7 ms·

Kind of need to ask. Does this giant data dump from a censorship organization also include gathered personal data from private citizens? In which case this prob

Kind of need to ask. Does this giant data dump from a censorship organization also include gathered personal data from private citizens? In which case this probably should not be made public.

jazzyjackson 5y ago
> should not be made public. you mean more public than it already is?
mmastrac 5y ago
I don't think the privacy of citizens of a country actively involved in a hostile and unjustified military action against Ukraine is where our focus should be here.
- cyberpunk 5y ago
  No. This is EXACTLY where it should be if we want to maintain our moral high ground.
  - fit2rule 5y ago
  - lanstin 5y ago
    Such an understanding was a key to the US's fairly strong soft-power for much of the 20th C. Don't be cruel, treat everyone as tho they could be you.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      All humans are created equal and are endowed with inalienable rights ...
  - runnerup 5y ago
    Whose moral high ground? As an American who worked in the middle east I have seen with my own eyes the devastation and ruin which American war crimes have wrought. I'm sure if we were forced to choose between a unitary superpower of USA, China, or Russia that the vast majority of anglophones would choose USA to "rule the world" -- myself included. But the wars in Iraq/etc were atrocities whose primary positive outcome was to fatten the owners of defense companies. That's a hell of a reason to kill as many people as we did. Again, I'm not saying "USA is as bad as Russia", I much prefer the USA being the world superpower. But I think we have very limited moral high ground as it is. I would like us to earnestly try building a bit more of it!
    - cyberpunk 5y ago
      I'm European, so yeah, certainly not yours.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      > I have seen with my own eyes the devastation and ruin which American war crimes have wrought. No doubt those things have happened and are very serious, especially to the victims, but morality is a property of sinners; it's not meaningful for saints. What makes morality special and meaningful is that we have it and use it despite our sins, despite having the free will to chose evil. Saints don't exist anyway - we would have no morality if it required them. The world is rallying around Ukraine because of morality, because of a belief in freedom, self-determination, and justice. That is why the United States has so many allies, and countries like China and Russia have very few - it is possibly the great realist, geopolitical advantage of the US: we have allies who trust us, welcome our bases, invite our intervention, because of the (limited, human, very flawed) morality. > I would like us to earnestly try building a bit more of it! I could not agree more! Thank you for saying it.
      - runnerup 5y ago
        You’re probably overestimating the network effects of perceived morality and underestimating the effects of being by far the most powerful nation since 1945. If China doesn’t implode and becomes way more powerful than the United States, we will lose most of our allies regardless of popular opinion. But I really like your attitude!
- __del__ 5y ago
  "due to the tyrannical nature of your nation's government, your privacy rights have been suspended"
  - mrguyorama 5y ago
    Isn't that basically the NSA's line? To it's own citizens no less?
    - mcswell 5y ago
      No.
- zeven7 5y ago
  Some people might even say bombing hospitals of your enemies isn't off limits. Those people would be the Russian politicians. Let's do better.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    Well, so far they've said, officially, about this one bombing, in order (I may have missed some other explanations): (1) We didn't do it. (I think this story also had “Ukraine bombed it themselves”, but that may have been added by unofficial proxies and not part of the official explanation.) (2) We did it, intentionally, but it is long out of use as a maternity hospital and is instead an Azov base and so part of our legitimate war against Ukrainian Nazis, and the pregnant women shown are crisis actors. (3) We’re investigating what actually happened.
  - mmastrac 5y ago
    Are you making an equivalence between bombing hospitals and releasing private information as a side-effect of leaking a censorship organization's data?
    - zeven7 5y ago
      No
  - BTCOG 5y ago
    Just as one example as there are numerous others - October 3rd, 2015 US Air Force AC-130U gunship struck a trauma hospital in Kunduz in Northern Afghanistan, killing 42 and injuring 30 others. I wouldn't think Russian politicians called for hospitals and Ukrainian schools to be hit, but that's just not how war works. Certainly, US politicians weren't calling for an Afghan hospital to be struck with missile fire.
    - zeven7 5y ago
      > I wouldn't think Russian politicians called for hospitals and Ukrainian schools to be hit Russia is admitting to intentionally attacking the hospital. Their claim is that the hospital was long abandoned by patients and has been used by the Ukrainian military. Ukraine says the hospital was in use by patients and that 3 were killed and 17 were injured. There are photos of injured pregnant women walking away from the debris. Russia claims these photos are staged. Speculation from the West is that Russia is attacking civilians like this intentionally to break the Ukrainian people's spirit. Now you know both sides. Do with it what you will.
- chillage 5y ago
  I mean I don't think that forgetting our principles and indiscriminately screwing with everything inside Russia's borders because it's all fair game is the way to go either. So for example in this case if we want to damage the censorship agency we ideally remove PII of anyone who is innocent within the leak. I.e. anyone that doesn't actually work for the agency at least. By analogy, if you hate the prison system, make sure you are punishing jailors rather than prisoners
  - mmastrac 5y ago
    Informational warfare is a perfectly valid and far superior alternative to physical, violent war.
    - chillage 5y ago
      Agreed for sure. In either type of war though, I think we're agreed it's best to leave civilians out?
  - trasz 5y ago
    Most Russians support Putin.
    - brnt 5y ago
      Accurate statistics are hard to come by. Also, are brainwashed cult members truly supportive of their cult leader?
      - spacemanmatt 5y ago
        No, but from a tactical perspective they are exactly enemy combatants.
        brnt 5y ago
        Sure, but is there any way to 'disarm' the brainwashed?
- hnov 5y ago
  Oh Roskomnadzor filters by citizenship?
cyberpunk 5y ago
I imagine the 290GB 'Legal Research and HR databases' will, which they said they will release even before they've looked at them. Stay classy.
- throw10920 5y ago
  I take it that you're also willing to condemn Snowden for releasing his trove of documents without looking at them either, with the result being that 95% of them weren't related to his stated purpose (domestic surveillance programs on Americans)?
trasz 5y ago
At this point, any damage done to Russia is either morally good, or at least neutral. Literally anything. In the worst case it’s just collateral damage.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Interestingly, that is not at all the view of real soldiers, involved in life-and-death, existential conflict. Damage to enemy civilians must be minimized and be proportional to the purpose. You can't nuke a town because someone threw a rock at you, for example. Remember that goes for both sides: If you nuke their town, then your civilians are likely to suffer the same or worse. Among real soldiers, the 'anything goes' mentality is the mindset of war criminals.
  - trasz 5y ago
    Russians aren’t soldiers, they are state terrorists. By purposefully attacking civilians they gave up their rights.
    - OrderlyTiamat 5y ago
      Could you clarify "they"? Do you mean all russians? Including the ones in jail right now for protesting the war?
      - spacemanmatt 5y ago
        > By purposefully attacking civilians they gave up their rights. The scope is pretty well-defined.
        OrderlyTiamat 5y ago
        Then giving out personal information unlimited to that well-defined scope is not justified nor well defended by this argument. You can't have it both ways.
      - 5y ago

Kind of need to ask. Does this giant data dump from a censorship organization also include gathered personal data from private citizens? In which case this probably should not be made public.

jazzyjackson 5y ago

> should not be made public. you mean more public than it already is?

mmastrac 5y ago

I don't think the privacy of citizens of a country actively involved in a hostile and unjustified military action against Ukraine is where our focus should be here.

cyberpunk 5y ago
No. This is EXACTLY where it should be if we want to maintain our moral high ground.
- fit2rule 5y ago
- lanstin 5y ago
  Such an understanding was a key to the US's fairly strong soft-power for much of the 20th C. Don't be cruel, treat everyone as tho they could be you.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    All humans are created equal and are endowed with inalienable rights ...
- runnerup 5y ago
  Whose moral high ground? As an American who worked in the middle east I have seen with my own eyes the devastation and ruin which American war crimes have wrought. I'm sure if we were forced to choose between a unitary superpower of USA, China, or Russia that the vast majority of anglophones would choose USA to "rule the world" -- myself included. But the wars in Iraq/etc were atrocities whose primary positive outcome was to fatten the owners of defense companies. That's a hell of a reason to kill as many people as we did. Again, I'm not saying "USA is as bad as Russia", I much prefer the USA being the world superpower. But I think we have very limited moral high ground as it is. I would like us to earnestly try building a bit more of it!
  - cyberpunk 5y ago
    I'm European, so yeah, certainly not yours.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > I have seen with my own eyes the devastation and ruin which American war crimes have wrought. No doubt those things have happened and are very serious, especially to the victims, but morality is a property of sinners; it's not meaningful for saints. What makes morality special and meaningful is that we have it and use it despite our sins, despite having the free will to chose evil. Saints don't exist anyway - we would have no morality if it required them. The world is rallying around Ukraine because of morality, because of a belief in freedom, self-determination, and justice. That is why the United States has so many allies, and countries like China and Russia have very few - it is possibly the great realist, geopolitical advantage of the US: we have allies who trust us, welcome our bases, invite our intervention, because of the (limited, human, very flawed) morality. > I would like us to earnestly try building a bit more of it! I could not agree more! Thank you for saying it.
    - runnerup 5y ago
      You’re probably overestimating the network effects of perceived morality and underestimating the effects of being by far the most powerful nation since 1945. If China doesn’t implode and becomes way more powerful than the United States, we will lose most of our allies regardless of popular opinion. But I really like your attitude!
__del__ 5y ago
"due to the tyrannical nature of your nation's government, your privacy rights have been suspended"
- mrguyorama 5y ago
  Isn't that basically the NSA's line? To it's own citizens no less?
  - mcswell 5y ago
    No.
zeven7 5y ago
Some people might even say bombing hospitals of your enemies isn't off limits. Those people would be the Russian politicians. Let's do better.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  Well, so far they've said, officially, about this one bombing, in order (I may have missed some other explanations): (1) We didn't do it. (I think this story also had “Ukraine bombed it themselves”, but that may have been added by unofficial proxies and not part of the official explanation.) (2) We did it, intentionally, but it is long out of use as a maternity hospital and is instead an Azov base and so part of our legitimate war against Ukrainian Nazis, and the pregnant women shown are crisis actors. (3) We’re investigating what actually happened.
- mmastrac 5y ago
  Are you making an equivalence between bombing hospitals and releasing private information as a side-effect of leaking a censorship organization's data?
  - zeven7 5y ago
    No
- BTCOG 5y ago
  Just as one example as there are numerous others - October 3rd, 2015 US Air Force AC-130U gunship struck a trauma hospital in Kunduz in Northern Afghanistan, killing 42 and injuring 30 others. I wouldn't think Russian politicians called for hospitals and Ukrainian schools to be hit, but that's just not how war works. Certainly, US politicians weren't calling for an Afghan hospital to be struck with missile fire.
  - zeven7 5y ago
    > I wouldn't think Russian politicians called for hospitals and Ukrainian schools to be hit Russia is admitting to intentionally attacking the hospital. Their claim is that the hospital was long abandoned by patients and has been used by the Ukrainian military. Ukraine says the hospital was in use by patients and that 3 were killed and 17 were injured. There are photos of injured pregnant women walking away from the debris. Russia claims these photos are staged. Speculation from the West is that Russia is attacking civilians like this intentionally to break the Ukrainian people's spirit. Now you know both sides. Do with it what you will.
chillage 5y ago
I mean I don't think that forgetting our principles and indiscriminately screwing with everything inside Russia's borders because it's all fair game is the way to go either. So for example in this case if we want to damage the censorship agency we ideally remove PII of anyone who is innocent within the leak. I.e. anyone that doesn't actually work for the agency at least. By analogy, if you hate the prison system, make sure you are punishing jailors rather than prisoners
- mmastrac 5y ago
  Informational warfare is a perfectly valid and far superior alternative to physical, violent war.
  - chillage 5y ago
    Agreed for sure. In either type of war though, I think we're agreed it's best to leave civilians out?
- trasz 5y ago
  Most Russians support Putin.
  - brnt 5y ago
    Accurate statistics are hard to come by. Also, are brainwashed cult members truly supportive of their cult leader?
    - spacemanmatt 5y ago
      No, but from a tactical perspective they are exactly enemy combatants.
      - brnt 5y ago
        Sure, but is there any way to 'disarm' the brainwashed?
hnov 5y ago
Oh Roskomnadzor filters by citizenship?

cyberpunk 5y ago

I imagine the 290GB 'Legal Research and HR databases' will, which they said they will release even before they've looked at them. Stay classy.

throw10920 5y ago
I take it that you're also willing to condemn Snowden for releasing his trove of documents without looking at them either, with the result being that 95% of them weren't related to his stated purpose (domestic surveillance programs on Americans)?

trasz 5y ago

At this point, any damage done to Russia is either morally good, or at least neutral. Literally anything. In the worst case it’s just collateral damage.

wolverine876 5y ago
Interestingly, that is not at all the view of real soldiers, involved in life-and-death, existential conflict. Damage to enemy civilians must be minimized and be proportional to the purpose. You can't nuke a town because someone threw a rock at you, for example. Remember that goes for both sides: If you nuke their town, then your civilians are likely to suffer the same or worse. Among real soldiers, the 'anything goes' mentality is the mindset of war criminals.
- trasz 5y ago
  Russians aren’t soldiers, they are state terrorists. By purposefully attacking civilians they gave up their rights.
  - OrderlyTiamat 5y ago
    Could you clarify "they"? Do you mean all russians? Including the ones in jail right now for protesting the war?
    - spacemanmatt 5y ago
      > By purposefully attacking civilians they gave up their rights. The scope is pretty well-defined.
      - OrderlyTiamat 5y ago
        Then giving out personal information unlimited to that well-defined scope is not justified nor well defended by this argument. You can't have it both ways.
    - 5y ago