Hacker News Reader

Comment by matte_black | Hacker News Reader

I wouldn’t say it’s their value system, rather it’s a result of the enormous pressure they face. Torture should only be used as a last resort, and when there’s no other hope of getting information that is needed ASAP.

View on HN

Torture doesn't provide any valuable intelligence results for those doing the torturing, we're not living in "24", the TV series. I know for sure that if I were to be tortured I'd be ready to recognize even the killing of the biblical character Abel if those doing the torturing would ask that from me, and I guess I'm not the only person so predisposed.

That’s a myth, if you’re looking for objective verifiable facts you can get some useful information.

Also, if you have enough statistical data on torture methods, you can have a probability that a person doesn’t know something based on how long they’ve been actively tortured.

All the scientific evidence disagrees with you and so do many former employees and directors of intelligence agencies, so I'd like to see some citations.

You don't even have to go into physical torture: recent history is filled with cases where people confessed to crimes under police interrogation, only to have iron-clad evidence show up that they couldn't possibly be responsible.

The most effective technique is befriending the suspect, doing nice things for them, then allowing the natural human tendency to reciprocate (and a desire for positive social interactions) work for you. It takes time but gets you much more reliable information - and much more extensive information.

"...probability that a person doesn’t know something based on how long they’ve been actively tortured."

I, actually, have nothing I can say to that.

Are you listening to yourself?

I mean, the APA does promote good research and also supported torture up until recently when it started attracting attention and became politically untenable. To the extent that it is possible to optimize torture, it has probably been optimized by some pretty competent people.

I do not doubt that there is some mathematics behind modern torture, we've come a long way from the days of gruesome medieval torture which was mostly punitive. Given the data we have on what has worked in the past, and cross-referencing it with a person's time under torture, we can reduce or even eliminate the intensity of torture after a certain confidence threshold has been crossed.

Let's be clear, torture is an unpleasant technique and should only be an absolute last resort when everything else has failed, but it's far better to be tortured by people who know what they're doing and are only trying to get information out of you, than by people whose goal is simply to hurt you (often for no reason and with no stopping point).

For how long is that OK? Is it OK to torture someone until you've been able to achieve, let's say, six nines -- 99.9999% probability that they have no information for you?

Is it OK to go for 10+ nines, as long as our goal isn't to inflict pain -- and despite the fact that we are indeed inflicting pain, mentally and/or physically?

Just for the sake of argument, let's say that 99.99% can be accomplished in 24 hours of pain infliction (torture) -- and let's say you'll get to 6 nines in 168 hours (7 days).

Oh come on, who am I kidding -- as much as I appreciate the discourse, I can't even fathom or given consideration to it actually being something that can be realistically reasoned about in this way. =\

Your honor, as our neural networks are the ones designing these torture programs, ethical considerations do not apply.

That’s a myth

What's a myth, that torture doesn't work? Imma need a citation on that one, because I've got stacks of 'em to the contrary.

Most people will hand over their wallet, phone, car keys, passwords, and spill their darkest secrets if you just point a toy gun at them and raise your voice.

Some won't, but saying "torture doesn't work" as a blanket statement implies that they all have infinite pain tolerance.

People will also confess to anything and say whatever they think you want to hear under torture.

Sure, it doesn't always work. Some people will also withstand torture and take their secrets to the grave. But "torture doesn't always work" is a far cry from "torture doesn't work."

A more believable amoral/utilitarian argument against torture is that there will always be a more effective method than torture available. That's probably also wrong, but at least it's not so obviously wrong on its face.

The problem with the argument is that if a would-be torturer finds evidence that torture is the most effective method in some circumstance, they will feel vindicated in using it. I think a better argument is "regardless of effectiveness, anyone crossing this line is a dangerous and despicable person, and shall be prosecuted."

Most people are carrying a wallet, phone, car keys.

How many people that get tortured actually know anything?

>, if you’re looking for objective verifiable facts you can get some useful information.

If you're getting "verifiable" facts, you didn't need to torture him/her in the first place... you were just being lazy in your reconnaissance.

> you can have a probability that a person doesn’t know something based on how long they’ve been actively tortured

That almost seems worse - torturing someone to make sure they don't know anything is akin to punishing someone to make sure they are innocent.

It's the value system. Either you follow the laws and values of your country always or you don't. You can't protect values by violating them.

