Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

>Why, the officers demanded to know, had he chosen these five words within his crossword solutions?

>“Why not?” was Dawe’s indignant reply. Was there a law against choosing whatever words he liked?

That's one of those cases I kinda fear being in.

How do you prove you're not giving away secrets in some secret way when the clue is some random events in life that have little behind them other than happenstance.




> How do you prove you're not giving away secrets in some secret way when the clue is some random events in life that have little behind them other than happenstance.

Isn't this the entire foundation of the fundamental right of innocent until proven guilty? Of course in practice it isn't so simple. In an extreme condition that is extremely unlikely, you could be found guilty exactaly for that reason perhaps. At what point statistically is it on the wrong side of "reasonable doubt"?


In that case, the probability of choosing 5 words so relevant at random (including the two main targets, the code name of the whole operation and the code name of the most crucial part of it) are so small that their suspicions were totally warranted statistically.

They tried to transform their suspicions into material elements and came empty handed, and left the man alone, which is the core difference between a democracy and an authoritarian regime.

However this coincidence is so strange that on that basis alone I am wondering if they did not miss something.


Read the footnote, the compiler had a habit of asking around for words.


It seems that a lot of Rule of Law goes out the window when it comes to (apparent) matters of national security.


I think that’s often true, but it doesn’t seem to be the case here. The authorities saw something suspicious, they investigated, and ultimately it went nowhere. That’s exactly how it’s supposed to go.


The problem is that three-letter agencies aren't known to be big fans of due process...


Well as for a trial, probabbly not guilty.

I'm just thinking of assuring the local security folks that I'm not doing a bad thing / avoiding the hassle of them thinking I am. When I probabbly don't know what the bad thing even is.


> Isn't this the entire foundation of the fundamental right of innocent until proven guilty?

Well, not really, that's more about simply being accused not being enough to imprison or hang you.


An accusation is absolutely enough to be jailed. Due process and rule of law are fictions in our current society.


It's even likely to be the other way around, that the generals who came up with the code name were directly/indirectly influenced by some common cultural influence that led to the same words.


Makes me think of something Camus would write about.


[flagged]

paggle 89 days ago [flagged]

Wow... reads like a core dump


Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. The site guidelines ask you not to reply to egregious comments, for just this reason.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


I really want them to elaborate on "I don't believe in the existence of hate speech".


Hate speech as a legal definition cannot coexist with freedom of speech. I hold freedom of speech as one of my highest principles. We already have just laws against inciting panic and violence. The category of hate speech is irrelevant in the best case, and actively harmful in the worst case.

Most importantly, what should concern all thoughtful people is that it seems to be within the Overton Window to say how much you hate white people because of the color of their skin. Not hate speech, why exactly? Because the entire concept is reactionary nonsense trying to give white people harsher criminal sentences for the same violent crimes as committed by other races. What happens if the table turns again and the standard is unfairly applied in reverse? Hate soeech advocates have already set the precedent that we get to choose which races get favored prosecution treatment for the same crime.

Violence is violence, speech is speech. You can't improve on Martin Luther King, man. Judge individuals based on the content of their character. The list is complete.


Hate speech is a loaded term where the connotations are more powerful than the literal definition. Other examples include racist and sexist.

Do you have a sexual preference? In other words, you immediately discount someone based on qualities they were born with and have no control over. That by definition makes you a sexist, but so what. All discrimination is not wrong, like how employers (attempt to) strongly discriminate based on ability.

Hate speech is in the same bucket. It has a murky, varying meaning depending on who you talk to.

I personally also do not believe in "hate speech". Its an attempt to bait-and-switch language, like calling someone hateful when really you just disagree with them, or maybe theyre just rude. Its begging the question.


> you have a sexual preference? In other words, you immediately discount someone based on qualities they were born with and have no control over. That by definition makes you a sexist

No it doesn't.


Depends on who you ask. Americans increasingly believe otherwise. Here's an anecdote https://www.thedailybeast.com/no-blacks-is-not-a-sexual-pref...


You can find someone who will say anything, but that's still simply not the definition of sexism.


Yes it is.

Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism

prejudice or discrimination based on sex

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism

prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/sexism

prejudice or discrimination based on sex or gender, especially against women and girls.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/sexism

actions based on a belief that particular jobs and activities are suitable only for women and others are suitable only for men

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/sexis...

What definition of sexism are you using where discriminating against what sex you want to date isnt sexism?




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: