I should point out that this post shaming the Conde Nast CFO followed about three raving angry posts against reddit that were submitted on the same day. Reddit of course is owned by Conde Nast. Considering that gawker usually has no more than 10-20 posts per day on the main site, it is extremely unusual for four of them to be aimed at the same company.
Furthermore, in an interview in pando daily, an ex Gawker editor said that Nick Denton once complained to him that silicon valley companies "do not fear me anymore."
For someone that has followed Gawker for many years now it is becoming increasingly likely that Nick Denton is using Gawker to scare/blackmail other companies to do his bidding. Gawker has always had periods of intense criticisms of some company (Google for example) that start and end suddenly without rhyme or reason.
The fact that Nick Denton eventually took down this post of course does not matter at all. The damage has been done.
My guess is that old Nick Denton wants something out of Conde Nast, and that is why he is applying full pressure.
Well, this kind of looks like an egregious violation of company policy. It looks like she punished an employee for giving an interview to a famous minority politician. There has to be some company policy against retaliation on political basis.
Regarding "mob rule" this is a free country and people have a choice which website to read and to contribute to. If people want to go away from reddit that is their choice. The company that owns reddit does not need to follow reddit user wishes, but they have to face the distinct possibility that those users will leave and the consequences thereof.
You can call it mob rule, but other's can call it the matter of ordinary people exercising free choice.
I think a lot of these suicides are not actual suicides, but accidents resulting from exhaustion. I used to have a job where I pulled all nighters and worked 48 hours straight some times, and let me tell ya the exhaustion sometimes makes you act like you are drunk. You do not have very good motor control, all of your muscles hurt and you tend to forget obvious things.
I think it is quite possible that the subject of this article simply collapsed and fell over a parapet rather than jump intentionally.
By "other health issues", you are might be referring "Jordan M", who was found cold to the touch with Silk Road open on his computer, a looped belt by his dangling arm, and an open express mail package full of heroin on his desk, who was found at autopsy to have died of intoxication by xanax, heroin, and valium --- all three of which he ordered on SR. The "other health issues" here are the fact that "Jordan M." was, as Ulbricht's lawyer described him in his sentencing memo, an "overweight 27-year old black man".
It's interesting to note that even if one of these overdose victims had health problems that predisposed them to overdose mortality --- something that is pretty far from being established --- there is actually a legal rule that contemplates this circumstance directly: google "the eggshell skull rule". The prosecution memo invokes the rule.
No, I was referring to Jordan M's other health problems which went well beyond 'overweight', to how the Australian teen had multiple drugs in his system, the lack of autopsy and other relevant documents, and to several other issues raised in Ulbricht's lawyer's original filing criticizing the health issues. I would pull it up out of PACER but I don't feel like spending $3+ again to go through the docket and find the full filing again.
tptacek, if you're going to act like an expert on this case, you should read all the documents, not just the indictment and one or two of the shorter things.
Jordan M. did in fact receive an autopsy, which confirmed he died of an overdose of drugs of the kind he ordered on Silk Road. The defense attempted to refute the autopsy using their own pathologist, who did not conduct an autopsy. The defense witness was an expert-witness-for-hire who resigned a position as Rockland County medical examiner under a cloud of accusations about incompetence.
Your suggestion that I read more of the documents in this case is rude, uncalled for by anything I said, and unproductive.
It is totally reasonable for you to be skeptical or even cynical of the prosecution's case.
It is not at all reasonable for you to demand that everyone else on this thread share exactly your perspective on the case, or to suggest that people who disagree with you must do so because they're uninformed --- an accusation I would not have considered making about you.
Edit: rereading your comment, just to make sure I wasn't out of line (I don't think I was): you don't need to go to PACER to get the Taff declaration (about all 6 pathology cases). All of these documents are available from a Google search, from DOJ, "FreeRoss", and Cryptome.
> The defense witness was an expert-witness-for-hire who resigned a position as Rockland County medical examiner under a cloud of accusations about incompetence.
That would be a good point if it were medical incompetence but the criticisms of Taff were that police did not like his management style and thought personnel arrived at scenes late because they lived outside the county, no? I didn't see anywhere that the prosecution brought this up, even though hearsay is allowed at this point.
> The defense attempted to refute the autopsy using their own pathologist, who did not conduct an autopsy.
He doesn't need to conduct an autopsy to point out problems in how things were done (waiting 4 days to do Wilsdon's autopsy? not doing an autopsy at all on Bridges?) or that the prosecution is straining to associate any death it can with and trying to ignore the long histories of poor health or multiple drug abuse and multiple drug sources.
> Jordan M. did in fact receive an autopsy, which confirmed he died of an overdose of drugs of the kind he ordered on Silk Road.
The Lewis affidavit says that the autopsy confirmed the presence of brain hemorrhage, liver problems (in addition to spleen), and that specifically, "the autopsy report correctly attributed death to multiple/combined drug intoxication. Heroin/opiate, however, was not singled out primary cause of death, and of course, for reasons unknown, the brain hemorrhage was ignored by the authorities conducting the investigation of Mr. Mettee’s death."; in addition, he had other drugs such as diazepam in his system which the prosecution does not claim he bought from SR.
