= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I think it was being classed as a "natural event".
He says that natural events are included in the category of journalism that's not about exposing other peoples secrets....
That's nonsense.
1) There is quite a bit of journalism that has nothing to do with exposing other peoples secrets. This would include reporting on natural events (storms, snow, earthquakes, politicians lying or accepting bribes), human activities (that a murder happened, who the police claim to be interested in etc., business information (stock prices, sales, etc.)) all of which and more require no subterfuge, burglary, or other morally or legally questionable activities to learn about and create a report of.
2) Almost no espionage (as a percentage of the total amount created) is intended for eventual exposure via "the press", be that a real press, the internets, or various video outlets. I've been (tangentially) in the espionage industry (providing non-espionage (and non-interesting) support to people doing electronic intelligence gathering) and I have some feel for the amount of data gathered this way. I've also been (at a different time) in the Media Industry (providing similar non-interesting support to a much more interesting set of artists) and there really is NO similarity between the two, other than some journalists also providing some humint to military and civilian intelligence sources. (Note, I've never been on the humint side and know nothing of this that isn't already out there. It could be disinformation, it could be real.)
Very few journalists are aware and disciplined enough to be intelligence assets. Most who are are egotistical f'wits (like the aforementioned Assange) who just want more money and fame and don't care who they kill to get it.
What Assange did was neither espionage, nor journalism. He simply accepted material someone else had stolen (Manning was the one committing espionage with the Iraq documents.) and then published it (as far as I know) unedited.
The big fallacy being committed here is that Assange is not, or at least shouldn't be subject to US law, and as such is not covered by the Constitution. I believe our constitution to be the least-bad construction of a government yet implemented in a pluralistic society, and that in general our government is at least as transparent (given it's size and scope) as there is.
But we do not (yet) own the world and trying to try an Australian citizen for something that isn't clearly a crime in America (vis the pentagon papers case) and didn't actually happen in America (unless I missed something Assange isn't here in the states and didn't receive the materiel here) is really a fucking stretch folks.
A US citizen cannot be tried and convicted in an Australian court for the crime of owning a handgun IN THE US, even though it would be a crime in Australia (handwaving some legal details here, the point is jurisdiction). Now, if there is a statute in Australia that makes what Assange did illegal, then THEY need to try him, and I can tell you for certain that there ain't no constitutional protections there.
LOL, how did I miss this:
1) There is quite a bit of journalism that has nothing to do with exposing other peoples secrets. This would include reporting on natural events (storms, snow, earthquakes, politicians lying or accepting bribes).
Are you under the impression that a politician wouldn't consider his accepting bribes to be a secret?
That's nonsense.
1) There is quite a bit of journalism that has nothing to do with exposing other peoples secrets. This would include reporting on natural events (storms, snow, earthquakes, politicians lying or accepting bribes), human activities (that a murder happened, who the police claim to be interested in etc., business information (stock prices, sales, etc.)) all of which and more require no subterfuge, burglary, or other morally or legally questionable activities to learn about and create a report of.
2) Almost no espionage (as a percentage of the total amount created) is intended for eventual exposure via "the press", be that a real press, the internets, or various video outlets. I've been (tangentially) in the espionage industry (providing non-espionage (and non-interesting) support to people doing electronic intelligence gathering) and I have some feel for the amount of data gathered this way. I've also been (at a different time) in the Media Industry (providing similar non-interesting support to a much more interesting set of artists) and there really is NO similarity between the two, other than some journalists also providing some humint to military and civilian intelligence sources. (Note, I've never been on the humint side and know nothing of this that isn't already out there. It could be disinformation, it could be real.)
Very few journalists are aware and disciplined enough to be intelligence assets. Most who are are egotistical f'wits (like the aforementioned Assange) who just want more money and fame and don't care who they kill to get it.
What Assange did was neither espionage, nor journalism. He simply accepted material someone else had stolen (Manning was the one committing espionage with the Iraq documents.) and then published it (as far as I know) unedited.
The big fallacy being committed here is that Assange is not, or at least shouldn't be subject to US law, and as such is not covered by the Constitution. I believe our constitution to be the least-bad construction of a government yet implemented in a pluralistic society, and that in general our government is at least as transparent (given it's size and scope) as there is.
