Schneier on Security

Curious • December 10, 2019 10:28 AM

My first reaction, without having any thought about this whatsoever, is that it is probably necessary/wise to at least understand the “act” in question, within the given legal system and how that again has been understood up to this point as a purely legal thing conceptually. As a European, I wouldn’t think of US law as being half as rational and good as people in US might think of it. For example, I have the impression that you have a presidential powers that can pardon criminals for serious crimes, which sounds really weird to me.

I can (very quickly) imagine three basic ways of understanding this kind of existence within a legal framework/history/system. Understood as any one of these, or perhaps all three. I suppose one could find more ways, I simply ended up with three options rather intuitively and didn’t find a fourth option readily interesting.

1) As something historical, of it being literally made necessary (for some given past reason more importantly).

2) Being speculative, but not really being necessary, like laws driven by political ambitions, presumably like the concept of “hate speech” within law, presumably being something that is meant to change society, as a tool, for use or abuse. I have yet to see a sensible explanation to involving “hate speech” as a concept in law. Doesn’t make much sense to me.

3) Being dependent or being something thought to being dependent on other things again. Something complex or literally made complicated. This in order to sort the rhetoric from historical or other commonsensical facts about how something like an “act” came about, or even exists.

This imo, in the back of my head, is required, in order to being able to sort the basic ideas for understanding somehting, from each other, so as to not intentionally, or, unwittingly ending up mixing the way one understand something as ideas whenever they are referred back to by some name alone, or if brought up and referenced as a concept as it is purported to simply be, or otherwise as it is explained in ways.

I haven’t slept on this, but I like to think this above would be important, or I can imaigne one would risk having debates shaped by rhetoric or some kind of bias or ignorance. Another outcome I imagine, might simply be calls for ‘change’ for change itself, as if wanting to hurry something or just well change things around.

Curious • December 11, 2019 6:45 AM

Sry for this long text below. I don’t blame anyone not wanting to read it all, but I did take the time to make it readable, and also made sure my points are fairly well explained and fairly easy to understand.

Reading down in this thread, I came to think of something that is rather obvious to me in my mind, but something I guess I haven’t thought of before, or at least, not this sussinctly.

Disregarding earlier notions of mine re. any unease in thinking of abuse of applying law or specifically policy, or politics if you will for changing society in ways involving words like “hate crime”; it occurred to me just now, that, afaik any ‘libel’ accusation against you, would have to be ultimately be considered void in any case in which you simply expressed your personal point of view as such, like basically being honest. And so I suspect that terms like ‘hate crime’ might become a political tool to be abused, in the context of understanding that such abuse sort of crossing the rather obvious line between simply stating your opinion and being guilty of ‘libel’. I think this philosophical insight, would be more relevant that some monolithic right to free speech, because that type of problem as I see it, really boils down to being human, either all alone, or living your life as an individual among others.

Example: There is a big difference between saying that you think somebody murdered somebody, and saying that somebody in particular is a murderer (as if appying guilt and making claims of such).

I can’t help but wonder a little (I didn’t sleep on all of this here): if perhaps the common perception of ‘free speech’ as an idea in USA, in being something that is taken for granted by people, given the prominence of that idea publicly in media, but also re-occurring in courts as presumably a constitutional right vs the state (as if defending yourself against the state, or seeking physical or monetray remedy), that this is a whacky context, in which this general claim of free speech might as well be thought of as existing within an understanding of it as being a paradox (note: as existing on contradictory terms or predicaments). So, to just clarify, a paradox, would simly be a way of understanding things, nothing more.

I’ve always thought that being basically ‘free’ fundamentally means something different than whatever is understood by the word ‘freedom’ as it is commonly used, most of the time simply referred to as being a named idea but without a definition to go along with it, ‘free’ being more perceptive’ and ‘freedom’ being more prescriptive, and yet I can’t help that these seemingly positively laden words become talking points where people on behalf of themselves talk past people that discuss politics (law, practice, governance, etc). And so, I sort of imagine there also being a parallel then to this word pair ‘free/freedom’, in thinking of “free speech” as a given, in which an individual is expected to be able to speak his/her mind without being punished for that, but also, that this (I can imagine) in turn exist in a contradictory setting, in which law/politics/policy cannot or doesn’t seem to want to fulfill the predicament that comes with applying the idea of a right to free speech specifically in indirect ways (as if saying, because there would be this given right to “free speech” as the justification, as opposed to referring to desirable human behavior as such). And so I can at least imagine people having such issues confused, in people on average simply associating ‘free speech’ as something desirable and trivial, while a government probably doesn’t, because they would likely have a much more nuanced take on things, and more importantly having other interests that probably go against ‘free speech’ as a principle. Presumably US congress is a part of government, so perhaps no wonder the confusion would be complete mixing policitians with public officials and law enforcement/military. Assuming here that politiancs are basically dumber, more ignorant than state people, and also perhaps afflicted by self or corporate interest.

I know better than to just jump to my conclusions here, as there is probably the risk of ending up with ‘sophistry’, because ones ideas/theory if you will, is framed within some way of understanding which is either biased, pressured, influenced or limited by interest (thus lacking or failing even, but disregarding ill will because I am writing this and after all I didn’t come prepared here to write what I write here today, I didn’t come here to bullshit).

