Hacktivism: Good, Bad, Ugly?

[Chip]

Cyber intrusions by government-backed Russian, Chinese, and North Korean hackers have made repeated news the last few years. So has the use of Israeli NSO Group ware to turn Apple devices into spy tools, in service to dictators, Saudi death squads, and similar criminal elements.

Computer-savvy activists have recently expanded their efforts to infliltrate and expose far-right, militia, and neo-Nazi groups. If this is reckoned a crime when used against journalists, companies, and unwitting individuals, is it also a crime when directed at fringe organizations such as Oathkeepers and Sons of the Confederacy?

What do you think?

"Throughout 2021, websites associated with far-right extremist groups and extremist-friendly platforms and hosts have suffered from data leaks and breaches that have exposed the inner workings of far-right groups, and the nature of the movement as a whole.

The data has been exfiltrated in breaches engineered by so-called 'ethical hackers”'– often assisted by poor security practices from website administrators – and by activists who have penetrated websites in search of data and information. Experts and activists say that attacks on their online infrastructure is likely to continue to disrupt and hamper far-right groups and individuals and makes unmasking their activities far more likely – often resulting in law enforcement attention or loss of employment.

Numerous far-right groups have suffered catastrophic data breaches this year, in perhaps a reflection of a lack of technical expertise among such activists. Jim Salter, a systems administrator and tech journalist, said: 'Extremists, and extremist-friendly entities, have a noticeable shortage of even-tempered, thoughtful people doing even-tempered, thoughtful work at securing sites and managing personnel.'

There are many examples. In the wake of the 6 January attacks, the Guardian reported on the leak from American Patriots III% website, which allowed the entire membership of the organization to be identified. In that case, poor website configuration had allowed savvy researchers to view and republish the information on the open web.

In July, another organization affiliated with the Three Percenters, which monitoring organizations classify as an anti-government group or a component of the militia movement, had internal chats leaked which reportedly exhibited a “thirst for violence”.

Then, in September, it emerged that the website of the anti-government group the Oath Keepers was comprehensively breached, with membership lists, emails and what appeared to be the entire content of their server suddenly put on public display.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/29/far-right-extremist-groups-data-breach-hackers?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[TSherbs]

I have no problem with hacking membership lists of voluntary social groups and making them public. It's like sneaking a picture at a party. It's the way it goes. You don't want to be outted as a member of a group, then don't join it.

Hacking financial data, passwords, etc, is a whole different ballgame.

[Chuck Naill]

I figure everyone is either doing it or can do it if they want.

[Chip]

One distinction I'd make is whether the breached data is used in secret to observe, extort, detain, rob, incarcerate, or kill the victim of the intrusion.

If it's posted for public access, period, that might prove embarrassing and perhaps damaging to the victim, while not necessarily showing criminal intent on the part of the hackers. If extracting and sharing "personal" data was a crime, then Zuckerberg would be behind bars.

[dneal]

Unethical. Doesn’t matter if the group is “extremist” or not, left or right, etc…

[Chip]

What if it's a neo-nazi group using its website to plan and coordinate attacks on mosques or synagogues?

Are plans for criminal acts somehow privileged? The former president seems to think so.

[dneal]

What if it's an eco-terrorist group planning an attack? What if it's Antifa planning a riot?

Law enforcement's job. They're more than capable of hacking systems, and they already track that sort of thing.

[TSherbs]

Are social group membership lists private and protected material by law?

[dneal]

Are social group membership lists private and protected material by law?

Is hacking illegal?

[TSherbs]

Are social group membership lists private and protected material by law?

Is hacking illegal?

I dunno. "Hacking" does not seem specific enough for law. That's why I asked a more specific question.

[dneal]

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) covers it. "Whitehat" hacking to expose system vulnerabilities is usually exempted.

As long as a problem is framed ethically (like this thread), you end up discussing ethics. That's part of philosophy. Consequence based or duty based ethics, or moral relativism.

I don't have a problem with joining a group (even with the intent to expose) - like investigative journalism. I don't have a problem with whistleblowers. I do have a problem with hacking - digital breaking and entering. I don't care who does it, or why. Maybe the security is pathetic (like the DNC servers), but that's just a form of victim blaming. If you have a poor lock on your house, is that an excuse for a burglar? What if he didn't steal anything? Just looked around and told people about your collection of Archie comic books in an old box in the basement (or insert some other silly reason one might be embarrassed...). Is that ok then?

Not for me, but I lean to duty-based ethics. Kant. Categorical Imperatives. "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law."

[Chip]

Not having much use for philosophy as a formal discipline, I did a search and read a few articles. These two, both by right-leaning libertarians, were at the top of the list.

Was Kant somehow responsible for the rise of Nazism? Smith explores two points of view on this issue.

George H. Smith was formerly Senior Research Fellow for the Institute for Humane Studies, a lecturer on American History for Cato Summer Seminars, and Executive Editor of Knowledge Products. Smith’s fourth and most recent book, The System of Liberty, was published by Cambridge University Press in 2013.

"In The Ayn Rand Letter ( December 4, 1982), Rand said of Leonard Peikoff’s book, The Ominous Parallels (1982), that it “traces the philosophic sources of altruism, showing the unbroken line of development that led to the crucial modern turning point: Kant, and on to Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler.”

Peikoff’s book was reviewed by the learned libertarian historian David Gordon in the September, 1982 issue of Inquiry Magazine. Gordon’s review is cleverly titled “The butcher of Königsberg?” because of the stress that Peikoff put on the alleged responsibility of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1802) for the later rise of Nazism. Kant lived a quiet, routine life in the town of Königsberg, where he taught at the university there. As the poet and essayist Heinrich Heine (1797–1856) amusingly said of Kant:

'The history of the life of Immanuel Kant is hard to write, inasmuch as he had neither life nor history, for he lived a mechanically ordered, and abstract old bachelor life in a quiet retired street in Königsberg, an old town on the northeast border of Germany. I do not believe that the great clock of the cathedral there did its daily work more dispassionately and regularly than to its compatriot Immanuel Kant. Rising, coffee drinking, writing, reading college lectures, eating, walking, all had their fixed time, and the neighbors knew that it was exactly half past three when Immanuel Kant in his grey coat with his Manila cane in hand, left his house door and went to the lime tree avenue, which is still called, in his memory, the Philosopher’s Walk….'

