for keeping things confidential temporarily. It's not a justification for keeping information confidential indefinitely.
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by stelonix on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @10:36AM (#6725817)
Is this some kind of humor? The odds of such a thing happening are close to nil.
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by swombat on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @10:39AM (#6725844)
It could happen. Even worse, it could happen on the anniversary of 9/11.

(disclaimer: that's a joke)

Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by iand on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @10:39AM (#6725847)
Yes, it parodies the usual scaremongering responses given in response to leaking/whistleblowing: pedophilia, terrorists, dirty bombs etc.
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by Moral_ on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @10:56AM (#6725982)
I can't tell if you're really dense, or being sarcastic...
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by CalRobert on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @11:14AM (#6726136)
My god, it would be 911 times 2,356.
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by fixermark on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @12:25PM (#6726715)
Yes, the dreaded 2,146,316, as foretold by Nostradamus.
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by conradfr on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @11:03AM (#6726057)
You forgot drugs, drugs are bad.
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by njharman on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @11:59AM (#6726500)
Nah, not anymore, doesn't scare the sheeple like it use to.
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by betterunix on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @09:21PM (#6730123)
Only if you ignore today's bogeymen:

* Methamphetamine

* "Bath salts" (i.e. MDPV)

* Synthetic cannibinoids

Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by jplarson on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @06:28PM (#6729410)
> Child pornographer with chemical weapons and a nuke

Do even approximations to such boogieman figures even exist?

Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by maaku on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @08:29PM (#6729937)
Kim Jong Il?
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by jafaku on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @10:33AM (#6725793)
Think of the children!
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by logfromblammo on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @11:03AM (#6726054)
Like, for instance, that the Japanese diplomatic codes had been broken and that the administration had prior knowledge of an imminent attack on Pearl Harbor, yet chose to do nothing, because the public response would finally allow the U.S. to enter the war?

Absolutely, it would have been heroic. It might have led to real justice instead of ruinous warmongering.

Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by twoodfin on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @11:42AM (#6726384)
It seems that we're fated to see every conspiracy theory on hn eventually. Wikipedia covers the SIGINT available prior to Pearl Harbor pretty well[1]. There is no evidence that anyone in the entire U.S. civilian or military hierarchy had advance knowledge of the attack.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on...

Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by logfromblammo on Wednesday November 20, 2013 @04:48PM (#6771418)
Firstly, it is a conspiracy hypothesis. There is no expectation that it conforms with the facts of history. It was presented to illustrate how a timely leak of a secret might have impacted history positively, rather than negatively, as implied in a previous post.

Secondly, even if it were remotely true, there would have been significant incentives for any involved parties to alter or hide any evidence. History continues to be written by the victors, and crackpots continue to doubt it.

Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by kelvin0 on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @05:05PM (#6728957)
Well I guess if Wikipedia doesn't mention it, it didn't happend, right? Awesome argument ...
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by justinpombrio on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @06:52PM (#6729500)
There's a much easier point to be made: If (i) Wikipedia doesn't mention it, and (ii) it's important enough that it would be reasonable to expect Wikipedia to mention it if there were evidence, then you should at least provide a citation as to why you believe such a thing. Otherwise, why should your readers accept your unsubstantiated hypothesis?
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by sliverstorm on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @07:09PM (#6729584)
why should your readers accept your unsubstantiated hypothesis

The typical line of thinking with conspiracy theories seems to be the less substantiated the theory, the more credence it should be lent, under the logic that the government is suppressing evidence.

So basically the less evidence, the more believable. Beautiful, isn't it?

Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by justinpombrio on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @07:17PM (#6729630)
Except for the fact that there are more false statements than true ones...
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by logfromblammo on Wednesday November 20, 2013 @04:51PM (#6771441)
That appears to be a conjecture worthy of a thesis in philosophy and/or mathematics.

And where do statements of indeterminate truthfulness fit in?

Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by sliverstorm on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @07:44PM (#6729747)
Ssshh, pay no mind to the man behind the curtain.
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by sliverstorm on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @05:43PM (#6729199)
It might have led to real justice instead of ruinous warmongering

If allowing Japan to continue its (quite brutal) invasion of China is what you call justice, I'm not sure we are seeing eye to eye here.

