Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

By the same token, one could say that extra-judicial torture could have "usefulness" as you put it. We could have a similar discussion of how absolutists on the torture question aren't doing a proper cost/benefit analysis and are "providing their opponents an easy strawman for a hollow victory."

I know this is Hacker News, but not every argument requires infinite nuance, we don't need to sit down and examine the pros & cons of torture or any other clear and obvious abuse of government power. We don't need to dignify the position of "read all citizens private correspondence" with a cost/benefit analysis. This practice provides legitimacy to clearly unconscionable actions. It is permissible, even strategically valuable, to have certain positions that we are absolutist on, policies that aren't tolerated under any conditions.



The nuance here is pretty blunt: no matter how useful torture is, it is never enough to legalize it.

Same with banning secure private communication.


Is that it? I think it might be "no matter how many times we legalize torture, it will never become truly useful".

Studies show torture is simply not effective. Similar to how surveilling all communication is not effective.

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/security-...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: