doctorow at February 25th, 2014 12:00 — #1
ratel at February 25th, 2014 12:25 — #2
Designing a surveillance regime whose first line of defense is "Come on, we're all good people, what could go wrong?" is either naive or cynical on its face.
The most important thing to understand about the "stupid or evil" question is that in terms of results, it doesn't matter, so it should stop mattering to us. Just assume evil. If you assume stupid, and they turn out to be evil, you'll be the worse off for it. If you assume evil and they turn out to be just stupid...who cares about stupid assholes?
pauldavis at February 25th, 2014 15:20 — #3
Either he is a very bad person, or he really pissed off someone he should not have pissed off. Corruption? Sexual assault? The stench of actual badness, shared by the stench of a frame up designed to shut someone down. Maybe even both at the same time.
space_monkey at February 25th, 2014 19:15 — #4
"either naive or cynical on its face. " It's both. The people who devise it are cynical, and those who believe it are naive.
boundegar at February 25th, 2014 22:44 — #5
"Sexually interfering?" What does that even mean? 10 yards and a first down?
noahdjango at February 25th, 2014 23:01 — #6
I hope they make an example of this incredibly unsavory individual. FBI–since I assume you're monitoring every time I type in your department's name–please put this clown under the jail.
strangefriendbb at February 26th, 2014 18:09 — #7
I think it is a new fangled way to say statutory rape.
doctorow at March 2nd, 2014 12:01 — #8
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.