David Gordon was not kind to Peikoff’s attempt to trace the intellectual ancestry of Nazism. According to Gordon, “Peikoff distorts Kant at every point.” Kant was neither a skeptic nor a subjectivist. “On the contrary, he thought of his Critique of Pure Reason as answering David Hume’s skepticism. In particular, he attempted to explain causality in order to justify philosophically the achievements of Newton’s physics.”

https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/immanuel-kant-nazism

Kant and Lying to the Murderer at the Door...One More Time: Kant's Legal Philosophy and Lies to Murderers and Nazis
Helga Varden
18 November 2010

Introduction

"Kant's example of lying to the murderer at the door has been a cherished source of scorn for thinkers with little sympathy for Kant's philosophy and a source of deep puzzlement for those more favorably inclined. The problem is that Kant seems to say that it is always wrong to lie—even to a murderer asking for the whereabouts of his victim—and that if one does lie and despite one's good intentions the lie leads to the murderer's capture of the victim, then the liar is partially responsible for the killing of the victim. If this is correct, then Kant's account seems not only to require us to respect the murderer more than the victim, but also that somehow we can be responsible for the consequences of another's wrongdoing. After World War II our spontaneous, negative reaction to this apparently absurd line of argument is made even starker by replacing the murderer at the door with a Nazi officer looking for Jews hidden in people's homes. Does Kant really mean to say that people hiding Jews in their homes should have told the truth to the Nazis, and that if they did lie, they became co-responsible for the heinous acts committed against those Jews who, like Anne Frank, were caught anyway? Because this is clearly what Kant argues, the critics continue, his discussion of lying to the murderer brings out the true, dark side not only of Kant's universalistic moral theory but also of Kant himself. We get the gloomy picture of a stubborn, old academic who refuses to see the inhumane consequences of his theory, and instead grotesquely defends the inhumane by turning it into an a priori, moral command.

In this paper, I argue that Kant's discussion of lying to the murderer at the door has been seriously misinterpreted."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2010.01507.x

[dneal]

You invoked "Godwin's Law"? That's funny. It's also a sure sign of desperation.

Here's a link to make it easy for you (https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law)

Someone who doesn't "have much use for philosophy" asks an ethical question in an internet forum (maybe a good opener for a joke...).

But your logical fallacy is: Guilt by association. An informal fallacy and a type of red herring.

Thanks for playing.

[TSherbs]

Are social group membership lists private and protected material by law?

No one has addressed this question directly. I don't know the answer. Anyone know the yes/no to this?

[dneal]

Are social group membership lists private and protected material by law?

No one has addressed this question directly. I don't know the answer. Anyone know the yes/no to this?

It depends. An example? How about a private Facebook group. Well, yes it is clearly "private". Is it protected material? Do you mean as in copyright? Probably not, but maybe. It depends on the content and if someone is invoking copyright privileges. Is it illegal to hack said site to see the list? Already answered. Yes. If a member of the group, and privy to the list; is it illegal to share that list? Probably not, but might violate an agreement and expose one to civil liability.

[Chip]

You invoked "Godwin's Law"? That's funny. It's also a sure sign of desperation.

I know what it is, but didn't invoke it. Desperation? Guilt? You're reading that in. For the quotes, which I posted without further comment, thank the Cato Institute.

I was hoping you might draw on your extensive knowledge of philosophy and statement of beliefs to offer some insight into the debate on Kant's writings.

But, true to form, you responded with hysterical insults and accusations.

[dneal]

Ok Chip. You know what it is. It is the joke that every internet argument will invoke Hitler or Nazis. You invoked Nazis, but you didn’t invoke Godwin’s Law. Logical contradiction.

You want to talk philosophy? Go take a 100 level philosophy class in principles of reasoning and get back to me. Right now I don’t think you would understand Kant.

[Chuck Naill]

Ok Chip. You know what it is. It is the joke that every internet argument will invoke Hitler or Nazis. You invoked Nazis, but you didn’t invoke Godwin’s Law. Logical contradiction.

You want to talk philosophy? Go take a 100 level philosophy class in principles of reasoning and get back to me. Right now I don’t think you would understand Kant.

You mentions this often, have you ever taken and passed a 100 level class???!

[dneal]

Chuck, who's the troll now?

Tsk, tsk...

[Chip]

In fact, I took two university courses in philosophy: an introduction/survey course and a senior honors class. I wasn't keen on the subject, compared to Anthropology and Linguistics.

Godwin's Law is an internet meme sort of thing, frequently used by RWW trolls as an escape hatch. In fact, RWW types are just as prone to comparing their adversaries to Nazis (e.g. jack-booted thugs, etc). A recent example is the comment (on Fox News, of course) by Lara Logan that Dr. Anthony Fauci is as bad as the Nazi war criminal Josef Mengele.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2021/11/30/media-lara-logan-fox-fauci-mengele-comparison/

[dneal]

Chip: not keen on logic, but keen on rhetoric (oh, I mean linguistics).

The fact remains that your two Kant/Nazi articles commit the fallacy of: guilt by association. Let's be honest though, shall we? You're not interested in discussing some silly thesis on Kant inspired Nazis. Hell, maybe you are! Feel free to start a thread on it. You're derailing your own thread. Sad, very sad (to quote an orange politician).

Your last post? Argument from ridicule, ad hominem and more guilt by association, by the way.

[TSherbs]

In fact, I took two university courses in philosophy: an introduction/survey course and a senior honors class....

I took one. Loved the visiting Prof from England (he became a friend), but the material left me cold, so I did not pursue.

[Chip]

The debate over Kant's metaphor—lying to the murderer at the door— is interesting. Who are you to dictate the progress of my thread?

More to the point: what would you decide? What would your duty be? To "truth" and the murderer? To the refugees?

My philosophy courses, long ago, were taught by a man who, in his youth, served in the Dutch resistance against the Nazi occupation. For obvious reasons, he was not a fan of Kant. Nor Nietzsche.

[dneal]

If you're serious, then yes the debate over Kant's metaphor is interesting. It displays the dilemmas created by his "categorical imperative". Similarly, utilitarian ethics and vaccine mandates display a dilemma created by the "greatest happiness" principle. Those two theories are the dominant (and conflicting) theories to date.

As I stated in another thread, no ethical theory is perfect.

I'm pretty sure neither Kant nor Nietzsche had anything to do with Nazis, other than through conjecture.

[Chip]

Kant died in 1804, Nietszche in 1900. Their doctrines, however, were widely taught and likely well known to the founders of National Socialism in Germany.

The historical foundation is perhaps similar to that of John Calvin to Oliver Cromwell, their ideas being applied in a manner they couldn't envision.

[Chuck Naill]

In fact, I took two university courses in philosophy: an introduction/survey course and a senior honors class. I wasn't keen on the subject, compared to Anthropology and Linguistics.

Godwin's Law is an internet meme sort of thing, frequently used by RWW trolls as an escape hatch. In fact, RWW types are just as prone to comparing their adversaries to Nazis (e.g. jack-booted thugs, etc). A recent example is the comment (on Fox News, of course) by Lara Logan that Dr. Anthony Fauci is as bad as the Nazi war criminal Josef Mengele.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2021/11/30/media-lara-logan-fox-fauci-mengele-comparison/

Which for the engaged is verifiably false.

There is a segment of Americans who are uneducated, woefully ignorant, and disinterested for which are prey to this stuff.

[dneal]

Kant died in 1804, Nietszche in 1900. Their doctrines, however, were widely taught and likely well known to the founders of National Socialism in Germany.

The historical foundation is perhaps similar to that of John Calvin to Oliver Cromwell, their ideas being applied in a manner they couldn't envision.

Well, people can invent all sorts of justification for their misdeeds. How many lives is Jesus responsible for? Is the inquisition his fault? The 30 years war?

[Chip]

Is the Buddha responsible for the persecution of the Rohingya Muslims? Trying to assign culpability in that sort of historical (or legendary) case is a waste of time, except when the doctrines are pernicious in the time when they're formulated: e.g. Hitler's desire to kill all the Jews. Bolsonaro's promoting corruption and deforestation to enrich his cronies. Trump's forcing migrant parents and children apart.

But it is both legitimate and relevant to trace ideas and philosophies that engender terrible consequences to their roots.

[dneal]

Of course the Buddha isn't responsible for that, just like Jesus isn't responsible for the inquisition, and Kant and Nietszche aren't responsible for Hitler. In other words (yours, in fact):

"Trying to assign culpability in that sort of historical (or legendary) case is a waste of time".

Yep. So let's stop doing that.

[Chip]

Nevertheless, certain ideas/cultural complexes seem more conducive to eventual atrocities than others.

There are numerous passages in the Quran that urge believers to view unbelievers and apostates as enemies, subhuman, criminal, etc. and describe punishments: cutting off limbs, beheading, etc.

In the Christian Bible, there are similar passages that judge infidels, heathens, or heretics as unredeemably evil and urge their killing, whether by some divine act (e.g Jericho, the plagues of Egypt, the closing of the Red Sea path) or through attacks by armies or individuals (the Crusades, pogroms, the liquidation of Jewish ghettos).

Having that divine sanction for a militant culture undertaking conquest, colonization, extermination, etc. provides a rationale for the violence.

[Chip]

Back to Kant and the ranking of duty (to self, family, friends, city, nation, etc.) this scene from The Sound of Music plays in my memory:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRBqmZ0ySa0

[dneal]

If you're really interested in Kant, you might go back and read the articles you cited. Both are actually a defense of Kant, and that arguing his ethics is a justification of Nazis is a misinterpretation of Kant.

Also, he doesn't really rank duty. He has three formulations of his categorical imperative in Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals

“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.”

“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end but always at the same time as an end.”

“Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.”

Kind of hard to twist those into a justification of Hitler or Nazis, but the "murderer at the door" is a good straw man.

Kant is the main philosopher who argues the intrinsic value of an individual. That's what sets him against utilitarianism. Other than that, he's known for development of a priori reasoning.

[Chip]

I did. The reason I posted those links is that they both present a case and then argue against it in a manner that I thought you'd find persuasive.

Here are two more with which you'll disagree.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/11/david-gordon/objectivism-hitler-and-kant/

https://www.stephenhicks.org/2013/09/15/why-did-bertrand-russell-blame-german-fascism-on-german-philosophy/

[dneal]

Not really. The first is another critique of Peikoff's half-baked argument that Kant inspired Nazis, the second is the same except that it's Russell doing it. Both support my opinion that you can't place direct blame on Kant for Hitler/Fascism/Nazis, etc... Why would I disagree?

You should check out Steven Pinker's latest book: Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters

-edit-

Not sure what the point is of the YouTube clip. Being summoned to get the mandatory Covid shot? Mocking the Austrian government’s having their police check citizen’s Covid papers? Seems that there’s a stronger prima facie case for utilitarianism supporting authoritarianism than there is for Kant.

[Chip]

I get summons (if you will) to renew my driver's license and insurance. Which doesn't seem that terrible. I place vaccination in that category: a simple duty to one's fellow citizens.

Not having much use for Eurocentric philosophy, your bêtes noires (e.g. utilitarianism) aren't on my mental map. I imagine yours as a smudged document with lots of straight lines and notations: Hic Sunt Utilitarians. When I see the word utilitarian, I think of the Kochs (Georgia Pacific) and their ilk, who see trees only as raw material for the accumulation of wealth and power. They can't see the forest for the dollar signs.

The point is the idea of duty to "higher" powers (whether an oppressive state, a religion, or an abstract ideal) combines with unacknowledged self-interest to overwhelm loyalties to people— loves, friends, family, neighbors— within one's orbit. Which, along with cowardice, leads the dutiful to betray them to those powers: kidnap and murder by proxy.

One oft-missed point is that "duty" is frequently a cover for simple hatred and avarice. The Nazi occupation, Aryanization, and the Holocaust enabled one of the largest transfers of wealth in European history.

[dneal]

Ok, but if 8 in 1 million people who went to get their driver’s license got shot in the face instead of a shot of their face, would you be so keen on getting a driver’s license? In this alternate world, the government mandates driver’s licenses.

That would make your analogy more accurate.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I'm not convinced. The risk of getting dead from COVID is present whether there is a mandate or not. The mandate (for vaccine) reduces that risk. I believe this is the most accurate and honest way to frame the argument, and that the version being given implies that the risk is only present for those who follow the mandate, and is thus dishonest in its intentions. This comment is of course aimed at the argument and not the person presenting it, to be clear.

Edit: shouldn't this be in the other thread?

[dneal]

Yes, it should be in the other thread, but Chip seems ok with that and a little testy if you question the direction of his thread. Post #23.

The specific argument is about mitigating societal risk through mandates, at the expense of some. It becomes less compelling as we learn the effectiveness of vaccination is lower than claimed. The larger argument is about hypocrisy as long as it makes one feel good, and the refusal to confront that hypocrisy.

[Chip]

Ok, but if 8 in 1 million people who went to get their driver’s license got shot in the face instead of a shot of their face, would you be so keen on getting a driver’s license?

That's a 0.000008% percent chance of dying. Pretty good odds, I reckon. What's the source for your 8 per million figure?

Second, I'd bet that more than 8 people per million die or are injured in auto accidents enroute to the DMV. How many people die while driving to McDonald's? How many people do you think die driving to church? Or die in church from gunshot wounds?

You keep mentioning the straw man. Here's what he thinks. . .

https://i.imgur.com/lQUZseC.jpg

[dneal]

It’s an estimate from a study, in the other thread.

You can expand your understanding of a straw man from just fanciful characters, to more intelligent notions with Pinker’s book.

[ethernautrix]

The point isn't the risk; the point is the government's requirement that you take the risk.

The government doesn't require anyone to drive or own a car. If you want to drive legally, you must pass a written exam and a driving test and buy insurance and, if you want to own a car, pay a registration fee.

The government is not mandating that you drive a car.

The government does not require anyone to go to McDonald's (or any restaurant), whether by car or other means. The government does not mandate church attendance.

The other thread offers a kindv hypothetical (if considering it that way makes it easier to answer): If the government mandates an injection that can mitigate the current global health crisis BUT a few persons out of every million will die, collateral damage for the greater good, is it go mandate? Or no mandate?

Let's use 8 out of a million for the sake of argument. What's the population of the USA? About 330 million. That's almost about 9/11 numbers of dead Americans (or 2,640 actually).

Even one in a million is 330 dead.

I'm just trying to get the focus on the mandate part of the equation and off the dancing around it.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Don't see the problem quite frankly. There is risk whether a mandate exists or not. The mandate lowers the risk both on an individual level and at the population level. Those for who having a vaccine (any vaccine really) is a potential risk due to their underlying medical conditions are usually afforded a wider latitude.

<removed> incorrect data used.

[dneal]

If you don’t see the problem, you should read ethernautrix’s post again. Read the first sentence. Read it again. Now read it once more.

Also, the study literally estimates 8.2 per million in the results of the abstract. It’s verbatim. There is a screen shot of it with that portion lined in red.

But in my op I noted the number is debatable. ethernautrix said “for the sake of argument”.

Surely you can’t be this obtuse unless it is intentionally.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

My bad, was getting the numbers mixed up across threads. There was, however, no need for the snarky remark.

Whatever, my position on the mandate remains the same: I see getting the vaccine as part of my civic duty. Yes, I appreciate that there was additional risk of death by taking the vaccine, but that risk was so, SO, insignificant that I was more than happy to assume it. People take much larger risks with their lives every day, but quibble over this one? I appreciate the idea that people may like to have a choice, yet in this case that choice is based on something so insignificant that it is no longer about the risk but the politics of choice only. There are better arenas to fight that one in.

[dneal]

You are still missing or ignoring the point. It’s about the mandate, not the risk.

Read her first sentence again.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

No, I am not. Let me restate my opinion: I have no problem with government mandating that I take this risk. Mandate away!

[dneal]

You have made a choice for you, and are extrapolating to imposing that choice on others. You are ignoring the larger principle. Perhaps consider it in terms of something you object to, rather than something you agree with.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Actually, I am in favour of the mandate for everyone, in the context of pandemics and vaccines. That is because I strongly believe, based on past evidence of the efficacy of vaccines, that the vaccine is for the greater good. However, that does not mean that I give a blanket endorsement for govt mandates. Each must be evaluated on it's merits.



You have made a choice for you, and are extrapolating to imposing that choice on others. You are ignoring the larger principle. Perhaps consider it in terms of something you object to, rather than something you agree with.

I get that, but you have to also see that this cuts both ways, because those who oppose the mandate are imposing their choice on others too. Whose choice takes precedent? The individual, or all those who are affected by the individual's choice?


No democratic society (or perhaps any society) offers 100% free choice for individuals.

If you think I am not understanding your perspective then I would ask you to rephrase to explain, because if you just keep asking me to re-read stuff that you think I don't understand the outcome will remain the same (most likely).

[TSherbs]

The point isn't the risk; the point is the government's requirement that you take the risk.

The government doesn't require anyone to drive or own a car. If you want to drive legally, you must pass a written exam and a driving test and buy insurance and, if you want to own a car, pay a registration fee.

The government is not mandating that you drive a car.

The government does not require anyone to go to McDonald's (or any restaurant), whether by car or other means. The government does not mandate church attendance.

The other thread offers a kindv hypothetical (if considering it that way makes it easier to answer): If the government mandates an injection that can mitigate the current global health crisis BUT a few persons out of every million will die, collateral damage for the greater good, is it go mandate? Or no mandate?

Let's use 8 out of a million for the sake of argument. What's the population of the USA? About 330 million. That's almost about 9/11 numbers of dead Americans (or 2,640 actually).

Even one in a million is 330 dead.

I'm just trying to get the focus on the mandate part of the equation and off the dancing around it.

True, but the government (state or federal) does have other mandates that have non-zero lethal results. The ones you wrote are not mandates, but there are others that are nearly universal (and note that the vaccine "mandate" is not universal, either).

[TSherbs]

Sorry. I thought this was on the other thread. Nevermind. This is way off topic in this thread.

[welch]

In late November, the CDC said:


COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.

- CDC recommends everyone ages 5 years and older get vaccinated as soon as possible to help protect against COVID-19 and the related, potentially severe complications that can occur.

- Millions of people in the United States have received COVID-19 vaccines under the most intense safety monitoring in U.S. history.

- CDC, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and other federal agencies are monitoring the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

- Adverse events described on this page have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)external icon.

- VAERS accepts reports of any adverse event following vaccination.

- Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem.