Easy to say, but in the real world there is a conflict between values and results. Values don’t need protection, they are intangible. In the end what you are protecting is people.

People must speak up for values and ideals. Otherwise their power will fade. Results without values are hollow.

While utilitarian arguments can be a factor in an ethical framework they are not beneficial in isolation and will lead to grave injustices. If protecting people would be the real goal then many actions that were committed ostensibly for 'the greater good' were in fact ultimately net negatives and effectively harmed far more people than were protected. Part of the problem with utilitarian arguments is that we never have all the variables. It also should be noted that 'people' tends to be silently redefined as 'our people' and that this further skews the outcome towards the horrific.

Before you know it you're torturing people, gassing them or doing other unspeakable things to them because you've worked out some kind of equation where your predicted outcome justifies your horrible actions.

Values only matter when there is a price attached to them, it is very easy to have high standards for morality when they are essentially free.

I think that's a bit extreme and a black and white way of thinking.

For example, suppose you're heading an FBI group, and you've got a suicidal terrorist in custody who is part of a plot to detonate a nuclear bomb in LA. You have excellent evidence this guy is involved, and that the terrorists probably have a nuclear bomb in the country, and, if they realize their coconspirator has been captured, they are likely to detonate immediately.

The terrorist demands to see his lawyer. Your specialists say you should deny that request, because his lawyer may signal, intentionally or otherwise, the other terrorists. Should you allow the terrorist to meet with his lawyer?

Our society's laws say he should be able to see his lawyer. We value that kind of thing. And yet, if you would risk millions of lives to protect this right... Well, that seems perverse to me.

Real life is not an action movie. Your scenario is totally made up and has probably almost never happened.

I hope my scenario has never happened, but nothing about it is implausible. The point though is to illustrate that there are moments where pragmatism must trump laws and values. If you look, there are many times throughout history where such tradeoffs have been made.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy lists a real life example along the lines of my hypothetical one. In this example, a child is stuck in a hot car that is parked in a spot known only to the in custody car thief who is refusing to talk. The police proceed to beat the thief until he talks and save the child's life. This is straightforward example of when pragmatism must overrule idealism.

Then they should be honest, explain the situation and torture people at home with their own specialists immediately and not fly to them to some country with questionable torturing skills.

I think you're confusing my position, and the contents of my comments, with something else.

I think I understand your position. In the scenario you describe any kind of violence/torture needs to be done quickly to avert the situation. Otherwise it's too late. If the CIA renditions were based on something similar they shouldn't fly people to questionable countries but instead interrogate themselves quickly because times is of essence. Everything else would be irresponsible.

The scenario I'm describing doesn't involve any sort of violence or torture, which again, makes me think you're missing my point or conflating my position with something else.

You mentioned a scenario where police beats a thief. How is that not violence? What's your position? I am really curious.

If you are curious, I suggest you read my comments in this chain.

I did and I think you are advocating violence or torture in certain cases.

In my original example the dilemma was between denying a suspected terrorist the right to consult with a lawyer and risking a nuclear terrorist attack. I gave this as an example of when idealism and pragmatism are in conflict. When you objected that this was unrealistic, I responded by giving a real life example where idealism and pragmatism were in conflict.

The purpose of my example was to create a situation where it should be obvious the right move is to go against idealism. The reason is, if your starting point is something like "We must never deny people their rights" I'd like to show you an extreme example where, actually, we must. If you can agree on the extreme example, then the discussion becomes a matter of degree - i.e. when is it okay to deny people their rights versus when it is not. This is actually the more nuanced and realistic discussion that has applicability to the real world.

Where do you draw the line? If torture is acceptable in some circumstances, why isn't it in others? If torturing a car thief is ok, why not in a random stop-and-frisk?

Lines have to be drawn frequently. It's okay to use a tazer or even a gun in some circumstances, others, not. With the torture case, we'd have to see that the benefit vastly exceeds the harm, and that reasonable measures were exhausted first. Beating a car thief to save the life of a child strikes me as a case where reasonable measures were exhausted and where the benefit vastly exceeds the harm.

That's a great link - thanks. Interesting that two of the examples are from Australia.

(edit: now I notice it was written by an Australian)

Suppose you have one person in custody that hates another and is totaly up for pointing finger at the other person even though they are innocent. Oh yeah, that guy is planning an attack. Of course, we could both stop making things up...

What you describe there is a broken and unusable value system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com