[emptytheory]

"so by implication you're saying it's immoral to enforce laws against all lesser offenses"

Amazingly, the parent didn't actually say or imply that. "worse crimes go unpunished" doesn't imply "enforcing laws against lesser offenses is immoral".

[tptacek]

So then, what was the point of that comment? What was it trying to persuade the thread about? Serious question; I'm not asking so that I can rebut you.

[coldtea]

>So then, what was the point of that comment? What was it trying to persuade the thread about? Serious question; I'm not asking so that I can rebut you.

Well, for one the point is that you govern by example, and the example of giving the corrupt elit a "get out of jail free card" is bad for society. So, the comment could be read as: punish all guilty, don't selectively punish.

Another point to be made reading the comment is that there are essential crimes any moral citizen should abhor (such as torture and imprisonment without due process) that are going unpinished because those in power like them, and stuff that has no real merit to be illegal or to be punished that harshly but that it is, because those in power don't like it.

Nobody would read it as advice to not punish theft, domestic abuse etc because there's officially santioned torture that goes unpinished.

[tptacek]

This comment reads as if I thought torture should go unpunished.

[tedks]

I didn't read it that way, and I don't see why someone would.

In fact, I don't see any critique of your views in this comment. The comment is entirely a rewording and expansion of the original comment.

I think you're confusing the comment reading as if torture should be punished with the comment reading as if you think torture should be unpunished. That is, you're reading a comment that disagrees with you, and assuming that it implies you hold the opposite side.

I don't think you think torture should go unpunished. However, you seem to think that saying the justice system is corrupt because it punishes Brown while not punishing torturers implies that Brown should go unpunished. This is not the case either, and the original commenter need not believe that. The systematic corruption of the justice system is clear no matter what your views on Brown's guilt in this matter happen to be.

Can you say why it is you think the original comment argued in favor of not prosecuting car theft? So far you don't seem to have done so, but responded by asking why anyone wouldn't think so, which doesn't explain why you think so.

[tptacek]

You're not wrong to read it this way. I might be a little knee-jerk on threads like this. It is very, very apparent that skepticism about the Wired/Boing Boing narrative on this case is a minority view. Also, my current programming project involves advanced stat and calculus, two things I suck at, so I'm extra procrastinate-y today.

I guess my question is: so, we all agree that failure to prosecute CIA torturers and torture-preneurs is a travesty.

Now what? What does that have to do with Barrett Brown?

Is it just that we should militate for more prosecutions? I'll sign that petition. But I don't feel like that's a fringe issue; I hear that concern everywhere.

[coldtea]

>I guess my question is: so, we all agree that failure to prosecute CIA torturers and torture-preneurs is a travesty. Now what? What does that have to do with Barrett Brown?

One connection is that what Barrett Brown did before he got punished was basically hurt the same military-industrial-intelligence complex that put those torturers in place.

(Regardless of if one can find 10 other technical legal violations in his actions to hypocritically punish him for. So yes, I'm saying that the "justice system" cares more for threats of that kind than what he supposedly was sentenced for. It's not like its unconceivable for the law to be hypocritical, as some assume).

I don't even agree that the "CIA torturers" should be prosecuted (well, they should, but only as mere cogs doing their job). It's not like they were some "rotten apples", activing on their own. And it's that seeing of this as a more general phenomenon that connects it with cases like Barrett Brown's (and Mannings, et al).

[tedks]

>Now what? What does that have to do with Barrett Brown?

Governments are seen as evil when they are seen as the large bullying the small.

This is an example of that pattern.

[coldtea]

Where does it read like that?

I wrote it as a response to how you framed the grant-parent's comment, as if it was analogous to advising not to punish lesser crimes because grand crimes like torture go unpunished.

I'm trying to show that his comment doesn't imply that at all, and should be read differently (and obviously, at least to me).

[atlantic]

I think the point being made is that the law is enforced selectively and with varying degrees of enthusiasm, to further the interests of specific political groups.

[tedks]

It's striking that someone as intelligent as the comment parent could not see this.

Saying "the US justice system seems only to protect the status quo because it vigorously enforces email leaks out of shady private spying companies while ignoring torture" doesn't imply that car theft should go unpunished at all.

But then, if you're an HN celebrity, you can probably count on being able to say anything and get upvoted, and then having anything said against you downvoted. You could test this by masking the username on a comment until after a vote, but HN would never do that because the people who could do that are all people that benefit from this effect, and the powerful never cede power. (I hope to be proven wrong, but cynicism is rarely wrong in the world where we live.)

[tptacek]

I don't know why you're attributing motives for this phenomenon to me, because (a) I mostly agree with you, and (b) find it irritating, not satisfying.

(I mean, I agree that my comments will get upvoted much more quickly than yours no matter what I say, not that my comment above was so incoherent that it could only be upvoted out of bias).

The problem with masking usernames prior to votes is that it would make all comments anonymous, and spur a lot of pointless voting.

I'd much rather an HN flag that simply stopped awarding karma or, for that matter, comment scores above (say) 5 once a commenter crosses (say) 50k karma. Dan wouldn't even have to make it mandatory; he could just make it public whether or not you've opted-in to that "level playing field" feature. Most high-karma commenters would.

The top 10 commenter karma scores on the leaderboard were removed after I lobbied for it for months. I wish they'd extend it all the way down to that 50k threshold; at a certain point, you should just have "karma: lots" (like Slashdot used to) and no gradations between those users.

I'd still get bonus upvotes though, because there are people who more or less "subscribe" to my comments. Same thing with Patrick, George Grellas, and 'mechanical_fish. And, god willing, 'tzs.

Finally, believe me, my real professional circle is mostly made up of people who think very little of HN, and my karma here is not a source of "celebrity" for me, or at least, not in a good sense.