[ilbeeper]

I agree with the first part, at least in spirit.

The second part though doesn't make sense. If the US president can send drones to kill terrorists without taking them to court, surely he can order hacking their phones. If you think that there's no case where the latter is ok you shouldn't you fight against the former first?

[ignoramous]

> send drones to kill terrorists

The part that you miss is, are they only killing "terrorists" extrajudicially? To take that propaganda at its face value is to ask, what else could they be killing brown people for, if not terrorism?

[nico]

To further this. Look at how easily they are bringing terrorism charges on American citizens now (check out the Mangione case)

And I would guess they’ll use the opportunity to increase the reach as well

[ilbeeper]

I didn't say if I think that drone killing is justified or not, since I have no opinion on that - I don't know enough to form an opinion. I only say that since the government have the right to send killing drone it doesn't make sense to raise pitchforks against phone hacking

[MomsAVoxell]

The thing is, extrajudicial murder justified by labeling the victim “terrorist” is illegal and should not be accepted in a free and open society.

The ‘terrorist’ label was invented as a means of abrogating human rights by governments who felt they were encumbered by the obligation to protect human rights. “Terrorist” labeling is a totalitarian-authoritarian apparatus to avoid culpability for its actions when a government decides the easiest solution to its problem is outright murder.

[SahAssar]

Do you not think that terrorism exists, that the label has been co-opted for other purposes, that terrorists cannot be treated as combatants, that non-declared-war conflicts should not have deliberate strikes or something else?

It seems to me like terrorism has a pretty plain definition: Using violence against civilians/non-combatants to further a ideological goal, primarily via fear.

It's often misused as an excuse, but there are actual terrorists, the word has a meaning and we should not let it be watered down by either the people wanting to use it as an excuse or the people trying to shroud terrorism in something else.

[MomsAVoxell]

Every single nation state in the context of this discussion has murdered civilians/non-combatants to further an ideological goal and are thus guilty of acts of terrorism - in the case of the US, for example, terrorism is official doctrine used for regime change across the world. The US literally funds, arms and supports terrorist groups whenever its ruling military determine that their domestic population has no stomach for outright war - in most cases, in fact, terrorism is how the US gets its regime change designs implemented.

As citizens of nations which use terrorism as a tool for their political purposes, it is long since past the point we let ourselves be bullied by terminology and started instead to enforce the legislation required to rid our own ranks of war criminals - who are factually terrorists.

[nico]

And now watch as the definition is stretched to fit whatever the powerful want to do

Like how they are now charging the UHC CEO suspect with terrorism

Then, if you support the guy, now a terrorist, well then you can be called a terrorist too

[joebob42]

I don't get what's happening in this thread. This is a pretty clear statement: hacking isn't worse than the killing that the government is already allowed to do. It's a pretty straightforward argument which for some reason seems to be being misunderstood.

I'll gently push on the premise though: hacking isn't worse for the victims than death, obviously, but I think it's possible weaponizing of exploits does more total damage. Both collateral, due to the manufacturing of exploits which ultimately leak and harm a bunch of unrelated actors, and because the marginal hacking is lower cost, practically and politically. So a given attack is likely to be used against groups we'd recognize less clearly as "terrorists" / deserving of the harm / etc.

[ilbeeper]

Thanks for the understanding. I'll say that because of that we should make the price for using the device much higher. For example using it should require authorization by process that will involve a stiff political price/barrier. Maybe a bi-partisan committee. Something of that sort.

[ignoramous]

> I have no opinion ... I don't know enough to form an opinion.

Why speak in hypotheticals supporting some phantom opinion? Concern trolling is even worse.

[ilbeeper]

It is not hypothetical, the fact is that killing drones are used in practice, and it just doesn't make sense to oppose lesser measures that are being used without judgement when killing is allowed.

[ignoramous]

> killing is allowed

You said it is okay / allowed because "terrorists". Otherwise, it is a heinous crime. Just like the Pegasus one.

[o999]

Ever heard of drone papers?

https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/

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

[ilbeeper]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Ok is a value judgment which I didn't state. Allowed is a fact. Are you arguing with what I'm saying or with an opponent in your mind?