Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by woodman 4133 days ago
It seems to me that the burden of explanation should be on those that are pointing to this guy's military record as some sort of potential link to Israeli spy masters... but it isn't that complicated. If the majority of Israeli citizens are forced to render service to the military for a period of time, then using the flawed logic, all actions by Israeli citizens are attributable to the military. That is ridiculous. Some would agree to a point, but then shriek "IDF’s Intelligence Core". That is also ridiculous, as it is not some sort of elite group info sec pros - it is a very broad group of people flying desks.

If this guy had been in a part of the US military (all volunteer, which shows disposition) that frequently gets loaned out to the CIA or NSA (Force recon, Delta, Seals, etc) then the concern would be reasonable, but that isn't the case here.
2 comments
rabbyte 4133 days ago
I don't think I can follow your reasoning. It sounds like you're saying the service record actually is relevant but only in some cases and it's not clear when that is except when it's obviously ridiculous. Did you mean to say his service might not be relevant?
link
woodman 4133 days ago
Hmm, I don't know how I could be any more clear - any further distillation would be repetitious. Consider the situation with an eye to formal logic:

Catholicism doesn't allow for condoms. Most Irish are catholic. Therefor most Irish don't use condoms.

The logic isn't sound. The conclusion might be true (I know nothing about Irish birth control), but the statement can't be logically proven given the proceeding input.

The military spies. Most citizens are required to be in the military. Therefor most citizens are spies.

Again, the logic doesn't follow and is obviously flawed.

link
rabbyte 4132 days ago
Right but that's not the logic being presented which is why I'm confused. Nobody said that because he has a service record it must be relevant. I may be just misunderstanding, thanks for taking the time to try and explain.
link
DonHopkins 4132 days ago
The fact that they're "flying desks" instead of airplanes does not make them any less menacing to everyone's privacy and security that they're invading.
link
woodman 4132 days ago
I'd mistakenly assumed that phrase had filtered into popular culture. Flying a desk is a euphemism for performing tasks of little importance, administrative busy work, pushing paper... while seated behind a desk.
link
DonHopkins 4132 days ago
I know what you meant, you're just not understanding what I mean. Powerpoint Ranger is another term for someone in the military flying a desk.

As we all know thanks to Edward Snowden, there are many Powerpoint Rangers in the military invading privacy, operating lethal drones, and killing people from their flying desks.

My point is that you don't have to be in an elite group info sec pros to menace people's privacy and security.

You claimed that "these are the same people that monitor cctv feeds of border fences - it isn't some elite unit of super hackers.", so even if you don't consider those tasks of much importance, and even if they're not some elite unit of super hacker, that doesn't cancel out the fact that they're menacing to everyone's privacy and security that they're invading.

link