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

There is a shadow of McCarthy's red scare in the suggestion that no NSA affiliated people be allowed to participate.

How would you determine if a participant had affiliation? How many degrees of separation must there be before a person is trustworthy in their neutrality?

As well, it would require an approval process for new participants, closing the working groups. Even should the folks decide to abandon the current model of participation, how would you determine someone new wasn't affiliated, and who has the right to decide who is trustworthy?

It's argued often here that extreme transparency is the cure for shadowy practices, and I don't think it gets much more transparent than group review of any changes to any specs.

To expect that excluding publicly aligned NSA folks would solve any problem is fool-hearty, given that it's an intelligence agency and I'm sure fully capable of installing clandestine participants.

Therefore, I would argue that exclusion is very much an illogical choice. The logical thing to do here would be to increase scrutiny on any changes.

(To note, this comment is not about removing the co-chair privileges from Igoe; if the position is really as powerful as some say, yeah let someone else do it. I'm just saying don't start suggesting people be banned from participating).

> There is a shadow of McCarthy's red scare in the suggestion that no NSA affiliated people be allowed to participate.

The analogy is so stretched as to be meaningless. At least as it refers to the McCarthy portion of the Red Scare, the objectionable portion were: targeting participation in purely domestic political groups, and falsely accusing people of affiliations they didn't have.

It wouldn't be at all objectionable to exclude from employment with the State Department or Army people who were actively openly affiliated with organizations directly sponsored by the Soviet Union. (Though acting in movies presents a different question.)

Likewise, it makes no sense for a standards group to be chaired by a person openly and actively affiliated with an organization which has as a goal subverting those very standards.

This really isn't that hard to understand:

1. Banning persons with open affiliations encourages people to hide their affiliation with those organizations. 2. Then, banning persons with supposed affiliations encourages abuse of the banning process.

Exactly. Comparing the excluding of openly hostile entities to McCarthyism is exactly Geek Social Fallacy #1: “Ostracizers Are Evil”.

I was simply proposing the obvious step of not allowing explicitly hostile forces into a group. If the hostile forces then choose to disguise themselves, so be it. But to let them in knowing they are hostile seems stupid.

I grant you that closing mere participation by having pre-screening is probably an unworkable and too costly a step; costly in more ways than one.

I still feel we ought not let them chair the committe, though. I mean, the NSA heading a committee working on publicly available crypto? It’s an oxymoron and a contradiction in terms. It’s the fox guarding the hen house.

It's a little early to be making a slippery slope argument. This is about employees of an organization that has actively worked to subvert similar related processes.

>There is a shadow of McCarthy's red scare in the suggestion that no NSA affiliated people be allowed to participate.

Umm .. there's more than a shadow of fascist totalitarianism in the NSA. I think there is ample evidence to demonstrate that this group is destroying USA. Really!

Maybe it's more like being wary of people wearing arm-bands with swastikas?

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