Hacker News Reader

>It would be one thing to do this in the natsec context, where such an approach is understandable, but it is another for a private company to surveil and intimidate someone who has legally purchased hardware. Video games are amazing entertainment and (sometimes) art, but their importance in the big picture is out of sync with the disproportionate nature of these measures.

"show me the incentives I will show you the outcome" or something like that.

Capability trickles down over time thanks to technological progress constantly making things cheaper and more accessible. No surprise that BigCo is constantly nipping at the heels of the kind of stuff that 20yr ago was so resource intensive it was reserved for state sponsored actors.

Both types of organizations have responsibility spread so thinly that they will behave as badly as they can justify in pursuit of their goals. Obviously Nintendo isn't gonna slip polonium in this guy's tea for hacking and France isn't gonna drone an ex-pat on a beach in Miami, the risk/reward doesn't favor that kind of behavior. But something like sending PIs to tail him is clearly fair game by Nintendo's analysis or they wouldn't have done it.

When you figure out that the companies are using the resources of the state intelligence and security apparatus to do their bidding, you see the zero integrity nature of the "professional liars" in the IC, who often find it hard to refuse because of the blackmail material and leverage their employers have on them.

Given the nature of their work, I find it hard to see a situation where it doesn't become the corrupt degenerate swamp it is, unless it transforms to become radically open, transparent and accountable.

Given the vested interests benefiting from the current version, this seems unlikely to occur on its own. The cancer of secret corruption that has eaten that industry from the inside is the Achilles Heel of "Western liberal democracies".

>It would be one thing to do this in the natsec context, where such an approach is understandable, but it is another for a private company to surveil and intimidate someone who has legally purchased hardware. Video games are amazing entertainment and (sometimes) art, but their importance in the big picture is out of sync with the disproportionate nature of these measures.

I agree with you. However, Nintendo has/makes more money than many countries. I'm sure it's entirely justified in their eyes.

The better topic would be a discussion on how to change our various cultures to act in the greater good first and profits second. Even as I write that, I laugh at the impossibility of it.

Now, imagine what all the other tech companies are doing with these methods...and to whom....and why.....

"But our Western liberal democracies are so free!"

That's why it must all be kept so secret.

Snowflake at the tip of the iceberg. Dig deeper.

>It would be one thing to do this in the natsec context, where such an approach is understandable, but it is another for a private company to surveil and intimidate someone who has legally purchased hardware.

Could we consider why it is appropriate for a state actor to it? If we were to break down why we consider it okay for the state to do (does it depend upon their intention, on some citizen mandate, does it factor in potential abuse or past abuse) and build up a consistent framework, I'm not so certain the distinction between these two things would be so clear cut. I personally suspect the outcome would find that state actors doing this thing is in the same realm of bad as company actors.

To piggyback on this, Nintendo has profited from using forced prison labor in China and prison labor in the USA. Both are defined as slave labor by domestic and international law.

It's not surprising that massive multinational corporations engage in unethical practices, but these free market activities are perfectly legal in their respective jurisdictions.

I'd agree that spying on families for modifying video game products is unethical. I'd also argue that slavery is unethical. It's really eye-opening once you realize the scope of slavery and other unethical practices when it comes to our major everyday corporations.

Uyghurs, Falun Gong adherents, and other political dissidents make up most of the slave population in China. Many of them work in growing and processing cotton, and the largest Western clothing companies rely on this cotton. Many people are wearing, eating, and using products of slave labor right now without even realizing it.

If it’s wrong, then why isn’t it illegal?

Using the law as a moral compass is a bad idea.

So Nintendo did nothing illegal. Good.

Really? Ok, I’ll bite.

Neither did Hitler.

Hitler set the law. He made things that were illegal legal. Nintendo is just a company that adheres to the laws of democratic countries, and if what Nintendo is doing isn’t considered illegal by those countries, then I’m fine with it.

Also, things get better over time. A hundred years ago, many racist and sexist things were probably legal but aren’t anymore. That’s good. The laws have gotten better. That’s my point. Laws need to evolve with the times. If what Nintendo is doing should become illegal, I am fully on board. If not, then I don’t care.

You can’t have it both ways. Either disallow it, or accept that it’s happening. Nintendo’s brand is too strong. No criticism from the public will affect it.

Thank you for posting that link.

I have blocked all social media (including Twitter) at the DNS level so I usually have to skip over any HN articles that come from Twitter.

How is Nintendo's "establish communication and clarify that nothing illegal is going on" any different from a lawyer sending a cease-and-desist?

> How is Nintendo's "establish communication and clarify that nothing illegal is going on" any different from a lawyer sending a cease-and-desist?

I am unsure about how it works in your jurisdiction, but where I live, sending a C&D rarely involves a lawyer sitting outside your house to note your schedule as well as other comings and goings.

I can see exactly how this has played out:

1) Someone at Nintendo learns about a "anonymous hacker conducting exploits against the 3DS"

2) Exec's panic because "anonymous hacker" and a history of piracy battles and consequently hire a private eye to find out about the person behind the exploiting

3) Private eye does their job and writes a detailed report in the style of a private eye

4) Nintendo uses information to establish communications with said hacker

Just Hanlon's razor at work