Hacker News

I don't think Overton implied any causality between the phases of the window, just that distinct phases exist and that forces act on the window to cause it to shrink, expand, and shift.

I suspect their research is as rigorous and valid as their philosophy.

If it’s a “well known tactic” (well known by whom?) then it’s a counter-productive one - the more the extreme is heard in the mainstream, the more rational the slightly less extreme version sounds (It’s something the right-wing tends to use extremely effectively, the left wing spends too much energy infighting)

Stalk their children? What policy are you referring to?

> I have heard this claim before but I find it unconvincing. I have given up support of movements for which activists have acted cruelly or otherwise immorally.

Most people aren't this particular brand of irrational.

The difference between terrorists and freedom fighters is a matter of which side of the fence you stand on. They are basically the same thing, especially these days when you get marked as terrorist for talking bad about the people in power.

Two towrers falling, man of the weat warring man of the east, all seeing stones in every mans hand for the kings to see and understand through and a fiery behavioural ring, burning in the dark ready to consume all civilzation in endless war.

> A successful case might be Luigi Mangione.

There have been several public opinion polls that included questions about Luigi Mangione. He’s consistently unpopular among the average population and his actions are generally unsupported. Not at all surprising for an extremist activist who literally committed murder in public.

It’s only when you visit smaller internet bubbles like Reddit where you can start to get into areas where it feels like his actions are widely supported.

A lot of activists are like this: If you go into little bubbles that align with their actions they seem popular. Zoom out and look at the population, including people they were trying to persuade and reach, and they’re not popular like they seem within the bubble.

>A successful case might be Luigi Mangione.

Sorry, but how was that murder successful?

Did it achieve the effect that everyone is getting cheaper healthcare now?

OR, on the contrary, it only achieved that CEOs are now getting more anonymity and private security, while the plebs are getting more invasive law enforcement tracking like Palantir and Flock shoved up their ass to prevent them from doing something like that again?

I don't know about this case, so I can only speak in general.

A lot of times people that say this don't make a strong case that some theoretical more moderate protest would be effective. There is just a feeling that if they personally feel offended by the actions of the protester then it's probably a bad thing.

In reality it's often more complicated. I know some people that are involved with controversial protests, and the effectiveness of their actions is definitely something they think about. It can't be too extreme, that will put people off like you say. But often there is conversations like in this thread, "this protester goes too far, but they do have a point". This moves the Overton window in the desired direction.

The goal isn't too make you like the protester, it's to make you think about the issues.

Worked for the IRA. Working for Hamas. Working for the Islamic Republic.

Cowards would have you believe otherwise, but force is sometimes the only way to get what you want.

It really doesn't matter if you come across as the villain as long as you impose great enough costs for not delivering your desired reality.

> crazy man's personal vendetta. Who can vouch he won't go further and ie won't kidnap a kid to achieve his goals.

You just committed exactly the kind of escalation that you condemn when it's about him.

So what if someone can vouch for him? What's that worth? "Vouching" is worthless in any circumstance I can think of, and nobody can give you guarantees about anything. I can't vouch that you won't do exactly the same, or that you weren't the masked police who raced to the breakers so he's not filmed while breaking the law (innocent people have nothing to hide, right?), or that you're not one of the politicians pushing for oppressive laws for your personal benefit.

I think you and I disagree. I don’t think Jesper is focused on the right issues.

Big tech (private companies who largely just care about profits) and foreign governments (the Americans for example), are way lower on my “things Europe should be worried” about list. They’re there of course, but lower.

Private companies don’t have the ability to ruin your life in the same way your own government does. They just want your money. And the US government is truly a disinterested party. 99% of Americans couldn’t place Denmark on a map (I’m not kidding). When push comes to shove, they fundamentally do not care what happens here.

The real threat is our own governments, who we have given the legal authority to enact all the negative outcomes that will come from totalitarian erosions of privacy and over regulation of individuals. Building up this scary “foreign boogieman” and stoking this moral panic is what is enabling the authoritarian action.