Still (I don’t live in USA): I wonder if perhaps it wouldn’t be the technology part of society that makes for troublesome prospects re. whatever goes for understanding such tech (the assumption of mine would then be that such insights is more philosophical than factual), and the related behaviors as abusive or being obviously criminal, but I am tempted to instead entertain the notion that there would be this impossible or rather paradoxical problem in thinking of society as being progressive with free speech rights (no, I am not implying that free speech is a bad thing, relax), if also setting the framework for abuse and suspected crime by insisting on treating rights as a ‘monad’ of sorts (ref. philosophy). It then seems obvious to me that debating tech and science and its impact on, or such policy in society, feeds a controversy (bad thing in this case, because it would be something that repeats itself I can imagine, as opposed to the idea of debates or law, being truly ‘progressive’), but the controversy wouldn’t really be ‘free’ ‘speech’ as such as I understand it, but being instead sort of a type of insistence in both believing in ‘free speech’ as a right, but all the while also having concluded that ‘free speech’ is also impossible as in being predictably undesirable (anything intended as being authoritarian or rules in general even). This would imo explain why I find ‘freedom’ as a word, to be something of an oxymoron, as ‘freedom’ is imo sort of what is left, after you also have been informed what you cannot do, a form of definition power that is based on something prescriptive. So, I think there is a general misunderstanding of the word ‘freedom’, because some might simply associate it as ‘being free’, being something perceptive, and not prescriptive like when you are told what you can or cannot do.

Btw, if my many additions inside () signs are distracting to read, they are meant as clarifications, and as a way for me to avoid writing even more text and thus risk adding unnessesary confusion and opening up for misinterpretation on the part of the reader. So my advice is to try re-reading a sentence either with, or without the added text, instead of just not reading further.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(philosophy) (Ideas about monad(s), perhaps the least interesting aspect of philosophy? Perhaps best interpreted as a confusing singularity as far as a world of idea goes. It is descrbed on Wikipedia as being “monist idealism”. Hm, maybe, monads being a world understanding without a proper or explanatory context.) Admittedly I haven’t read much about Leibniz’s Monadology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology Supposedly, it is confusing stuff, but maybe they wrote that to make it seem more of a challenge to people ref. book “Philosophy for beginners” iirc. Given the quasi religious content of the latter, such would be fairly off topic I would think, not something I intended to discuss here. I do like the importance of trying to front the general idea of ‘monads’ as being absurd and thus something inapproppriate. It just seems so obvious, like, some kind of black hole of authority that can’t be challenged.

Curious • December 12, 2019 6:20 AM

@Jon

I initially had some difficulty writing this without ending up writing a LOT of text, but your inclusion of ‘beer’ solved my problem, for finally hammering my points home:

I never said anything about being automatically immune from “libel claims” (that doesn’t make any sense to me, as somebody can probably try make claims of libel regardless). Not sure what you are trying to say here. I must ask, did you understand my point about there being a difference in making claims about others, and simply stating your honest opinion as such?> Formally, such two types of expressions seem evidently very different. I am ofc assuming that anyone’s opionion wouldn’t be simply be considered harassment and for obvious reasons. I would think that if anyone was allowed to file a libel claim against you, on the basis that what you said and did might perhaps be deemed offensive in ways by a court, but more importantly I would think, this would have to be for other reasons than simply having spoken your mind and without directly attributing guilt or whatever goes for being defamation, to thought to be wanting to harass somebody. I ofc don’t know how the US courts work re. libel claims, that is not really what I am discussing here. The problem at hand would be to at least understanding the distinct difference between being honest about what you think, from accusing other people by means of direct attribution (and thus not related to ones own opinion). I can imagine UK being very different, presumably being very authoritative, despite being a “western country”.

“Free as in freedom and/or free as in lunch”
What is this sentence supposed to mean in your opinion? How would you even interpret that to have meaning? This sentence is hardly suggestive, and doesn’t seem to have a point to it and no point is made clear. That sentence would get a red card from me so to speak, in apparently mixing both making a point and making an explanation in specifically phrasing it all the same way. And why would this this have anything to do with specifically my ‘arguments’ as you wrote? How is this that you referred to, not simply idiocy? Meaning, a highly personal and idiosyncratic interpretation of things. If words like “free” and “freedom” is just a form of rhetoric for sanctioning or supporting other opinions and other ideas, but with sentences empty of meaning, then I would say no wonder I have my reservations in my former comment, in thinking of people associating “freedom” with being “free”, when what is discussed might as well be more like being wishful thinking but not being relevant. As if spontaneously attibuting meaning to meaningless statements.

I would very much like to hear your answer here, otherwise, I could have written a wall of text disucssing my thoughts about your comment as I try to put meaning to what I am reading (I shouldn’t have to), but I won’t do that.

If you sit at a table about to eat your lunch or to drink our beer someplace, it doesn’t make any sense to bring about the point that you are “free” or even, that you have the “freedom” to eat your lunch or to drink your beer, such is either self evident or just a highly personal opinion that might conflict with other people’s ideas about the matter, specifically like any other blatantly obvious facts of life I would think. It could be that other people observing you, make the point that you are ‘free’ to drink beer and that you have the ‘freedom’t to drink beer, but again I think it would be unreasonable to assume that they would all happen to be sharing the same opinion, as opposed to their own.

The ‘beer’ part there in your comment makes this I wrote a little tricky though (but a fine opportunity to hammer my points home, after this), as you (baically any functional human being with beer and being unrestrained) would certainly/factually be free to drink alcoholic beer generally ouside in the town of Oslo (at least for some time depending on the circumstances, maybe the police sees you and makes you stop), but it would be I am sure, illegal, and thus, the only one that thinks you have the ‘freedom’ to drink a beer generally anywhere in the city would be you yourself, either perceptively, or prescriptively (if that is even a word in English), as it would be silly to assume that other people necessarily would agree to your highly personal opinion when such obviously might as well not be the case (eihter other people, or law in general). And so, the word ‘freedom’ might as well be thought of, as being allowed to be free, and not risking sanctions due to such free actions. There you have it: Without making sensible distinctions between the words like ‘free’ and ‘freedom’ in a given context, things get very idiotic very quickly I would think.