> an accusation I would not have considered making about you.
Nor one I would make about you... about your area of expertise, as opposed to the DNMs.
> All of these documents are available from a Google search, from DOJ, "FreeRoss", and Cryptome.
Not all of them. They are all in RECAP, but that seems to be broken tonight and not allowing downloads of any of the Ulbricht filings.
Those plastic targets are really tacky. I will wait until the alliance for wireless power comes up with their devices.
The latter is a little more advanced. It uses magnetic resonance, so the target device can be at a small distance from the charger coil. This means that you can put the charger under a wooden board, and the device being charged on top of the board. Thus, a charging enabled table will look exactly like any other table and will not have an ugly plastic target on it.
Furthermore, the device being charged does not have to be exactly aligned, so no tacky plus signs. You can also charge several devices at one time.
What we have here is an interim half-way solution that will mostly give wireless charging a bad name for a while.
I would like to congratulate curbed.com for finding a new level of annoyingness in ads. They have a sound ad that does not have a corresponding video window (at least i could not find any) where you can kill the sound or pause the whole thing. So while I am reading the article I get to hear the same inane chatter about barbecuing every couple of minutes. Thanks so much!
I don't think so. If it is something unauthorized they probably would have removed it in due time. I.e., they would have taken a couple of days to hire professionals to do it. Now they immediately cover it up so that no-one can see it while they arrange for its removal. Why? Obviously they do not want anyone to look at it before it is removed. But why not? It is certainly not offensive in any way. It may prove to be a minor attraction and it will get Brooklyn in the national news.
It really does remind one of soviet style suppression.
I think you are looking at the situation from our little tech bubble. Regardless of all of our opinions on the situation, it is still very political. This guy is actively wanted by our government for possible treason charges. If you believe those charges have merit, then erecting a statue in his honor could easily be classified as offensive.
This is part of the problem with our side of the debate. We take it as a forgone conclusion that everyone agrees that Snowden is morally right and that the government is morally wrong. We need to do a better job of convincing the general public why issues like this are important. Erecting a statue of Snowden doesn't do anything besides antagonizing both sides of the debate.
EDIT: As this post currently stands at -2 karma, I have to say I am a little disappointed in HN. This isn't Reddit, we shouldn't have brigades of people downvoting comments that bring up gray areas in this debate. I don't think I said anything unreasonable in this comment. However if you do and downvote me, the least you could do is comment about how I am off base.
I agree with you. Comparing it to common graffiti is as much an exaggeration as comparing it to graffiti depicting genocide.
Some skaterz 'tag' is going to take weeks or months to be covered/removed. However, if instead they it was a picture likely to draw both political and media attention plus cause some individuals distress at a memorial they are going to move quickly.
The fact is in this case it was inflammatory toward the US government so we are quick to declare democracy and freedom of speech is ending. I don't think the parks department who franticly called a worker to get there and cover it up is part of this broader conspiracy to deprive americans of freedom of expression. They moved quickly on something they knew would get a lot of attention.
There isn't really a legitimate debate, there's the PR department of statism and fearfulness and then the reality-seeking people who decry government power-grabbing and anti-liberalism.
Dragnet surveillance is totalitarianism. I guess there are apologists for totalitarianism, but why, if we are a democracy, do we listen to those who actively advocate for tyranny?
EDIT: Haven't heard any objection to my points yet, primarily that it's not possible to argue in good faith that someone can be both be well-informed about the effects of dragnet surveillance and still be pro-surveillance.
Comments like this reinforce my point. You are basically framing this entire debate as good versus evil. That is not going to change anyone's minds and it serves no real purpose outside of rallying your own side. There is a middle ground between our government can read everything and our government can read nothing. I don't know where that line is, but the only way we find that line is through open debate. Except no side apparently seems willing to engage in that debate.
Middle ground does not always exist. For example, take the plans to set up decentralized networks outside of the government's control. There have been discussions on how to allow the government to still be able to fight certain forms of illegal data exchange (terrorism and child abuse) while banning it from being at all involved in the others (drugs). But there is no middle ground solution. Any network that comprises itself enough to allow the government in to monitor and combat certain data will weaken its ability to prevent the government from being able to do the same elsewhere.
As it stands, giving the government the power to read any one particular thing will result in it being abused to read other things that were never intended. And with a history filled with governments always overstepping their bounds, the only real solution is to create something that cannot be read, as any limit that depends upon 'please don't' is only a temporary patch.
>As it stands, giving the government the power to read any one particular thing will result in it being abused to read other things that were never intended.
Isn't this potentially the real problem? It is why our original system required courts and warrants, checks and balances. The Internet doesn't have to be completely different than the offline world. The police can knock down my door if there is a threat of child abuse or terrorism, but aren't allowed to do the same for a traffic violation. Why would that system need to be different online? We just need to make the process of acquiring and executing a warrant more transparent. That political debate would take precedence over any technical problem like designing a distributed system that could accommodate this type of request.
>It is why our original system required courts and warrants, checks and balances.