Pointing fingers at Big Tech and the US is a giant distraction tactic so you don’t look at the terrible things our own domestic politicians have done and the fact they have zero plans to do the hard things needed to get us out of this mess. It's just champagne and smiling over dinner, while the old eat the young, the government eats the private sector, and endless legislation eats away your opportunity to do anything more exciting than build powerpoints at a braindead consulting firm.

The police definitely need to intervene, but I'd like to think that playing tit-for-tat with the government is a valid protest, and that this won't result in a loss of freedom.

I guess they need to ascertain whether he's operating organically, or at the behest of another nation, and whether he's scouting out ministers for something bigger in the future.

Though, the irony in all this, is that it all could've been avoided if the government weren't acting at the behest of another nation, and scouting out what they can get away with on their authoritarian warpath. Maybe the police are arresting the wrong people.

Will the police intervene and arrest the ministers when the laws the ministers are enacting result in the same outcome for me?

1984 will be banned as being too inspirational, perhaps?

I still don't understand what that has to do with encryption. Are these two separate policy proposals, one for GPS tracking and one for encryption, that this person is supporting?

Lol that's bullshit. There is a difference between "accessible to law enforcement in a official criminal investigation overseen by a judge" and "public to everyone".

What these weirdo hacktivists don't understand is that the voting public wants to live in a society.

Hmmm, in context he was(?) tracking a public ministers car.

I'm Australian and I'm all for peeling back and making transparent all the comings and goings of public officials (within reason) - they deserve a good return, a hefty return even, for dedicated public service .. and they deserve to know that there's a hammer waiting for any betrayal of public trust, shady financial dealings (while in office), etc.

As a "known in advance covenant" that's not altogether unreasonable, raises the bar for would be Trumpesque grifters, and allows for privacy for those not seeking access to public offices, trust, and cookie jars.

They're probably not being sarcastic. Wrong, and ppssibly evil, but not sarcastic. There are some weirdly big Palantir fans on HN. No clue what drives them, but I'm guessing they're not keen students of history.

Why? Seems stupid. Just let people weed.

People who dont pretend it has zero negative consequences as well. I understand the medicinal uses, most people arent even doing that, but we are overlooking so many things. I think someone should fund serious studies that look at all the benefits and negatives, sadly we dont live in a perfect world.

> possibly inform

I'm not sure about that. People on HN are generally well in the know, while laymen don't event understand the substance of the matter in question.

You dont have to give up equality under the law, you just have to accept that there is a lot more that goes into a prosecution than the act. Were witnesses cooperative and credible, what was the intent, what was context.

I dont know the specifics of this case. Maybe there was a miscarriage of justice. But just the fact the acts are the same doesn't show that. There is a lot more factors to consider.

"anarcho-tyranny"

Trail cams (and other hidden cams) often have local SD backup. Better break out the “broom,” rip open the walls, and steal every electronic device just in case.

I would much prefer a society where all homeowners and cops don't carry guns and cops were fired for illegal raids.

Really? 'Oh, someone I don't know! stab'? What if the person is plain-clothes law enforcement? Or a special needs person who somehow managed to wander into the wrong house? Or your sibling's new partner they want to introduce to you?

Anyway, unless you actually have stabbed someone before you don't know whether you got what it takes until you're actually in a situation where you find out.

I'd say it is. Yes there are people that own guns or hunting rifles. Most still don't think about guns or shooting first. Guns are supposed to be locked in a safe etc. All that does obviously not apply to a criminal who does not follow the law.

I’m pretty sure you’re not allowed to use your legal firearms against people in Denmark. Even in a home intrusion event.

This was in Denmark

Shooting intruders isn’t though. They’d basically have to attack you first for lethal force to be legal.

You can. But ammunition and the guns have to be stored in separate safes. And it's essentially impossible to get off with a self defense claim if you have time to gather your legal guns

It would still (in most cases, your response have to be proportional to the threat) be a crime to use them against a intruder.

You should also add that most private guns owned in Denmark are typically for hunting, not self defence.

Yes, gang members.

This is Denmark not America, there is literally no risk to their life.

The activist is well known. They likely knew he would answer the door, yet they still broke it down. In the U.S., you'd probably shoot some dog in that situation, if one was available.

The entire scene is probably not meant as effective policing, but as punitive theater. This also explains why they disabled the cameras, as the theater was not intended for content reuse.

Given that, I'd assume they knew he wouldn't shoot them or do anything even remotely like that.

I think the gun proliferation situation in Denmark is probably different than the US

>And the corrupt Danish police force being what it is, dropped the investigation.

How is that corruption? If the issue was that he was saying he wasn't gonna do his job, and then he quit his job, wouldn't that just rectify the situation?

I get the impression that you have (or claim to have) information that isn't publicly available and think he is disingenuous or imormal as a person.

Do you also disagree with the causes he is promoting or only the person and/or methods?

Some of his ideas, like full anarcho capitalism, I would need to be convinced before being onboard with. But opposing mass surveillance and promoting government accountability seems odd to vigorously oppose.

This is the slave mindset that is letting politicians all over the world erode our rights. More and more and more. Every country is now passing deep anti-privacy, anti-VPN, anti-encryption and age-verification laws. The law is not written by us, its written by people who are only barely accountable to us once every couple of years. Authoritarianism is rising very sharply all over the world, corruption amongst the elites is high, they are increasingly unaligned and unafraid of common people. There's a million tricks to pass laws that citizens don't really want, including skipping public debates, secret amendments, or just relying on plain old propaganda and ignorance/inaction by the majority. The only actual power we have is in action and organization. Following the laws that they write with barely any input from us off a cliff is not right or noble, its death.

One could read this persons activism as a narrative of "lesson learned" in this regard. Well you want the law applied to everyone equally? Well, actually.. you're right. In the sense as it seems to be the case that there is a motive in this persons action of make them experience being subjected to the legal/social order they promote.

Corruption is defined as "the abuse of entrusted power for private (usually financial) gain". Lars' case falls under the category of conscientious objection, as he's ideologically motivated. Pretty disgusting to frame that as corruption.

No that's not what corruption means

I think the nazis tried the whole "obeying orders" thing and it didn't work for them.

Do you think this defence should have been considered valid for them?

No, it’s not just unlisted number and address. PET (Danish equivalent of FBI) by administrative decision has had her move out of her Copenhagen apartment and to an undisclosed location due to security concerns. Her and her family are literally under protection due to security concerns and this guy is stalking her kids trying to dox her.

I get that it's a secret location now, but I don't understand in context if this activist is the trigger of the situation. An if so how can this be considered a threat.

Stalking falls under the broad category of harassment in my eastern european country. I feel as if this would be a non issue given an official police warning. At most.

Presumably if they had one they would have told him the charges, but I am not sure how the danish law works so perhaps my assumption is incorrect.

This politician dropping out of politics would be a good thing? That's the point?

That's a bit simplified, isn't it? He's pointing out precisely that "doxing" the entire population of Denmark shouldn't be acceptable to her, and that she's literally not accepting herself being "doxxed." If it was about, I dunno, pizza toppings or school budgeting, then obviously the actions would have been different.

The lifes of powerful people must be transparent.

Is it "just disagreeing with them" or is it taking away privacy _from those publicly renouncing the right to privacy_, with goal of protecting the right to privacy of everyone else, who didn't renounce it, by pointing out the hipocrisy and that it actually is important, even to those who claim otherwise trying to take it from others?

Actually it does, and much more.

> Success in what exactly? There a very strong political movement in Denmark towards protecting privacy rights

Doesn't seem to be working.