posted
I'm rather curious as to where "the most monumental non-nuclear explosion and fire ever seen from space" could have occurred without killing a lot of technicians and maintanence personnel.
I guess you guys are saying that damaging the Pentagon, the destruction of the WorldTradeCenter, and four airliners is also an acceptable ColdWar action.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Re-examines the posts in this thread carefully. Fails to see anyone who equated the events of 9/11 in which hijackers used force to take over 4 airliners resulting in 3,000 deaths to someone stealing software and using it without verifying it worked in a system designed to carry explosive gas.
Fails to see it.
Does see the part where there were no physical injuries in the pipeline explosion.
Wonders what the hell aspectre is talking about.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The largest similar explosions in the US have been at refining/purification&storage facilities manned by many workers. Apparently, even larger explosions could have occurred in the SovietUnion without killing anyone because Soviet technology was so advanced that technicians and maintenance personnel weren't required. Kinda makes one wonder why they needed US software for their far superior automation, don't it?
posted
Read the description again. The pipeline exploded. Not "refining/purification&storage facilities manned by many workers." Pipelines generally run through miles and miles of wilderness. You know, where there aren't many workers.
posted
If it were just pipeline fires, it wasn't the "largest explosion..."; just a series of comparatively small explosions. So by your reasoning, it would have been okay if AlQaeda had done the same to US pipelines. Of course, that would agree with Republican philosophy&actions: witness the DubyaAdminsitrations non-reaction to the energy companies' sabotage to create the "California Energy Crisis".
Yet I mean it in truth. Sabotaging a technological system that people work their hearts out to get going, even if nobody is physically hurt, is just wrong. And there aren't really ways to keep people from being physically hurt.
People die in ever power outage, from exposure to cold in the winter or overheating in the summer. People die because the economy is bad, because they can't afford medical care or whatever. From bad nutrition.
What would be the result if we just got rid of the skullduggery? Why if it's evil and unthinkable for individuals to do, are we willing to let poeple do it in our name?
I reject the argument that people like the CIA are needed. What if we would be a whole lot better off without them? If we were honorable people?
Doing what's right is always the smartest option in the long run. Always. I'm positive of that. We should root out this stuff from our system and discard it. The world will be much better off, and we as a people will be better off.
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
They didn't work their hearts out to get it going; they stole it. If they had only lived as you suggested, they wouldn't have had those explosions.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If it were just pipeline fires, it wasn't the "largest explosion..."; just a series of comparatively small explosions.
Are you backing this up with any facts or just reinterpeting the clear language of the text at the beginning of the thread to suit your rhetorical needs? Whatever actually blew up, the source is absolutely clear in its claims that 1) no one was physically injured and 2) they actively sought this technology for some reason. Obviously, these claims are open to factual refutation, but they are the only record any of us have at this point.
quote:So by your reasoning, it would have been okay if AlQaeda had done the same to US pipelines.
posted
No, merely pointing out that "the largest non-nuclear explosion..." and "no physical casualties" are incompatible concepts. Either the first statement is false or the second.
So virus/etc writers are morally good because you hafta click onto ("approve") their program to activate it? It's okay to leave out a bowl of poisoned candy on your frontyard next to the sidewalk cuz any kid who eats a piece without your permission deserves to be punished?
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, if that system ever delivered oil, then I can assure you that someone worked their hearts out to get it going. I don't invent all the technology I'm using, and I don't procure it either. I just read the technical information, figure out how to apply it, and get it to actually work in the field. Because I'm an engineer I feel badly for the engineers in particular, but the principle is wider than that. Did I know more I would also feel badly for all the others involved, I'm sure.
What is the morality of this situation? Many people who were innocent were hurt. We weren't at war. How can you convince yourselves this sort of thing is okay? Couldn't the Soviets look at things like this and claim the reason their system failed is because we sabotaged it, rather than because it's a poor economic system?
