News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote by danbruc on Sunday March 02, 2014 @08:37AM (#7329102)
Why, if Snowden was concerned with letting us know how we are spied on, why did he let us know how we spy on other countries? I think we should spy on other countries.

The last sentence is where he is - only in my opinion of course - completely wrong; no country should spy on other countries without very good reasons. And wanting to know what is going on behind closed doors of foreign governments or companies misses my definition of very good reasons by orders of magnitude.

Re:Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote by wheaties on Sunday March 02, 2014 @08:52AM (#7329135)
I think k we should spy on other countries and share his view of Snowden. I'm really glad Snow den leaked what he did, I just wish he didn't leak all of it. It does raise many questions on motivation. if he's disgusted with spy work in general he should just say so and be honest with the world. I could then have more respect for him doing what he did (and I do respect the conversation he's started.)
Re:Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote by danbruc on Sunday March 02, 2014 @08:58AM (#7329149)
Can you give good reasons why the United States should spy on other countries? Or let's make it concrete, I am from Germany, why should the United States spy on Germany?
Re:Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote by wheaties on Sunday March 02, 2014 @09:05AM (#7329167)
We can only gain by spying on you. We have a military base with defense systems in your country. Your political decisions therefore will have an impact on the effectiveness of our military system to defend our country.
Re:Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote by danieldk on Sunday March 02, 2014 @09:37AM (#7329241)
We can only gain by spying on you.

Except for a lot of damage to goodwill, which can have an economic impact. Lots of European citizens dislike the US heavily now and that comes with disliking US products.

Your political decisions therefore will have an impact on the effectiveness of our military system to defend our country.

First, the US and Germany are allies. Allies talk and don't spy. Second, by now it's clear that a lot of the espionage is economical.

The US/NSA mistreated their allies. It will take many years to rebuild trust.

Re:Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote by danbruc on Sunday March 02, 2014 @09:18AM (#7329195)
By robbing strangers in dark backstreets I can only gain, too. Because a country can gain something is not a good reason at all. And how do German decisions affect the United States' ability to defend themselves? We are thousands of kilometers away. We could maybe decided that we no longer want US military bases on German ground - quite unlikely if you ask me - but even if so, how does that impact the ability of the United States to protect their borders?
Re:Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote by jessedhillon on Sunday March 02, 2014 @10:50AM (#7329487)
By robbing strangers in the dark you can lose your life! I don't think you understand the argument here. I sincerely think you are confusing strongly the way you think the world should work with what decision-makers can do under the limits of bounded rationality. Because something is to be gained is almost the only justification for everything that happens.

If you want to figure out a world where people aren't self-interested and risk-averse, maybe a church would be a better place for you to have that discussion.

Re:Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote by danbruc on Sunday March 02, 2014 @11:42AM (#7329677)
If people are purely selfish, then everything is lost anyway - selfishness is not able to sustain a human society. And while people have to be selfish to some degree to sustain their lives, I see no reasons why they can not act altruistically after they secured basic human needs like food and shelter.

And I agree that most if not all decisions are based or should be based on the expected gain, but the question is then of course how you define or measure that gain. There may actually be a real gain for a country if you spy on other countries, but I argue that this is the wrong standard for gain in that situation, a selfish definition of gain. I would strongly prefer to consider the gain or loss for the whole world when evaluating decisions like whether or not to spy on other countries.

Re:Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote by andersonvom on Sunday March 02, 2014 @12:00PM (#7329765)
Everything you do has pros and cons. By spying on other countries, you may create enemies and eventually lose many lives in a war, for instance.

The point seemed to be: "just because it has a pro, doesn't mean I should do it". I could use the same logic to state that I can only gain by spying on my friends as well. Does that mean I should? Does that mean it has no downsides?

Re:Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC on Sunday March 02, 2014 @10:33AM (#7329428)
So, you also spy on your personal best friend then?
Re:Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote by mst on Sunday March 02, 2014 @09:50AM (#7329269)
Diplomatic espionage is pretty much standard - you might prefer to trust your allies but you still want confirmation that they're actually doing what they're telling you they're doing. I'm from England, and fully expect the German government to be spying on the UK government and the UK government to be spying on the German government, and don't really see a problem with it. I mean ... I don't trust our politicians ... why should I expect yours to? :)

The economic espionage side I'm much less happy about.

Re:Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote by danbruc on Sunday March 02, 2014 @10:03AM (#7329320)
I am not talking about the status quo - the status quo of this world is simply fucked up. Less fucked up than in the past but still fucked up. So for me and especially for this discussion it is completely irrelevant who is doing what right now, I am interested in how it should be.

And I see neither how something we decide in Germany may affect the UK to a degree that justifies espionage, nor do I see how decision of the UK may impact Germany to such a degree. Can you think of a good example?

Re:Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote by jessedhillon on Sunday March 02, 2014 @10:45AM (#7329472)
Have you never heard of the Prisoner's Dilemma? Even if nobody wants the status quo and everyone would like to cooperate, all we can see is other actors strongly incented to betray each other.

And if you see how nothing in Germany could be decided that affects the UK, what do you think would happen if German and French banks had refused to fund bailouts for the less responsible EU companies? No effects felt outside of Germany?

Re:Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote by danbruc on Sunday March 02, 2014 @11:13AM (#7329566)
I am aware of the prisoner's dilemma but it does not apply because it assumes no communication between the prisoners. And even though it is just some gut feeling, I believe most game theoretic problems and paradoxes are irrelevant in real world situations because they arise from artificial constraints and countries wanting to cooperate can just try to remove such constraints if they exists.

And I did not say that the decisions in Germany (or any other country) can not influence the situation of other countries, I said they can not influence them to a degree that justifies espionage. So how does you example apply? Germany and France are free to support or not support what ever they want. How would having known such decisions before they were publicly announced made any difference?

Re:Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote by Perseids on Sunday March 02, 2014 @02:00PM (#7330252)
Have you never heard of the iterated prisoners dilemma [1]?

Besides, the prisoners dilemma assumes there are no penalties for betrayal and that certainly is not the case for international politics.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#The_itera...

Re:Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote by j2kun on Sunday March 02, 2014 @11:16AM (#7329580)
Prisoner's dilemma is the wrong example from game theory, but no harm done.
Re:Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote by lookACamel on Sunday March 02, 2014 @11:41AM (#7329672)
What's the right example?
Re:Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote by DennisP on Sunday March 02, 2014 @11:12AM (#7329561)
I think there may have been a practical issue, which is that Snowden had a very large number of documents and very limited time to go through them himself.
Re:Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote by dantheman on Sunday March 02, 2014 @08:54AM (#7329140)
What makes you think he leaked all of it?
Re:Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote by nsomaru on Sunday March 02, 2014 @09:22AM (#7329203)
Yes, it's curious why countries assume adversarial stances towards each other as a default. Yes, game theory and all that, but its better to be optimistic and hope the humanitarian spirit will prevail.