But we do not (yet) own the world and trying to try an Australian citizen for something that isn't clearly a crime in America (vis the pentagon papers case) and didn't actually happen in America (unless I missed something Assange isn't here in the states and didn't receive the materiel here) is really a fucking stretch folks.
A US citizen cannot be tried and convicted in an Australian court for the crime of owning a handgun IN THE US, even though it would be a crime in Australia (handwaving some legal details here, the point is jurisdiction). Now, if there is a statute in Australia that makes what Assange did illegal, then THEY need to try him, and I can tell you for certain that there ain't no constitutional protections there.
Wikileaks has published less than 1% of the diplomatic cables[1]. It goes thorough and removes sensitive and personal information before posting them online[2]. Except for a handful of exceptions, they only publish information that one of their newspaper partners has already published[2].
In the US we don't say people are guilty until proven so -- Manning has made no public confession, and has not been tried. He's being held solely as the result of one man's (Adrian Lamo's) testimony, to the best of our knowledge[3]. That man was forcibly checked into a mental institution 3 weeks before said informing, and has made several inconsistent statements about his relationship with Manning, and what Manning told him to the press[4].
In response to
New Year's Resolutions
I'm using the same one I've made since 2007/8:
Make new mistakes.
It's served me well thus far!
What do you suppose Einstein would say about doing different things over and over and expecting the same result? :p
I can't help but ask whether you've ever found this advice personally useful, and if so, how.
Never trust anyone unless you're talking in person? :p
Yes. If I didn't none of this would make any sense...
In response to
How To Lose 100 Karma In 6 Hours -- What Just Happened
Instead of trying to convince right wingers to ban FAI, how about trying to convince Peter Thiel to defund SIAI proportional to the number of comments in a certain period of time.
Advantages:
Better [incentive to Eliezer]/[increase in existential risk as estimated by waitingforgodel] ratio
Reversible if an equitable agreement is reached.
Smaller risk increase, as the problem warrants.
It's interesting, but I don't see any similarly high-effectiveness ways to influence Peter Thiel... Republicans already want to do high x-risk things, Thiel doesn't already want to decrease funding.
Re #1: EY claimed his censorship caused something like 0.0001% risk reduction at the time, hence the amount chosen -- it is there to balance his motivation out.
Citation? That sounds like an insane thing for Eliezer to have said.
After reviewing my copies of the deleted post, I can say that he doesn't say this explicitly. I was remembering another commenter who was trying to work out the implications on x-risk of having viewed the basilisk.
EY does say things that directly imply he thinks the post is a basilisk because of an x-risk increase, but he does not say what he thinks that increase is.
Edit: can't reply, no karma. It means I don't know if it's proportional.
In response to
How To Lose 100 Karma In 6 Hours -- What Just Happened
At karma 0 I can't reply to each of you one at a time (rate limited - 10 min per post), so here are my replies in a single large comment:
I would feel differently about nuke designs. As I said in the "why" links, I believe that EY has a bug when it comes to tail risks. This is an attempt to fix that bug.
Basically non-nuke censorship isn't necessary when you use a reddit engine... and Roko's post isn't a nuke.
Yes, though you'd have to say more.
Incredible, thanks for the link
Incredible. Where were you two days ago!
After Roko's post on the question of enduring torture to reduce existential risks, I was sure they're must be a SIAI/LWer who was willing to kill for the cause, but no one spoke up. Thanks :p
In this case my estimate is a 5% chance that EY wants to spread the censored material, and used censoring for publicity. Therefore spreading the censored material is questionable as a tactic.
Great! Get EY to rot13 posts instead of censoring them.
You can't just pretend that the threat is trivial when it's not.
Fair enough. But you can't pretend that it's illegal when it's not (ie. the torture/murder example you gave).
Actually, I just sent an email. Christians/Republicans are killing ??? people for the same reason they blocked stem cell research: stupidity. Also, why you're not including EY in that causal chain is beyond me.
I think his blackmail declarations either don't cover my precommitment, or they also require him to not obey US laws (which are also threats).
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Sorry to see this so heavily downvoted. Thanks -- this made for interesting reading and watching.
If you haven't checked out the archive of iq.org it's also a rather interesting blog :)
re: formatting... you don't happen to use Ubuntu/Chrome, do you?