How can doing surreptitious evil things be good? When we are at war and fighting for our own survival, maybe.
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, merely pointing out that "the largest non-nuclear explosion..." and "no physical casualties" are incompatible concepts. Either the first statement is false or the second.
No. It might be unlikely, but in no way is it impossible. Siberia is a big place with lots of uninhabited areas.
quote:So virus/etc writers are morally good because you hafta click onto ("approve") their program to activate it?
Not if they made representations or warranties about what the program would do when in fact the program did other things (or additional things).
quote:It's okay to leave out a bowl of poisoned candy on your frontyard next to the sidewalk cuz any kid who eats a piece without your permission deserves to be punished?
posted
I read it. And the question wasn't addressed; just walked around. No one obtains the permission of a virus/etc writer to download his/her program either.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Basically, someone installing software into a potentially dangerous mechanical device bears the risk that the software isn't functional. It's really that simple.
The virus writer analogy is just not parallel - the virus writer writes software so it spreads unknowingly, with no permission. A trojan horse writer lies about what the software will do in an attempt to get people to install his software. Not at all analogous.
quote:How can you convince yourselves this sort of thing is okay?
Why, because I'm a bad person, of course!
quote:How can doing surreptitious evil things be good?
I don't couch this in ends/means terms. I generally don't see these as evil means. It seems a natural way to combat espionage . . . make it unreliable.
And, what Dag said.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Basically, someone installing software into a potentially dangerous mechanical device bears the risk that the software isn't functional."
Dag, let's use a better analogy:
Every time I park my car, I detach the brake lines.
Therefore, when someone steals my car, it's THEIR fault that they crash and die -- because every time someone gets behind a wheel, it's their responsibility to make sure the car's in working order, right?
I think you're conveniently ignoring our deliberate sabotage, here.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not at all sure whether I would feel any guilt in that situation. I know I would not feel nearly as much as I already feel for moral failing I commit every day.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Things like this do U.S. interests far more long term harm than good. For pragmatic reasons only, if not for moral ones, then we need to rethink these policies.
Stealing software is wrong, yes, just like stealing music online is wrong. It doesn't carry a death sentence, though, and certainly there were many innocent bystanders hurt as well, who stole no software.
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
So, just to clarify: despite the fact that the car, under normal operation, would NOT have killed anyone, I am not culpable for modifying the car to deliberately kill anyone who stole it?
Are you making a legal argument for the right to booby-trap one's home, Dag? After all, any criminal should expect that a home invasion could put his life in danger, so therefore anything that could kill someone walking on your property without your permission should, in theory, fall within the guidelines of "expected use" as you've defined it here.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the car is a good analogy, Tom.
You're right that no one stealing a car would be reasonably expected to check to see if the brakes had been tampered with.
However, you can't say the same for a country stealing software to run a pipeline carrying natural gas under pressure. Even if the software was acquired legally, you would expect them to test and retest the software to make sure it functioned properly.
Of course, you could argue that the bugs were included in such a matter that they escaped detection.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's likely that the bug(s) were well-concealed, and that the "decent interval" mentioned in the original article was designed to be long enough that it would have been undetected by typical testing cycles.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a difference between the harm caused by the stolen property and the harm caused by the security system.
There are valid reasons for having a car with faulty brakes. (For example, the brakes are faulty and you haven't gotten them fixed yet.) Similarly, there are valid reasons for having faulty software (you haven't debugged it yet, you bought it from Sony Online Entertainment). Someone stealing a car or software is bearing the risk that the car or software is not safe, since they've left no possibility for warranting the product.
There's no similar rationale for having a spring-gun pointed at a window.
posted
Dag, you continue to conveniently ignore the fact that "bearing the risk" is a legal construct that is not meant to encompass deliberate harm and/or sabotage, which is what we actually did.
