
Royal pardon for codebreaker Alan Turing - louthy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25495315
======
acheron
75,000 men were convicted under the same law, of whom 26,000 are still alive.
[1] Only Turing has been "pardoned".

My understanding [2] is that the "pardon" implies there was nothing wrong with
the law as such, just that Turing is forgiven for having broken it. So while I
guess this is better than nothing, I don't know if it's really the way to go
about it.

[1]
[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/t...](http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/130719-0001.htm#13071970000373)

[2] I am not a lawyer, nor British, so give my understanding as much weight as
it deserves...

~~~
stormbrew
So much this. It drives me nuts that the narrative on this issue always seems
to boil down to the idea that Turing somehow _earned_ not being persecuted for
being gay through his efforts in the war and the injustice was that the
government didn't live up to its end of the bargain, not the fact that he and
many others were driven to suicide or horrible lives by this terrible law.

~~~
vacri
It's symbolic. The pardon does absolutely zero for Turing himself - he's long
gone. It's symbolic that society is progressing and saying "we don't agree
with this thing we used to do".

~~~
stormbrew
I agree that this is the intent, but it doesn't take much reading (on this
comment page or nearly any press article about it) to see that it's extremely
common for people to think that the injustice was particularly strong in
Turing's case because he was brilliant.

My issue is less with the intent of the pardon and more with how it's
presented in the media and how people think about it.

~~~
dspillett
To give it a more positive spin: Turing's case _highlights_ how not only
unjust but simply stupid such prejudice is. His case provides a very public
and undeniable example that keeps the issue in people's minds, essentially a
form of martyrdom, highlighting how far we've come and (when you consider how
much prejudice and related bad thinking is still common) how far we still need
to go before we can truly consider ourselves civilised as a whole.

Also his brilliance _does_ come into it once you consider the wider
implications. What else could he have achieved (both for his own intellectual
satisfaction and our eventual benefit) had he been allowed to continue his
work as he wished? How many other people are out there (or were out there) who
could have done great things but were not permitted to by society? While I
agree that is is bad that we _need_ him to stand as an example to highlight
these issues, it is good that he _does_ stand as that example to shine that
light on the problem.

------
edw519
How ironic, coming the same week as LGBT education sites are blocked by
British "porn" filters.

The best pardon to someone who is dead would be to stop doing similar misdeeds
to those who are living.

~~~
scarmig
The "porn" filters are stupid and creeping totalitarianism, but it's
irresponsible and disrespectful to compare them to what was done to Turing.

He was persecuted and prosecuted; publically humiliated; forced to receive
hormonal injections that rendered him impotent; banned from traveling to the
USA; essentially banned from any jobs involving cryptography or national
security; and ultimately committed suicide in large part because of government
sanctions.

World of difference between that and a porous filter.

~~~
pcrh
He was persecuted for his sexual orientation, and furthermore this was done
despite his obvious contribution to the safety of the nation. This placed
sexual mores as more important than national interest.

A default information filter is currently being introduced by several ISPs in
the UK, it starts by filtering sexual content.

This is similar in concept to the attitudes that cause immense suffering to
Turing, i.e. controlling the public expression and liberty of the sexual life
is being considered as more important that protecting civil liberties such as
freedom of information.

------
SimonPStevens
What I find most intriguing about this is the how a law that was enforced only
50 years ago has so quickly become abhorrent to the majority of the
population. It's an interesting thought experiment to consider which laws we
routinely use today to punish people will become morally unacceptable in the
next 50 years.

Copyright and patent laws, and laws used against Snowden's whistle blowing are
some obvious ones that are due for changes, but what's more interesting is if
history continues to repeat itself it seems likely that some things we
consider wrong now will become acceptable in the near future and the reverse
is also true. This is much harder to predict.

(Humans driving cars is a reverse example. I think in the next 50 years it
will become illegal for humans to drive cars manually except on private racing
circuits)

~~~
rmc
I think trans rights are something that in 50 years time will be like gay
rights now. We'll look back 50 years to today and think the treatment by
society of trans people was barbaric.

In 50 years time Chelsea Manning might get an apology because medication she
needed wasn't given to her in prison.

~~~
davidtanner
We can only hope.

------
alan_cx
This is politically motivated nonsense. At right wing government trying to
prove its not homophobic. Yes the Queen issued the pardon, but it wont have
been done without the government being consulted. Pardoning one person like
this when thousands suffered is an insult. They should have either pardoned
everyone who was convicted under these laws, or none of them. Favouring one
man because of his historical significance is creating a two tier justice
system.

And frankly, I find the whole thing problematic. Judging the past by todays
standards is just wrong to my mind. He did break the law as it stood, right or
wrong. Its not like we now have evidence he was innocent of the charges. What
do we do, go over all the past laws that have been repealed, pardoning every
one who was convicted along the way? That would be insane. What about the
reverse? Surely if we are to pardon people who got convicted under laws that
we have now repealed, we should go back and try any one in the past who has
committed acts which are now crimes but were not then.

Yes, Turing is of huge historical significance. What happened to him was awful
and tragic. If the notion that he wiped 2 years of WW2 is not over
exaggerated, millions owe him their lives and freedoms. There for not just a
great scientist, but a world figure of huge significance. But, this is not the
right way to honour him. And from what I can see, is shameless political
points scoring by a weak government concerned with its gay credentials.

If it were me, I would have left the conviction alone, let it stand as a
reminders of our stupid homophobic past (1), and perhaps done something like
having a national Turing Day, which could celebrate science and open humanity.
Or something like that.

(1) Not so stupid. Problem back then was that the vast majority of people were
disgusted by homosexuality. So, obviously they kept it quiet. If they got
found out, they suffered. Problem for organisation concerned with secrecy, is
that the social pressure placed on gay people made them easy and obvious
targets for espionage. They were easily black mailed. Now a days, most people
have no problem with homosexuality, so the threat of being outed is weak. The
problem back then was not government, its was the social attitude in general
to gay people. There for, to me it is wrong for the public to point fingers at
the government. Had the public not been so prejudiced, the government could
have kept their genius employed, and alive. Its our fault as a society.
Government had to operate in that context. It had no choice really. And of
course many people in that government would have had the same attitude as the
public. But in the end, it was our fault, our shame, as a society. And that is
what we should remember.

~~~
youngtaff
Turing often seems to get most of the credit for ending the war early
(probably due to the injustice he suffered), but we shouldn't forget others
suffered in different ways.

Tommy Flowers
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Flowers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Flowers)),
who arguably created the first electronic computer to decrypt the Lorenz
cypher was just as important and his work was not acknowledged until the
1970s.

Flowers wanted to create a computer after the war but the Bank of England
wouldn't lend him the money because they didn't believe it was possible and he
couldn't disclose he'd already done it due to official secrets act.

~~~
mcv
Let's not forget the millions of Russians who died on the eastern front.
Without them, nothing at Bletchley Park wouldn't have mattered much for ending
the war.

~~~
youngtaff
Indeed (or the US rescuing the UK)

------
kirinan
This falls under the category of too little too late. I get that traditions
change throughout history, I get that some things that are acceptable now were
unacceptable even 10 years ago, but this is a case where people should have
looked the other way. Alan Turning is both a war hero and one of the greatest
minds to ever live. To simply disregard someone like that because of their
sexual orientation is both short sighted and a disgusting lack of humanity.
Imagine how much further computing would be if he had lived longer? If he had
been free to think and live without ridicule and the tests run on him?

~~~
tptacek
Exactly false. People could have looked the other way, and Turing could have
lived a longer, happier life, and we could all be that much less aware of the
injustice done to hundreds of thousands of other LGBT people throughout the
last century. The tragedy is the policy that cost Turing his life, not the
fact that an exception wasn't made for him. It cost many more people than
Turing.

~~~
icambron
Yes, wow. To go further, there is something deeply troubling about the
parent's line of reasoning: that the tip of its spear is that Turing could
have helped computing more, and not that the law was heinous in its treatment
of humanity. The priorities required to even think of a point like that baffle
me.

~~~
scintill76
Especially ironic when it simultaneously uses phrases like "short sighted" and
"disgusting lack of humanity."

------
badclient
_Pardon_? For what? Thanks but no thanks.

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
Buggery. It's been illegal many places for a very long time because it spreads
disease. The sodomy laws were effectively repealed and we got AIDS. It was not
a coincidence.

~~~
groovy2shoes
Sexual intercourse of any kind spreads disease. AIDS didn't become an epidemic
because of anal intercourse. It's pretty clear that AIDS and other sexually
transmitted diseases spread just as well from almost _any_ kind sexual
activity, and many of them -- including AIDS -- spread from _any_ transfer of
bodily fluids at all.

Going further, I'd wager that any form of interpersonal contact, even non-
sexual, is as likely to spread some form of disease. Why not enact a law which
requires any person to don a hazmat suit before venturing into public space?
Or better yet, a law which forbids any person from entering public space?

~~~
mynameishere
I grew up around the time teens were force-fed sex education regarding AIDS,
and the message was loud and clear and consistent: Ordinary sex is a great way
to contract HIV. This, in fact, was always a lie--and a coordinated lie--and
the scientists knew about it.

[http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/895/what-are-the-
od...](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/895/what-are-the-odds-of-
getting-aids-from-ordinary-heterosexual-sex)

 _the odds of a heterosexual becoming infected with AIDS after one episode of
penile-vaginal intercourse with someone in a non-high-risk group without a
condom are one in 5 million._

(Sorry for the crummy source, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this
BS.) The original infections seen by doctors weren't just homosexuals, but
those who had sometimes dozens of sexual encounters per week. It was clear
from the beginning how this disease was spread--reciprocal anal sex.

So why the contrary propaganda? Well, if a disease primarily effects a small,
ultra-promiscuous portion of two percent of the general population, research
funding tends to lose popular support.

~~~
e12e
The risk of being infected with hiv by someone who doesn't carry the virus is
obviously very small. Very few people have hiv, so you probably won't be
infected if you have sex. That's how I read that quote, anyway. Are you saying
that advocating never having sex with the same partner more than once would
have been better advice for reducing the spread of STDs?

The unique thing about hiv is the high moortality rate (and cost of
treatment). It makes perfect sense to reduce transmission _before_ it becomes
a true global epidemic.

------
bluecalm
Instead of pardoning bullshit get him a chapter in elementary school history
books. Chapter about a man, who greatly contributed to modern science and the
war effort and was prosecuted by bigoted fanatics running the country. Then
warn about similar attitudes displayed today and teach the children to
recognize them along with their gloomy consequences. That would do some actual
good instead of insignificant PR gesture of pardoning.

------
wreegab
> "Alan Turing, the second world war codebreaker who took his own life after
> undergoing chemical castration following a conviction for homosexual
> activity, has been granted a posthumous royal pardon 59 years after his
> death."

I don't understand, I thought what was needed was "royal apologies". WTH.

~~~
pcrh
Don't be too concerned by the "Royal" nature of the pardon. In the UK the
legislative system is in theory dependent on the Royal prerogative (i.e all
laws derive from the will of the head of state, currently Queen Elizabeth II).
In practice that is not so, as Her Majesty does not personally deliberate on
legislative matters.

However, as a journalistic device, describing the decision as "Royal" conveys
the journalists and editors feelings as to the importance and sincerity of the
pardon.

~~~
Stratoscope
wreegab was not objecting to the "royal", but to it being a pardon instead of
an apology.

~~~
Brakenshire
The British government has already issued an apology.

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8249792.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8249792.stm)

------
Tloewald
Somewhere between better than nothing and nothing.