Entering the war made a mess, but so would have staying out of it. The mess was already in motion, it was too late to avoid it either way.

Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by logfromblammo on Wednesday November 20, 2013 @06:03PM (#6771897)
I do not accept as axiomatic that war can be made less horrible by adding more combatants.
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by _mulder_ on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @02:40PM (#6727865)
Heroic how exactly? If the US had not entered the war when it did, the whole of Europe, and perhaps the rest of the world, would have probably ended up under Nazi control.

There are many instances of Allied forces breaking codes but not acting on them, because to do so would have signalled to the enemy that their codes had been broken and the advantage would be lost. This comes back to my post further down, most individuals simply don't know the bigger picture!

Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by the_af on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @05:54PM (#6729253)
I'm no history buff, but I think that's unlikely.

It's true the US had an isolationist movement, and even business ties to Germany, but it would have eventually entered the war against Nazi Germany. After all, it was already supporting its allies (UK, Soviet Union, etc) via materiel through the Lend-Lease program, before the attack on Pearl Harbor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-lease )

Also, without wanting to diminish the participation of the US in the war, most of the effort was done by other countries, such as the Soviet Union.

Doubtless the final shape of Europe would have been different if the US had entered the war later, but Germany would have been defeated anyway.

Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by logfromblammo on Wednesday November 20, 2013 @06:01PM (#6771877)
What if the US stayed out of Europe and only declared war against Japan? If the US had invaded Manchuria while Stalin was still busy with Europe, the Chinese civil war might have panned out differently.
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by logfromblammo on Wednesday November 20, 2013 @05:56PM (#6771845)
I think that unlikely. Germany would have fallen to the Russians. Soviet Europe would have stayed that way for a few decades before reverting to independent mixed economies. The real question is what would have happened between China and Japan, without the American nukes.
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by dlsx on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @01:38PM (#6727323)
yes it is simple.

You are implying that there was a good vs evil paradigm with WWII which is completely a USA fallacy.

Both sides were being funded by the central banking cartel. Do you actually think there would be any difference if you were living under Nazi control or not?

Look at all the astroturfing of the phrase "6 million Jews" in WWI before Hitler even came in to power.

Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by _mulder_ on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @02:47PM (#6727935)
Whilst I do partly agree with your comment from a very existentialist viewpoint[1]. This has to be the worst comment I've seen on HN.

[1] Yes, there would be a big difference to living under Nazi control or not. Whether we would know, or care, is another matter. Homosexuality and Judaism would surely be non-existent, but would that bother us if everything around us is 'Nazi' and the very idea of Judaism or Homosexuality didn't exist? Much like most peoples attitudes towards witchcraft. We are all a product of our society.

Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by mercurial on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @03:36PM (#6728276)
Kind sir, we appear to have run out of Nazi extermination camps. However, I invite you to book a one-way trip to North Korea. I hear their concentration camps are wonderful this time of the year.
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by jafaku on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @06:04PM (#6729294)
And how did NK end up being that crazy? USA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Bombing_North_Korea

"As a result, almost every substantial building in North Korea was destroyed."

Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by eru on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @08:40PM (#6729980)
How do destroyed buildings lead to such craziness?
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by jafaku on Thursday November 14, 2013 @05:49AM (#6731651)
It's not just "destroyed buildings", like in a few military bases here and there. Read again.
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by eru on Thursday November 14, 2013 @09:15PM (#6737271)
I guess taking on that quote was a pot-shot. And, yes, the US have a role to play in North Korea. After all the Kims, at least initially, built their reputation in Korea on fighting the Americans.
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by tedunangst on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @10:09PM (#6730282)
Have you ever been to Tokyo? Craziness everywhere!
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by jafaku on Thursday November 14, 2013 @05:50AM (#6731653)
Japan didn't have "every substantial building destroyed". But we can pretend you are funny if that's what you are into.
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by mercurial on Thursday November 14, 2013 @07:09AM (#6731841)
According to your logic, we can expect concentration camps to pop up right and left in the Philippines a few years from now.