For example, when you park in a grocery store lot, you assume the risk that your car may be struck by a rolling cart. This is pretty much a given. However, were an employee to stand outside and deliberately push carts at cars, the employee and possibly the store would remain liable -- despite the fact that you chose to park in a lot which explicitly identified your risk. It becomes a matter of the INTENTION of harm, which cannot be absolved through the assumption of risk.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But your example it is the actions of the employee (and thus the store) that caused the harm. There is no intervening act by the injured party.
A person is almost never forced to assume the risk of causing harm based on the expectation of someone else's criminal activity, even if the person has reason to suspect specific criminal activity by a specific criminal.
This is distinguished from the booby-trap cases because the force being applied is directly initiated by the homeowner.
posted
Except that the force is NOT directly applied by the homeowner, is it?
Let's leave aside a spring-gun issue, and say that I've put a bucket full of powerful acid over my front door. Is it MY fault that people didn't check for acid before opening the door?
I think you're trying a little too hard to make this non-analogous, and I'm wondering what motive you have for doing so.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there any valid reason for placing an acid-bucket over your door other than to injure someone? No. Is there any reason to own faulty software or a car with faulty brakes other than to injure someone? Yes.
If you knowingly lend or sell a car to someone with faulty brakes, you are liable for the resulting harm whether you intended the harm or not. The distinction works both ways and provides protection when you haven't provided the car to the person (either explicitly or constructively). By stealing the car, the thief has voluntarily deprived himself of an important protection - knowledge of the repair history of the car.
You're also ignoring the fact that driving a car and installing a piece of software on a complex mechanical system that handles explosive gas are inherently more dangerous than opening a door. A person does not have the right to shoot you simply for breaking in his door - some more direct threat is required. This distinction applies to manually or automatically operated weapons.
Similarly, a person has no right to expect that stolen material is suitable for the purposes for which it was stolen.
I'm wondering why you're working so hard to stretch the analogy. This is a fine-haired legal point. Arguments about it will split fine hairs.
posted
"Is there any reason to own faulty software or a car with faulty brakes other than to injure someone? Yes."
What's the valid reason for deliberately inserting harmful bugs into code, exactly? Are you attempting to assert that we sabotaged Russia ACCIDENTALLY?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
[quote]What's the valid reason for deliberately inserting harmful bugs into code, exactly?[/quote
That's not the determining question. "What's the valid reason for owning software with bugs?" It doesn't matter how it got into that state. Just as lack of intention doesn't protect you from liability for damage caused by your car's faulty brakes in most situations, presence of intention does not enusre liability for damage caused by your intentional act.
And of course I'm not maintaining we sabotaged them accidentally. I'm stating that we put software with deliberately induced bugs in a place where the only way it would harm someone is if they stole it, took it to their own country, installed it, and used it without checking for bugs.
posted
"It doesn't matter how it got into that state."
I would argue that there is plenty of legal precedent AND ethical argument which demonstrates that it DOES matter how it got into that state.
If I dig a punji trap in my lawn and cover it with leaves, I am liable for a whole host of other crimes than I would be if I just happened to have a leaf-covered hole in my lawn with some sharp sticks in it. Proving intent moves the resulting death from the manslaughter to homicide categories -- as it rightfully should.
Your argument here -- that the more dangerous the product being sabotaged, the less culpable the saboteur -- is one that I find baffling.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was the Cold War, after all, War being the operative word. Honestly, I'd have rather seen this sort of thing happen than what could have happened...
If going into a conventional war would have destroyed all life as we know it now (just imagine how the world would be if the Nukes had been popped around 1985), wasn't this sort of warfare to dominance a much better route?
Neither side could destroy the other militarily without ruining the rest of the world along the way. Both ideologies were counter to the other, conflict was inevitable.
While I am by no means a fan of Reagan, the idea of ratcheting up the arms race while sabotaging the Soviet economy was a smart way to bring down the other government. One done with a lot less loss of life than any other alternative offered to us.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, I don't see where we did anything morally wrong by sabotaging our own software.