------
Brakenshire
The British state already formally apologized five years ago, under Gordon
Brown, for Alan Turing's barbaric treatment. I can't see how a pardon adds
anything to that. The best response is just to treat people humanely in the
present.

~~~
vacri
The apology was "We're sorry. The conviction still stands, however". The
pardon takes care of the latter.

------
infruset
Wait. Someone who has a title and shitloads of money _just because they were
born_ is pardoning one of the greatest geniuses of the 20th century, as an act
of kindness?

How does such an undeserving leftover of the middle ages even have a say in
this?

~~~
johneth
You're misunderstanding the power that the Queen has. Just because it's a
'Royal pardon', it doesn't mean that she actually pushed for it. The opposite
is true, in fact (the Queen is a symbolic head of state, and does not
interfere politically - anything you hear the Queen doing is almost certainly
at the request of the UK government).

~~~
infruset
Granted. But still, symbolically, that's how it sounds, so maybe there's a
problem with this system?

What I mean is that even if it's done at the request of the government, that's
only a description of the political backstage, but in public it is expressed
as the monarchy's doing ("royal" pardon).

~~~
hahainternet
> so maybe there's a problem with this system?

There are many problems. When you find a better system to replace it with,
then let us know. Until then throwing away a millenia of history so we can
have President Cameron sounds like hell to me.

~~~
infruset
Well, any democratic system in which no citizen is _institutionally_ above
every other citizen by mere reason of being born certainly seems better to me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to troll. It's just that I would have a
really hard time living in a country where such privileges by birth exist.

~~~
amaral-herberth
Sorry to tell you, but this kind of system does not exist in reality. Heads of
states in all States are above some laws and there are plentiful of reasons
for this.

And by the way, if you think is undemocratic to have an unelected head of
state, just think about the reasons that supreme court members are not
elected. Democracy has its limits :-)

~~~
infruset
> Sorry to tell you, but this kind of system does not exist in reality. Heads
> of states in all States are above some laws and there are plentiful of
> reasons for this.

But they are not so _by birth_ , that was my point.

>supreme court members are not elected

I assume you are talking about the US? In any case, they are not nominated by
right of their _birth_ , but they are chosen by _elected_ people.

------
moxic
He should get a Royal Apology as well, even if the PM already issued one.

------
davidgerard
Even this, 61 years late and only applying to him, is only a sort-of pardon
legally:

[http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-
green/2013/07/puttin...](http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-
green/2013/07/putting-right-wrong-done-alan-turing)

------
lostlogin
Thought I'd stick this link here - great place.
[http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk](http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk) Last time I
was there, 10 or 15 years ago, they were redecorating the house (can you call
it that?). They had a load of really old fittings like taps etc in a skip. I
still regret not asking if I could take one or 2. Having a few taps from that
amazing place would be so great. I spent days of time there over the course of
a year, and met a few of the people who worked their who knew Turing (by
sight, not personally). You can see Turing's room at the place too. It was
fascinating to talk to people who worked there during the amazing period
Turing worked through.

------
microtherion
The infinite tape of justice winds slowly, but grinds exceedingly fine.

------
sanoli
Yes, they apologized 5 years ago, and now there's a pardon. As an important
abolitionist from my country once wrote, "Justice that is late is not
justice".

------
nayefc
Unrelated to the topic, but:

> He said the research Turing carried out during the war at Bletchley Park
> undoubtedly shortened the conflict and saved thousands of lives.

Clear example of "history is written by the victors". The Allies were as
guilty in the war as the other side. Neither side's goal was to "shorten the
conflict and save lives" but to "defeat the other side" with no regards to
human life.

------
NAFV_P
Turing died only a few years before the emergence of high level languages. I
have often wondered if he would go for FORTRAN or LISP.

~~~
Stratoscope
I like to think the answer would have been "both": Lisp for power and
elegance, and Fortran for speed.

------
StavrosK
Wouldn't it be much more forceful if his conviction remained as a mahnmal?
Something to point at and say "here's what we did to a brilliant man because
we were too small-minded to think otherwise"?

All pardoning Turing does now is lead us to eventually forget the tragedy of
his conviction.

------
huherto
The queen was already reigning when Alan Turing was brought to trail.

