So your hot take is that BB as a brand allows different people to have different opinions, and your proof is that two entirely separate issues (national security and personal security) by two entirely different authors have conclusions that have nothing to do with each other?
I don’t agree that they’re separate issues, at least in this case. If you don’t think that a terrorist group which has a track record of bombing public places has a bearing on your personal security, I’m not sure what to say.
And as I acknowledged, yes, BB as a brand allows different people to have different opinion, but I feel as though something as fundamental as “Is good to raise public awareness about potential threats Y/N” is the sort of thing I would expect there to be a consensus on.
Further, I think the comment above is particularly odd when considered in light of BBs general tendency to vocally support open reporting.
That I understand you are fear-mongering in the very way that Seamus laments, and that was the intention to begin with? Not an accusation of white nationalism, it’s just sensationalist paranoia.
First, I assumed “it’s a shame” was in reference to the persistent existence of Daesh, and not about the report being published - since the previous paragraph sentence was talking about Daesh reorganizing underground and not the report being published.
Second, ideological constancy is not something even remotely promised by BoingBoing so there’s no reason to expect anyone would have the same answer to the same question.
Third, you are truly forcing a square peg in a round hole by reducing the descriptions to “peg” and “hole” and saying “pegs fit in holes.”
I live close to Isis.
Yes. Sky is blue. Water is wet. Boing Boing Authors sometimes disagree.
However, the idea that technology security disclosures and political situation reports about terrorist organizations are equivalent in all cases surrounding ethics, process, or disclosure is a false dichotomy you are creating, not Boing Boing.
“If X is true for Y, then X must be true in all cases” is very, very rarely accurate. I think it’s a given that not all information should be free (launch codes anyone?), and some information needs to be kept private to protect the security of persons or initiatives in volatile situations, especially when that information is highly specialized or likely to be misconstrued.
FWIW, I personally don’t think the report is the problem. I’d rephrase Seamus’ point to something like “It’s unfortunate that the realities on the ground are going to give ammunition to bigots, and it would be worthwhile to provide context to these reports so that they are not used out of context to further the agenda of bigotry”, but that’s a philosophical disagreement, not a process one.
Either way, the basis of your comment is, IMHO, invalid on its face, and moreover, is offtopic in the context of this post.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.