But it also seems that Tom's analogies are right on the money. Let's use the car/brake analogy. Yes, there *are* reasons that you can own a car without working brakes, but the reason our breaks weren't working was because we heard that somebody might take our car, and we went out and disconnected them. Our motives are extremely important to the morality of what we did.
And while there are letitimite reasons for a car that you haven't been using to not have brakes, there is no legitimte reason (unless they just *barely* failed) for your brakes to not work if you just drove your car to the store.
Part of Tom's argument seems to be that since we did harm to people or even to their work, our act was evil. The same argument would say that all wars are evil to participate in, because somebody is going to die. While that is a morally defendable stance, it's not one that I can agree with.
All of that having been said, just because something makes you culpable in american courts doesn't make it morally wrong. I see nothing wrong with sabotaging your car, because nobody would ever have a legit reason to drive it w/out your permission. The cops would just have it towed. But it would be wrong to sabotage your house to injure anybody that tried to enter it, as there are many legitimate reasons that somebody could have to enter your house without permission.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would argue that there is plenty of legal precedent AND ethical argument which demonstrates that it DOES matter how it got into that state.
Can you point to just one legal precedent? The legal distinctions I’m making are not fabricated. I’m not saying there aren’t ethical arguments against what the CIA did. I’m saying that the booby trap analogy is a particularly weak and vulnerable one.
quote:If I dig a punji trap in my lawn and cover it with leaves, I am liable for a whole host of other crimes than I would be if I just happened to have a leaf-covered hole in my lawn with some sharp sticks in it.
True. But again, we’re talking about duty of care. The only way the software could produce the explosion is if the Soviets stole it. That’s not the case with the harm in the booby-trap cases.
quote:Proving intent moves the resulting death from the manslaughter to homicide categories -- as it rightfully should.
Not always. If I watch someone drown without rescuing them, I am not criminally liable for their death. Even if I would have intervened for anyone else.
quote:Your argument here -- that the more dangerous the product being sabotaged, the less culpable the saboteur -- is one that I find baffling.
You’re failure to note the different amounts of responsibility when someone uses something dangerous is baffling to me. If I manufacture a faulty beam, the builder who uses that beam will be liable for the building collapse caused by it. I would share some liability as well, deriving from the strict liability that attaches to certain commercial transactions. But there’s no commercial transaction here.
Look, I understand there are lots of ethical reasons to oppose the sabotage. But this analogy is not one of them – it’s weak and has lots of distinguishing features. You haven’t addressed the distinctions I’ve pointed out between them.
posted
Intent keeps coming up and I agree with that. According to the article, no lives were lost due to the explosion. Did we intend for that happen or was it just pure luck that the explosion happened in an uninhabited area?
If it was bugged to happen to minimize loss of life, then I would say a better analogy would be if you rigged your car such that the engine would die. It's possible someone could be hurt, but not likely. Disconnecting the brakes would imply that you didn't care whether the thief was hurt or not.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, what I find interesting is that, until my most recent post, I never mentioned legal precedent at all -- and have been throughout making an ethical argument. Do you concede, at last, that we are ethically culpable for our sabotage? Because, y'know, if so, you could have said so a page ago. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can I try to push the car/brake analogy a bit further?
We didn't sabotage the software in case somebody stole it.
We knew who was going to steal it.
They were are enemy and were plotting to kill us.
This is not, leave poisoned candy on the steps scenario.
Lets say that you and Fred have an argument. He pulls out a gun and says,"I am going to kill you."
You pull out a gun and say the same to him. (Actually, we pulled the gun first, but they made the thread first)
You know that if given a chance, he will kill you, and every one in your family. You also know that he plans on stealing your car.
