Hacker News Reader

Comment by bdcravens | Hacker News Reader

People still puts locks and alarms in their house, even though they could avoid being burglarized through community watches and educating the public about the morals, ethics, and long term costs of stealing people's stuff.

View on HN

I don't think the analogy works. This is using consumer-grade retail padlocks to keep out the world's richest and most well-equipped criminal organisation. The fact that the shops don't sell strong enough padlocks to stop them isn't the real problem: the deep-seated corruption in law enforcement allowing them to steal with impunity is.

Is it a crime for a hungry man to steal bread? None of your proposed solutions would address his needs.

America's government is so corrupt it is no longer democratic.

Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g

...yes, it is.

It isn't under Sharia law.

Okay? I thought we were talking about the USA.

> America's government is so corrupt it is no longer democratic.

Unfortunately yes, absolutely.

And you begin to see a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the level of corruption and the "quality" of the policy decisions that are made, example: The Iraq war. Another one: the "inertia" regarding climate change action (it's just corporate power effing it all up for us).

It really has a grave effect on all human beings on this planet. It's clear that this has become a fundamentally global problem.

You forget that we are as a whole a up-and-coming group and in 10 years, many of us will be in very powerful positions. The digital revolution did not enter mainstream before the 2000s: What we can and should do now, is talk to others, explain what is going on, share our ideas. Be the change and the world will follow.

No doubt. The element in question is the state authorization for burglary. Letting "authorized burglars" walk into your house and take a look around when you are having dinner with your family.

Locks and Alarms are the lowest common denominator of security - it stops people from walking in but more than anything just gives an illusion of security.

More importantly, they make the distinction between a welcome entry and forced entry much clearer, which is very important from the legal point of view. It's not an illusion of security, but a precondition for a safety and recovery framework to kick in (police action, insurance, etc.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com