Hacker News Reader

Comment by kubb | Hacker News Reader

There's an abstract argument template that I've noticed floating around. It goes like this:

  1. There's a thing T in the world, and that thing has negative outcomes X, Y, Z, and positive outcomes A, B, C.
  2. Some people believe that Y and Z are so bad, that they want to partly compromise C to diminish them.
  3. However that will never work! And they'll definitely also take B if we let them mess with C.
  4. Besides, C is so important, that we should accept Y and Z to have it.

I've heard it many times before. Reading this post feels like watching a rerun of Friends.

View on HN

Are you saying that this template is what the article is presenting?

If so I don't believe it applies, in particular because you have stated that only a partial compromise on C is needed to prevent Y and Z.

There is no "partial compromise" on encryption, so this argument is flawed. There is no way to have encryption that "only the good guys" can break. It is either secure, or it is not.

C isn't encryption :(

My favorite version of it is "Let's ban air because terrorists breathe".

I've usually seen it phrased as "let's ban wheels|cars so bank robbers can't escape!".

But well, even that rebuttal is getting tiresome. It's the same people that keep pushing for banning air again and again. They control all the communication channels, so nobody can ever rebut them in a forum that matters, they control the governments, and they are still not popular enough to make that thing pass. Yet, they keep pushing for it.

I don't think we'll solve this by talking about this. We need to talk about systemic corruption instead. (But then, they control the communication channels...)

From my experience this kind of problems are avoided to be solved simply because the difficulty of them is crystal clear and usually there are no champions who are willing to push it to the very end.

I love strawmen, but I've seen way too many in my time.

Guantanamo Bay was a thing though. Remember you are not banning all air.

And of course the definition of terrorist is will vary based on what politicians want. US recently sent some "Terrorists" to a gulag for example.

> Remember you are not banning all air.

Nope, it's about exactly that. This policy would work only for law-abiding citizens which terrorists are not, that's the point.

Added: The current gulag expeditions in US nor Guantanamo have nothing to do with US citizens, which is a big difference from GGP's comment.

That's a template, yes. But why is it bad?

Because only the first part adds something to the discussion. Starts with the the problem, then goes about only one of the possible solutions (which usually is the low-hanging one), states why it's bad and ends with refuting the existence of a problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com