That is when you booby-trap your car. Not to punish him for stealing it, but to stop him from killing you and everyone you hold dear.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, what I find interesting is that, until my most recent post, I never mentioned legal precedent at all -- and have been throughout making an ethical argument. Do you concede, at last, that we are ethically culpable for our sabotage? Because, y'know, if so, you could have said so a page ago.
The booby-trap analogy arose specifically out of someone saying this would be against the law because it's against the law to set a booby-trap. All my dealings with booby-traps have been in that context.
However, all my objections to the booby-trap analogy (none of which have been answered except by asserting the analogy again, by the way) stand as objections to it as an ethical argument. There is a difference between setting traps that might hurt someone innocent and setting traps that can only catch the very guilty.
Besides, all my other ethical reasons for supporting the action aren't dealt with by the booby-trap analogy at all. Namely, that punishing a sovereign power for stealing your technology in order to raise money that, in part, will be used to make weapons for potential use against your own state is not wrong. None of this is dealt with by the booby-trap analogy at all.
So while I of course acknowledge that the pipeline blew up because of our actions (in a "but-for" sense), you must acknowledge that the pipeline blew up because of the Soviets' actions (again, in a "but-for" sense). The booby-trap analogy fails to accurately account for this tension, for reasons which have largely been outlined in the legal context.
posted
Good reasoning in your post, Dag. I stand corrected.
quote:You know that if given a chance, he will kill you, and every one in your family. You also know that he plans on stealing your car.
That is when you booby-trap your car. Not to punish him for stealing it, but to stop him from killing you and everyone you hold dear.
What we did is pull a MacGyver. Instead of using a gun (MacGyver *never* used a gun) to eliminate the threat, we used our swiss-army knife, talcum powder, and a coffee maker to incapacite Murdoc, and then he falls over a cliff. Let's just hope that the Soviet Union does not come back from the dead like Murdoc always did.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Honestly, if this is true, I think there are deaths of innocent people to be laid at the doorstep of our former President and the CIA. The resulting blast may not have killed anyone, but economic disruption is a pretty deadly thing in and of itself.
You're probably right, whether or not it was an explosion in a wilderness pipeline, or a refinement facility with workers. But my question to you is one I've asked before: is our government to do only those things which will not result in any civilian death of our enemies? (No one can seriously claim that the Soviets weren't our implacable enemies, dedicated to the downfall of capitalism in general, America in particular, and 'world domination'-as cheesy as that sounds).
Because pretty much every major foreign-policy decision, overt or covert, is going to result in a civilian death whether or not it was intentional. Economic deals? Someone somewhere might be financially ruined and committ suicide. War is of course more obvious. The difference here was that it could've been avoided entirely...if we were willing to continue fighting an undeclared war with the Soviet Union. Any deaths-and I've seen no one demonstrating any occurred, beyond economic and fuel-shortage related-have to be measured against that yardstick: how many more deaths and human suffering would've likely happened if we did not do this?
Do the ends justify the means? No, I don't think they ever do, in and of themselves. Nor do I think that any nation should only do things that are entirely ethical and moral, because let's face it, even if that one nation did it, every other nation wouldn't-ever-do the same, and so the citizens of that one nation would ultimately suffer. Until we have a clear mandate that that is what we want our elected officials to do-gamble on American suffering for a moral stance-then we cannot expect them to do so, and it is unreasonable to expect them to do it.
It'd be nice if we could turn the other cheek as a nation, but the fact is the world is a dangerous place. Would you, Bob, have favored pre-emptive war against Nazi Germany in the late `30s? Or Japan and Italy? Even knowing that we would be attacking first?
Questions like what is permissible in warfare are never as simple as, "If it was done to me, I'd be pissed, so I don't think we should do it."
Although I personally think questions like this are utterly irrelevant given that the technology was stolen from us in the first place, and not just by some average Joe or Ivan on the street. Our 'car' was, as has been pointed out, stolen by the Ivan that was dedicated to our downfall. Frankly, Ivan has himself to blame if his theft bites him in the butt, considering we were open-but not warring-enemies.