- Serious adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination are rare but may occur.

- For public awareness and in the interest of transparency, CDC is providing timely updates on the following serious adverse events of interest:

The CDC is reminding us not to fall for the mistake that "following means caused by", as in "On October 6, 1963, Sandy Koufax and the LA Dodgers beat the NY Yankees 2-1, sweeping the World Series four games to none. On November 22, 1963, JFK was killed. Therefore, the Dodgers caused Kennedy's killing". That's what the CDC means when it says "Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem."



- Anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination is rare and has occurred in approximately 2 to 5 people per million vaccinated in the United States. Anaphylaxis, a severe type of allergic reaction, can occur after any kind of vaccination. If it happens, healthcare providers can effectively and immediately treat the reaction. Learn more about COVID-19 vaccines and allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis.

- Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) after Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen (J&J/Janssen) COVID-19 Vaccination is rare. As of November 24, 2021, more than 16.4 million doses of the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine have been given in the United States. CDC and FDA identified 54 confirmed reports of people who got the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and later developed TTS. Women younger than 50 years old especially should be aware of the rare but increased risk of this adverse event. There are other COVID-19 vaccine options available for which this risk has not been seen. Learn more about J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS.

- To date, two confirmed cases of TTS following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Moderna) have been reported to VAERS after more than 437 million of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines administered in the United States. Based on available data, there is not an increased risk for TTS after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

- CDC and FDA are monitoring reports of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) in people who have received the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine. GBS is a rare disorder where the body’s immune system damages nerve cells, causing muscle weakness and sometimes paralysis. Most people fully recover from GBS, but some have permanent nerve damage. After more than 16.4 million J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine doses administered, there have been around 268 preliminary reports of GBS identified in VAERS as of November 24, 2021. These cases have largely been reported about 2 weeks after vaccination and mostly in men, many 50 years and older. CDC will continue to monitor for and evaluate reports of GBS occurring after COVID-19 vaccination and will share more information as it becomes available.

- Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. As of November 24, 2021, VAERS has received 1,949 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis among people ages 30 and younger who received COVID-19 vaccine. Most cases have been reported after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna), particularly in male adolescents and young adults. Through follow-up, including medical record reviews, CDC and FDA have confirmed 1,071 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis. CDC and its partners are investigating these reports to assess whether there is a relationship to COVID-19 vaccination. Learn more about COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis.

- Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 459 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through November 29, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 10,128 reports of death (0.0022%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. CDC clinicians review reports of death to VAERS including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records. A review of reports indicates a causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—that causes blood clots with low platelets—which has caused or directly contributed to six confirmed deaths.



https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

[Chip]

You can expand your understanding of a straw man from just fanciful characters, to more intelligent notions with Pinker’s book.

I'll have a glance at Pinker. I know what 'straw man' means to pedants, grouches, and grumblers, thanks.

Still, I love fanciful characters, being one myself.

https://i.imgur.com/xueZpIT.jpg

[ethernautrix]

First, thanks, EOC, for a straight answer.

Second,


The point isn't the risk; the point is the government's requirement that you take the risk.

The government doesn't require anyone to drive or own a car. If you want to drive legally, you must pass a written exam and a driving test and buy insurance and, if you want to own a car, pay a registration fee.

The government is not mandating that you drive a car.

The government does not require anyone to go to McDonald's (or any restaurant), whether by car or other means. The government does not mandate church attendance.

The other thread offers a kindv hypothetical (if considering it that way makes it easier to answer): If the government mandates an injection that can mitigate the current global health crisis BUT a few persons out of every million will die, collateral damage for the greater good, is it go mandate? Or no mandate?

Let's use 8 out of a million for the sake of argument. What's the population of the USA? About 330 million. That's almost about 9/11 numbers of dead Americans (or 2,640 actually).

Even one in a million is 330 dead.

I'm just trying to get the focus on the mandate part of the equation and off the dancing around it.

True, but the government (state or federal) does have other mandates that have non-zero lethal results. The ones you wrote are not mandates, but there are others that are nearly universal (and note that the vaccine "mandate" is not universal, either).

I hope you noticed that I was responding to Chip's examples, not presenting them.

[dneal]

You can expand your understanding of a straw man from just fanciful characters, to more intelligent notions with Pinker’s book.

I'll have a glance at Pinker. I know what 'straw man' means to pedants, grouches, and grumblers, thanks.

Still, I love fanciful characters, being one myself.

https://i.imgur.com/xueZpIT.jpg

Yes, a legend in your own mind.

[TSherbs]

@ethernautrix

rogerroger

[Chip]

Yes, a legend in your own mind.

Why are so grim and nasty? A corpse has a greater sense of humor.

[Chip]

The point isn't the risk; the point is the government's requirement that you take the risk.

Even one in a million is 330 dead.

Compared to 810,246 deaths from the virus. At present, deaths of unvaccinated people range between 12 and 15 times those of vaccinated ones.

Stop dancing around the reality.

[dneal]

Yes, a legend in your own mind.

Why are so grim and nasty? A corpse has a greater sense of humor.

I'll entertain that as a serious question for a moment. While I can be nasty (usually proportional to the nastiness I receive), I'm hardly grim. I have a well developed sense of humor.

I have grown tired of the tedious arguments from the left and right. The vapid chimp-screaming. The "internet hyenas". The tribalism.

You have exhibited that consistently, and near continuously in this portion of the forum. Your comments are snide, and perhaps you believe this provides you a level of deniability (i.e.: hey, that was just an innocent remark); I think we both know better.

Let's remove me from the equation though, since you and I clearly don't seem to get along. Your first response to ethernautrix of "stop dancing around the reality" is dismissive to her point. It's snide. It's rude. It's humorless.

So perhaps you should pose your question to yourself. Why are you so grim and nasty?

[Chip]

A quick question: have you ever taken a course in statistics? Has ethernautrix?

If you're tired of tedious arguments than you should remove yourself from the equation.

[welch]

The point isn't the risk; the point is the government's requirement that you take the risk.

The government doesn't require anyone to drive or own a car. If you want to drive legally, you must pass a written exam and a driving test and buy insurance and, if you want to own a car, pay a registration fee.

The government is not mandating that you drive a car.

The government does not require anyone to go to McDonald's (or any restaurant), whether by car or other means. The government does not mandate church attendance.