The problem is that current technology allows the government to hide behind 'you have no proof we did anything wrong' and 'state secret' defenses. Maybe a system that makes it clear when communications are being monitored, but the government is going to oppose that as much as a system that can't be monitored.
Also, there are few other considerations:
No foreign company is going to kick in your door, but they would be willing to hack your computer/listen to your chatter in an attempt to steal company secrets. Any weak point for the government is a weak point for all others.
Also, government is made up of some individuals that I do not want anywhere near any backdoors of my systems. Not to say everyone in government is incompetent.
Maybe they are if you are head of R&D for some massive project, at which point you would be taking extra precautions.
The concern is that the technical binary nature of the issue does put pressure on the political sides towards being binary.
For example, those who want a system that protects jounalist in oppressive countries but that does not protect child predators have lots of positions to pick, but those positions (and the groups that hold them) can easily be divided along the lines of those who support a system that protects both and those that support a system that protects neither (it technically protects neither while it will often be sold as protecting one but not the other, and as such the majority of the group may fully believe it does protect one but not the other).
Not sure it's that simple. It's a given that everyone wants to be reasonable of course, but 1984 was framed precisely as a kind of political horror story. Should we really react in terms of compromise and middle ground if somebody proposes that we live in such a horror story?
My view is that this kind of thing is a part of what intelligence services are supposed to prevent, not implement, and they are therefore seriously failing to do their taxpayer-funded jobs. Not really sure of the point of employing smart people to protect you if they then use all of their wiles to weaken individual and state security.
Talk to Old Lady A or middle-aged man B in any number of flyover states; the average American.
They have no concept of what type of data is available about them online. They have no worries about being watched by any agency, because they literally do not understand what is being watched.
Many, many people over the age of 40(ish) make assumptions about what is possible and what is not based solely on past experience. When it was nearly impossible to gather data, house data, and retrieve data about a monstrously large group, no one bothered. Therefore, average Americans from that time period have no idea what is possible.
Like the OP said - take the time to educate folks about what is possible and why they should worry, instead of argue for right versus wrong. All that does is make people pick sides, however irrational the side is.
Think of it from the point of the park officer. If they notice it, and not cover it up, then it will be read as an implicit endorsement, and will generate an unending amount of gossip and headache. Why would they want it.
The result would have been exactly the same if somebody put a bust of Hillary Clinton with letters "Clinton, 45th president of USA", even though Clinton would be a pretty safe choice for a lot of people (including those who hate Snowden).
They have to wait for someone to move it (maybe someone within the Parks department, they have the equipment at least) but it's worth pointing out that a job in NYC Parks as highly bureaucratic it is desirable. Many employees are professionals (seriously, you have no idea if the guy throwing the tarp happens to have a masters in landscape architecture, or the next guy, or...) and park officers must be designated as special patrolmen by the NYPD. The very first rule of being an "Urban Park Ranger" is: "Under supervision, perform patrols of park facilities as part of a highly visible uniformed division. Ensure the safety and enjoyment of park users and the protection of park property." It's great that we can all discuss the merits of this from our own viewpoints– I fully support the artists here– but it is precisely the job of Parks employees to assist in the removal of any form of unauthorized modifications to the park. Simplest reason? Parks has no idea how the statue was made or how it was installed. What happens if it falls on someone? Or someone climbs it and a piece breaks off? We take it in good faith that this thing is just a harmless statement of expression– Parks employees most certainly should not.
I said it elsewhere, but it's just a sign to the removal crew so that they don't have to look [hard] for it. It might be unnecessary, it might just be up the whim of whoever was working that day. We don't know, and so I'm not going to call it a conspiracy. An exception (i.e. protection for the display of public art, even if scheduled for removal) would be pretty great, just not a high priority for our public officials unless we're vocal enough in our support here.
Edit: Oh sorry, you meant how does covering up help with the potential of it falling... Not much, except to possibly prevent people from being interested in it and going near it. Only the people who know what it is already would be interested. But I don't think it's actually going to fall, just that if they're going to remove it there's no surprise that it's covered. It's not uncommon at all to see tarped statues in Parks when any sort of maintenance is being done for a variety of reasons.
Not just Soviet-style suppression, but state sponsored censorship. While the local rules of the park may deem that this is simply vandalism, I fail to recall such instances in the US demanding this kind of censoring and it should be pointed out a little more saliently in the article for appropriate effect.
I was pointing out the limited applicability of "Soviet-style suppression" in the above post - that much is obvious. The rest of my comment stands and your post counts as little more than needless handwaving.
"Not offensive in any way.." That' certainly subjective. Comparing Snowden as a war hero could be offensive to those that actually fought in wars. If they put it in the Nathan Hale statue at CIA, now that would be ironic.
I'm on a the fence about Snowden, however disrespecting a war memorial to prove a point seems to border on tasteless. How about putting a Snowden statue in front of an AT&T store; that would be better messaging in terms of protest without disrespecting actual war heros.
It's also arguable that what they did was disrespecting a war memorial. Today's wars are fought increasingly without conventional military units or weapons. I personally wouldn't consider Snowden a war hero, but I do consider him a hero, and I wouldn't begrudge people the opinion that he is indeed a war hero.