-------
I don't think comparing booby-trapping your door or car against theft or burglary is reasonable here. On a purely legal level, look at the punishment. Is the punishment for grand theft auto death by car accident that endangers, possibly kills, other innocent motorists? No. Is the penalty for burglary the electric chair? No. What if there's a Robert Downey Jr. incident? Accidents can happen.
On the other hand, is serious technology theft causus belli between two nations that are already open enemies engaged in a 'Cold War'? You betcha.
Edit:
quote:In what sense was it a war? Were we ever at war with the Soviet Union?
What does the term "Cold War" even mean?
It was a just-short-of-war. It was a war that we weren't actually fighting because of nuclear weapons. That doesn't mean it wasn't actually a war; consider it an extremely tentative cease-fire. We were at war with the Soviet Union from its birth, frankly. Undeniably since Stalin came to power. He (Stalin) certainly knew we were, even though Western leadership was a bit late in starting.
quote:Cold War: 1. often Cold War A state of political tension and military rivalry between nations that stops short of full-scale war, especially that which existed between the United States and Soviet Union following World War II. 2. A state of rivalry and tension between two factions, groups, or individuals that stops short of open, violent confrontation.
posted
I would make a horrible President. I could not make this decision. Or rather, I would decide NOT to do what Reagan did.
Here's my problem.
He was right in the short term. And wrong in the long term, infinite sense of things.
Given the choice, I would rather be right long term.
And that might doom some of my own people to death at the hands of an enemy who might not scruple to do something just as nasty and underhanded to us.
But my sense of things would not allow me to strike first.
It's why I hate the Iraq war most of all. In the America I love, there is no room for pre-emption, no matter how painful it may be for us to be hit first.
I believe that this was wrong in the way that murder is wrong. And I think that just because you classify someone as your enemy, you don't have the right to attack them until and unless they do something besides talk or play stupid pranks through proxy states (that you can't prove was them!)
I think that we won the battle at too high a price.
I think there might be such a thing as a national soul. And the fact that this action is a stain on that soul is pretty darned clear to me.
There are other stains.
But I don't see how this one is even arguable.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
This is, honestly, a reason I might not vote for you if you ran for President. (Although I still think I'd end up siding for a Bob ticket ) Because most leaders-particularly leaders of nations, and most particularly leaders of nations at war-have to make decisions that aren't totally moral and ethical. Because even though...
quote:Given the choice, I would rather be right long term.
is morally the best route, long-term doesn't mean as much if you've lost the war. As far as nations are concerned, I'd rather be a little gritty morally speaking and win, than lose under almost any circumstances to the Soviet Union. Because make no bones about it, I don't want to be the next Tibetans, ultimately or immediately. That's the kind of thing that happens to people somewhere in the world if, when you're at war with enemies like the Soviets were, you play by the rules they've long since thrown out.
quote:It's why I hate the Iraq war most of all. In the America I love, there is no room for pre-emption, no matter how painful it may be for us to be hit first.
I cannot agree with that stance, and despite a heaping helping of respect for you, Bob, I wonder if you would hold the same belief if you were the person charged with giving notice to the grieving widow or orphaned children. "Your husband, this city, that family, that nation next-door to the enemy, is dead or crippled, but we're stainless. I'm sorry for your loss," is a lot less noble when we actually have to say it.
That is, really, what we have to say to all the people who suffered in WWII needlessly. "You're dead, your family is air vapor, your home is shattered...but we are stainless. We just couldn't strike first." There are just some circumstances that defy the word 'never'.
And, frankly, I don't think playing by a few of the rules your enemy made and started using first is nasty or underhanded.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
on the street. Our 'car' was, as has been pointed out, stolen by the Ivan that was dedicated to our downfall. Frankly, Ivan has himself to blame if his theft bites him in the butt, considering we were open-but not warring-enemies.