May be the queen is who needs to be pardoned.

------
Kliment
The actual pardon: [http://cryptome.org/2013/12/turing-
pardon.pdf](http://cryptome.org/2013/12/turing-pardon.pdf)

------
Rogerh91
You know, I was just reading a WSJ special on how returning PTSD-afflicted
veterans were lobotomized...

Reading back on what happened to Turing and countless other homosexuals gives
me those same chills.

What a simple pleasure it is to live in the era we do now. No, not everything
is perfect, but so much has improved, and it's up to all of us to improve
things even further, and to keep the momentum going.

------
ciderpunx
Finally. Though it is the very least that the establishment could do given how
Turing was treated.

------
InclinedPlane
Have we ruled out the possibility that the UK government is more desperate to
legitimize code breaking than to exonerate a mistreated war hero?

I don't think that's the case, but these days it's getting harder to be sure.

------
elchief
Lots of complaining on here, but I was glad to see it.

The government certainly didn't have to. It doesn't have to pardon everyone
convicted of a crime that is no longer a crime.

It was a good thing to do for a good man, and I commend them.

~~~
MLR
There have been countless people prosecuted due to unjust laws; society
changes, and as that happens laws change.

Every single one of those people should be given a pardon, or none of them
should.

------
mydpy
About f*cking time, but is it enough? No, but hopefully we won't need to worry
about things like this in the future. Progress is progress and I'll take it.

------
sarreph
The manner in which the document was written makes its authenticity strike me
as highly surprising.

------
fmendez
It seems to me that the fitting thing to be issued here is an apology, not a
pardon.

~~~
finnw
They already did that.
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8249792.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8249792.stm)

------
kopos
Should this not have been an "apology" instead of a "pardon"?

~~~
cmpaul
Prime Minister Gordon Brown had already issued an apology in 2009.

------
enen
Anyone know a good movie/book on his life?

------
tekkanphan
They should give a royal apology

------
jackmaney
Way too little, way too late.

------
nbody
Ridiculous

~~~
louthy
Would you like to expand upon that?

------
soperj
First step to knighthood?

~~~
codeoclock
You can't be posthumously knighted. Furthermore, the title of Knight is
revoked upon death - For example, when Sir Paul McCartney dies he will lose
his title.

------
grad_ml
BBC please do not make any of the royal drama news headlines.

------
Datsundere
59 years late.

------
thrillgore
Finally.

------
vithlani
Let this be a reminder to all hackers and geniuses out there: protect yourself
from your society. You exist purely at the mercy of your physical realm. It
does not matter how essential your discoveries, how profitable, how useful to
mankind, how breathtaking. If you are perceived as being a risk (through
something simple like your sexuality) you will be ground to dust. The decision
will be made (perhaps justifiably) but it will be executed by the worst sort
of petty human being: bureaucrats, under achievers, jealous men and beasts in
human form who have been handed down power by the state. They will unleash a
torrent of hellfire in your life.

This beast does not discriminate: weather a gathering of Sikhs in a park,
tribes of Africans or a sole genius with an arguably significant contribution
to the war effort - to the beast they are all one once the order has been
given.

Always ensure you have some form of protection and a way out.

The British establishment should be ashamed of themselves. They have tolerated
homosexuality for centuries among the upper classes up to and including the
royals. To grind down a man on the level of Turing with for such an absurd
reason is an act of criminal stupidity. All the more so after his efforts
during the war.

The computer science community all the world over should reject this "pardon"
and ask the queen to stuff it up her posterior.

------
kimonos
It would have been better if he was still alive when he was pardoned...

------
bitsteak
Scumbag Hacker News: Admires spies only after they're dead.

~~~
lostlogin
You really compare the NSA to activities at Bletchley Park, fighting Nazis?

~~~
infinity0
Unfortunately, that is just what the British intelligence community are doing
over here. It's a fucking disgrace, but I wonder if the timing of this pardon
is because of that. They had the chance to do this a year ago, but didn't.