The other thread offers a kindv hypothetical (if considering it that way makes it easier to answer): If the government mandates an injection that can mitigate the current global health crisis BUT a few persons out of every million will die, collateral damage for the greater good, is it go mandate? Or no mandate?

Let's use 8 out of a million for the sake of argument. What's the population of the USA? About 330 million. That's almost about 9/11 numbers of dead Americans (or 2,640 actually).

Even one in a million is 330 dead.

I'm just trying to get the focus on the mandate part of the equation and off the dancing around it.

You can pose a thought-experiment, which is what dneal seems to have done in his thread. The thought experiment has bite when it is built around a story about Covid19 and anti-Covid vaccines, but it means a lot less when framed as the Trolley Problem, which is a well-known problem in ethics. Less bite, though, if removed from Covid and governments. Agreed?

Less bite, as well, if we work with the six deaths out of 16.4 million who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The CDC thinks that J&J was partly or completely responsible for those six deaths. That is one death for every 2.7 million J&J doses. If everyone in the US had been given J&J, that would be about 120 dead. About ten times that number -- 1,243 -- die every day from Covid. What then?

If someone wants to have a thought experiment, like Trolley, in which they are forced to choose between letting one person die and 2.7 million live, that's fine. However, dneal's thought experiment has nothing to do with Covid, anti-Covid vaccines, or governments. What is your choice?

[dneal]

You can pose a thought-experiment, which is what dneal seems to have done in his thread.

and


However, dneal's thought experiment has nothing to do with Covid, anti-Covid vaccines, or governments.

So you get the point, but you can't contemplate the reality of it. Hmmm. That would explain why you feel it necessary to distract on pedantic side-points rather than address the problem as presented.

p.s.: you forgot to add 'utilitarianism' to your obviously wrong list of things that "dneal's post has nothing to do with..."

--edit--

Hey, wait a minute.

Lives in NYC
Lies about things demonstrably proven otherwise
Tries counterpunches when on the ropes

Hmmm, I think I see a trend here.

welch, do you use spray tan (the orange kind)? Do you have a ridiculous combover? Just wondering if it's a one-off, or more prevalent in that part of the country.


See Chip, I do have a sense of humor! heh heh...

[Chip]

One aspect of the problem as epidemiology (as opposed to abstract thought or politics) is the fact that a person who refuses vaccination or masks, or other precautions, is not only far more likely to be infected, get seriously ill, and die, but also that in the process they are likely to infect others, thus depriving them of an important freedom—wellness— and perhaps causing their deaths.

That biological problem – a virus— is not isolated to the individual making the decision (not to get a vaccine or mask). Thus, rules or mandates seem necessary to counteract the ill effects of misjudgement, misunderstanding, and irresponsibility.

[dneal]

thus depriving them of an important freedom—wellness— and perhaps causing their deaths.

Is an "important freedom", and the potential deprivation of that, an epidemiological problem or an ethical one? Who protects those freedoms, and how (i.e. the "rules" and "mandates" you later mention)? Is that not a political problem?

You are using abstract thought to connect pure epidemiology with the other ideas that revolve around ethics and politics.

[welch]

and


However, dneal's thought experiment has nothing to do with Covid, anti-Covid vaccines, or governments.

So you get the point, but you can't contemplate the reality of it. Hmmm. That would explain why you feel it necessary to distract on pedantic side-points rather than address the problem as presented.

p.s.: you forgot to add 'utilitarianism' to your obviously wrong list of things that "dneal's post has nothing to do with..."

--edit--

Hey, wait a minute.

Lives in NYC
Lies about things demonstrably proven otherwise
Tries counterpunches when on the ropes

Hmmm, I think I see a trend here.

welch, do you use spray tan (the orange kind)? Do you have a ridiculous combover? Just wondering if it's a one-off, or more prevalent in that part of the country.



dneal insults anyone who dares to think through his arguments, and especially anyone who looks for his references. Saving myself the trouble of arguing with his non-arguments in two places:


So dneal says he argued the Trolley Problem without knowing it, hugs the "post hoc" fallacy, avoids the evidence in any of the statements posted by the CDC about risk from different anti-Covid vaccines, and repeats that his post is all about Covid and vaccines but not really about data from Covid.

dneal still has not noticed that the one and only study he claims to have read based itself on VAERS data that ended on January 8, 2021. That is about a month after anyone began getting the vaccines.

To save dneal the bother of doing arithmetic, the CDC says that six (6) people might have died because of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, out of nearly 15 million who have received it. That looks like one death for every 2.7 million doses. That looks like a death rate of 0.0000004.

[dneal]

and


However, dneal's thought experiment has nothing to do with Covid, anti-Covid vaccines, or governments.

So you get the point, but you can't contemplate the reality of it. Hmmm. That would explain why you feel it necessary to distract on pedantic side-points rather than address the problem as presented.

p.s.: you forgot to add 'utilitarianism' to your obviously wrong list of things that "dneal's post has nothing to do with..."

--edit--

Hey, wait a minute.

Lives in NYC
Lies about things demonstrably proven otherwise
Tries counterpunches when on the ropes

Hmmm, I think I see a trend here.

welch, do you use spray tan (the orange kind)? Do you have a ridiculous combover? Just wondering if it's a one-off, or more prevalent in that part of the country.



dneal insults anyone who dares to think through his arguments, and especially anyone who looks for his references. Saving myself the trouble of arguing with his non-arguments in two places:


So dneal says he argued the Trolley Problem without knowing it, hugs the "post hoc" fallacy, avoids the evidence in any of the statements posted by the CDC about risk from different anti-Covid vaccines, and repeats that his post is all about Covid and vaccines but not really about data from Covid.

dneal still has not noticed that the one and only study he claims to have read based itself on VAERS data that ended on January 8, 2021. That is about a month after anyone began getting the vaccines.

To save dneal the bother of doing arithmetic, the CDC says that six (6) people might have died because of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, out of nearly 15 million who have received it. That looks like one death for every 2.7 million doses. That looks like a death rate of 0.0000004.



65520

[Chuck Naill]

One aspect of the problem as epidemiology (as opposed to abstract thought or politics) is the fact that a person who refuses vaccination or masks, or other precautions, is not only far more likely to be infected, get seriously ill, and die, but also that in the process they are likely to infect others, thus depriving them of an important freedom—wellness— and perhaps causing their deaths.

That biological problem – a virus— is not isolated to the individual making the decision (not to get a vaccine or mask). Thus, rules or mandates seem necessary to counteract the ill effects of misjudgement, misunderstanding, and irresponsibility.

I saw a photo of fans invading the field at the Michigan game last Saturday and read an article from an ER doctor there saying the hospital beds are filled with non vaccinated patients in Michagan. I am not saying the beds are filled because of the game, but that some just don't seem to take the virus seriously.

[Chip]

This— the opposite of abstract thinking— might be the piece you read:

"I often feel full of trauma, guilt and despair. I’m mad at the Fox News personalities and the Republican politicians who downplay vaccination. I’m frustrated with people who aren’t doing more to protect themselves and their loved ones. Sometimes, I’m just mad with a kind of seething aimless anger. But even on the hardest days I box my emotions and get back to the work of caring for patients because I made a commitment to heal people, not hold grudges.

On some shifts, the stress in the air is palpable. My colleagues and I know the patients are piling up, but there just are not enough nurses to properly triage everyone. A patient experiencing heart failure waits in an emergency room because inpatient rooms upstairs are all occupied. Patients who need surgery can’t be transferred because nearly every hospital within a two-hour drive is near or at capacity, too.

Nurses in my emergency department work double duty, checking on admitted patients and tending to new ones streaming in seemingly every hour. They’ve done this shift after shift for at least a month with no end in sight. And they did it during the last surge, in the spring, and the one before that, last winter. One of the best emergency nurses I’ve ever worked with told me that she cries on her drive home after every shift."

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/08/opinion/covid-michigan-surge.html?referringSource=articleShare

What price the egocentric delusion of freedom?

[Chip]

Here's another piece on foolish madness. Or mad foolishness.

A deadly virus can’t be ignored, jailed, exiled or co-opted — nor can it be locked down without great economic cost. That puts President Vladimir Putin of Russia in a bind. The pandemic, perhaps his hardiest foe to date, has starkly revealed the limits of his power.

The past several weeks have been especially painful. Daily infections in the country have hovered around 35,000 — while the official figures, probably undercounted, record over a thousand deaths each day. (And that’s before the Omicron variant, newly found in Russia, circulates widely.) The misery is largely due to the low vaccination rate in the country: After a nearly yearlong campaign, only 41 percent of the country’s people are fully vaccinated, a lower number than in Laos or Cape Verde.

The Kremlin has itself to blame. Given Russia’s intellectual, administrative and technological capacities, a successful vaccine rollout should have been possible. Instead, the authorities fatally eroded the public’s trust with conflicting messaging — oscillating between triumphalism and scaremongering — and haphazardly applied containment measures.

The result is a mistrustful, skeptical public — the latest poll from the Levada Center, an independent polling company, puts vaccine hesitancy at 36 percent — and a growing anti-vaccine movement that, headed by previously regime-friendly figures, is stirring up trouble. It’s not clear that Mr. Putin, usually adept at quashing sentiments not to his liking, can do much about it.

The anti-vaccine movement uses lines first delivered by the authorities. In March 2020, a leading Russian physician, Leonid Roshal, claimed that the new coronavirus was no more dangerous than ordinary flu and even demanded prosecution for those who said otherwise. As the true scope of the pandemic became apparent and European capitals went into lockdowns, state media and officials downplayed or ignored reports of disastrous outbreaks in several regions, lauding Moscow’s 'openness.'"

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/08/opinion/covid-russia-putin.html?referringSource=articleShare

[dneal]

Is that the same NYT as this one?

New York Times Retracts Massive Exaggeration of Children Hospitalized by COVID-19 (https://news.yahoo.com/york-times-retracts-massive-exaggeration-163906675.html)

[Chip]

As usual, you didn't bother to read either piece before crapping on the doorstep. Do you enjoy appearing idiotic? Vicious? Ignorant? Detached from reality? Contemptible?

https://i.imgur.com/7ONfETK.jpg

[dneal]

I just asked a question revolving around credibility. Struck a nerve, apparently.

The first articles of yours I bothered to read undercut rather than reinforced your point (i.e.: Kant responsible for Nazis), and you did that very thing a second time.

It seems to me that you aren't even bothering to read the articles, so why should I?

It's one thing to cite a news article to comment on (see: Conspiracy Theories redux, for example). It's quite another to use it to present an article in lieu of formulating your own.

If I just post a bunch of Fox or Newsmax or whatever source I assume you would object to, would that be persuasive to you? or would you just harrumph and horselaugh your incredulity? "Glenn Beck!?!" or something similar, I seem to remember your response being; when it was simply offered as an opportunity to hear Eric Weinstein present his case (whether one agreed with it or not).

p.s.: Is that picture supposed to represent you blowing smoke up someone's ass? I'd note how you tend to project in your selections, but some folks get tired of me pointing that sort of thing out. I think it works better as the NYT blowing smoke up yours, and you just trumpeting it.

[Chip]

Sorry to get annoyed with you. I know you can't help acting as you do.

Consider yourself forgiven. :)

[Chip]

Any further thoughts on the original topic: hacktivism?

Does the wholesale appropriation and for-profit use of personal data by platforms such as FaceBook (recalling the Cambridge Analytica scandal) constitute a seizure or theft? Compared to which, a bit of website doxing and public exposure is pretty small spuds.

[pajaro]

I am a retired IT manager. I view hacking as dangerous, and hacking into US systems by foreigners as an act of war, whether foreign government sanctioned or whether the foreign governments just let it go on. I believe it is one of the few crimes worthy of a death penalty.

In the early years of this century the systems I worked were victims of at least a thousand attempted hacks per day, mostly from Russia. We surmised they had nothing better or more challenging to do. They didn't break in. At least we couldn't find any evidence of it.

[Chip]

I am a retired IT manager. I view hacking as dangerous, and hacking into US systems by foreigners as an act of war, whether foreign government sanctioned or whether the foreign governments just let it go on. I believe it is one of the few crimes worthy of a death penalty.

A question: you seem to focus on hacks aimed at national security or vital systems (pipeline, electrical grids, etc.) as deserving the death penalty. Although the means of doing that internationally might be a problem. What about a hack exposing corporate e-mails that document liability under environmental regulations or pollution laws? Or a hack that published the membership list and finances of a subsversive group, such as the National Socialist Movement, Vanguard America, the Ku Klux Klan, Oathkeepers, the Proud Boys, Sons of the Confederacy, et al.? Or the sources of dark money contributions to political campaigns?

Death penalty for those as well?

[kazoolaw]

Speaking of what-abouts:
-what about a hack of your account information, disclosing your purchase history and bank account information
-what about a hack of your personal emails disclosing your personal history, your political leanings,
-what about a hack of your medical documents, including history, SS number, insurance information, DOB, address, all of which facilitate identity theft
-what about a hack of your library "card" account, and movie rentals
-what about hacking that results in doxxing, marching and threatening violence outside your house

Do you agree that there is a right to privacy at any level?

[Chuck Naill]

How many ever really experience that level of privacy invasion?

Best to live life not engaged in anything you’d be embarrassed for someone to see.

[kazoolaw]

How many ever really experience that level of privacy invasion?

Best to live life not engaged in anything you’d be embarrassed for someone to see.

If it's you, isn't one enough?

How about 45 million? 70 million? 500 million ought to do it, right?
https://losspreventionmedia.com/lessons-from-some-of-the-biggest-retail-hacks-in-history/

You need to become informed about medical record hacking:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/hackers-post-detailed-patient-medical-records-two-hospitals-dark-web-n1256887
https://www.chartrequest.com/medical-record-hackers/

Kroger hacked:
https://www.bluefin.com/bluefin-news/2021-biggest-data-breaches-so-far/

Can't buy groceries because the store was hacked
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/24/tesco-website-hit-by-hackers-leaving-thousands-of-customers-frustrated

Warning about your TV watching you
https://techcrunch.com/2019/12/01/fbi-smart-tv-security/

Is being a customer of Planned Parenthood private? Something to be embarrassed about? How about being an employee and being afraid of being targeted? (No, I disapprove of publicizing such information)
https://apnews.com/article/technology-health-business-hacking-malware-020ddf0e2c687f18d9a205a7bb53bce6

Not convinced yet, I can tell. How about just taking the money from your bank account?
https://www.msn.com/en-ph/news/opinion/frightening-bank-hack-shows-need-for-better-security/ar-AAROfQj

You should take the issue seriously.

[Chuck Naill]

Sorry, too busy living.

[kazoolaw]

Sorry, too busy living.


Not too busy for post 77 apparently: priorities, Chuck, priorities.

[Chuck Naill]

Sorry, too busy living.



Not too busy for post 77 apparently: priorities, Chuck, priorities.

Poorly worded and punctuated.

[Chuck Naill]

Interesting how some are more concerned about being inconvenienced with idenity theft than dying form a virus

[kazoolaw]

Interesting how some are more concerned about being inconvenienced with idenity theft than dying form a virus

A demonstration of the use of a false dichotomy when logic fails.

[Chuck Naill]

Interesting how some are more concerned about being inconvenienced with idenity theft than dying form a virus

A demonstration of the use of a false dichotomy when logic fails.


Would you prefer death or indenity theft? It would seem if you can prevent both, a rational person would do both. Perhaps you have alternative logic for which I am not aware. :)

[kazoolaw]

Interesting how some are more concerned about being inconvenienced with idenity theft than dying form a virus

A demonstration of the use of a false dichotomy when logic fails.


Would you prefer death or indenity theft? It would seem if you can prevent both, a rational person would do both. Perhaps you have alternative logic for which I am not aware. :)

Thanks for demonstrating that your Post 82 is a false "either/or" statement. People can actually think about, and learn about, more than one thing at a time.

[Chuck Naill]

Interesting how some are more concerned about being inconvenienced with idenity theft than dying form a virus

A demonstration of the use of a false dichotomy when logic fails.


Would you prefer death or indenity theft? It would seem if you can prevent both, a rational person would do both. Perhaps you have alternative logic for which I am not aware. :)

Thanks for demonstrating that your Post 82 is a false "either/or" statement. People can actually think about, and learn about, more than one thing at a time.

Of course, you are most welcome. :)

[Chuck Naill]

At least you have an identity to protect. Many don’t. Bless your little heart.

[kazoolaw]

At least you have an identity to protect. Many don’t. Bless your little heart.

Name just one.

[Chuck Naill]

At least you have an identity to protect. Many don’t. Bless your little heart.

Name just one.

The world is full of people who have nothing, immigrants, homeless, poor elderly, and those who will spend there last days in nursing homes or assisted living facilties. If someone stole their identiy, they wouldn't get anything.

[kazoolaw]

Chuck, after saying there are people without identities you provided identities. We may be poor, elderly, immigrants, homeless, nursing home patients, or assisted living residents but we all have identities.

Looking past your contrarianism you will see how how all these people, and you and I, are effected. Do you know how the theft of patient information, including social security numbers, allows for the creation of false identities, leading to financial fraud and false prescriptions? Care facilities are hacked and then held for ransom to restore the data? Hacking medical records can lead to fines for HIPAA violations in the millions of dollars, along with the time and expense trying to respond. And the money to pay the fines comes from increased costs of health care and insurance premiums.

Hacking, identity theft, ransomware have gone beyond cute little nerdy activities.

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck, after saying there are people without identities you provided identities. We may be poor, elderly, immigrants, homeless, nursing home patients, or assisted living residents but we all have identities.

Looking past your contrarianism you will see how how all these people, and you and I, are effected. Do you know how the theft of patient information, including social security numbers, allows for the creation of false identities, leading to financial fraud and false prescriptions? Care facilities are hacked and then held for ransom to restore the data? Hacking medical records can lead to fines for HIPAA violations in the millions of dollars, along with the time and expense trying to respond. And the money to pay the fines comes from increased costs of health care and insurance premiums.

Hacking, identity theft, ransomware have gone beyond cute little nerdy activities.


I assumed you were speaking of legal identities, like SS numbers and back accounts.

[kazoolaw]

I assumed you were speaking of legal identities, like SS numbers and back accounts.

If you have Medicaid, health insurance, and have ever worked you most likely have a social security number.

[Chuck Naill]

I assumed you were speaking of legal identities, like SS numbers and back accounts.

If you have Medicaid, health insurance, and have ever worked you most likely have a social security number.


Okay.