Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more nonrandomstring's commentslogin

I associate May 1 with getting mashed in Helsinki as for many years I spent it in Finland, with amazing parties in the park for Vappu [0] the Spring Festival. It's a celebration of Spring, labour day, and also "education and industry" since people proudly wear their school colours, company badges and graduation caps. Quite an atmosphere!

[0] https://en.biginfinland.com/vappu-spring-fest-finland/


I like the arts metaphor and enjoy the writing style. Understanding "AI" as a component in an ecosystem of materials, tools, techniques, plans, abandoned attempts and final products is helpful.


The essence of the article is a topic of concern, but is expressed rather lightly in TFA. End runs around security happen at the edges. From the bottom; by undermining hardware, or code libraries, supply chains. And we're now seeing "decapitation attacks" right at the top. Our "western" security models have a weakness, with their roots in Prussian military organisation and bureaucratic technical management, by default they trust up. The whole DOGE caper (what I would call a Dr Strangelove scenario - variation of insider-threat) exposes this as actually very vulnerable.

Cybersecurity services that operate as MSPs (the acronym variation where S is for security) hit a fundamental problem. A managed security provider becomes a bigger and juicer target since all of its clients are implied spoils. If they in turn defer-to/buy-from bigger actors up the food chain, those become juicer targets too.

This a frequent chestnut when we interview cybsersecurity company CEOs. Although it resurfaces the old "Who guards the guardians?", there is more to it. One has to actively avoid concentrating too much "power" (non-ironically a synonym of vulnerability ... heavy lies the crown) in one place, but to distribute risk by distributing responsibility for building trust relations (TFA mentions this). I expect we'll see more and more of this sort of thinking as events unfold.


Very far from confirmed. I just finished reading [0,1] accounts of atmospheric heat anomalies being touted as a cause - alongside speculation about cyber-attacks. Something to remember about terrorist groups and propaganda merchants, is that they'll claim "responsibility" or otherwise misattribute acts immediately to gain attention. Often the first thing reported is what sticks in the public mind.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/apr/28/spain-and-p...

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43830946


No, terrorist/political groups almost never claim responsibility for attacks falsely.

And if you think about that, it makes sense. What's the point? The eventual loss of credibility is not worth it for any serious group.

Usually what happens is that they are not believed at first, and then mounting evidence confirms the claim


My childhood was in the 1970s and 80s when the 'Troubles' [0] affected Britain, Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. There were a dizzying number of factions, paramilitaries, volunteer groups, splinter groups... In those times it was rather common for killings and other actions to be mis-claimed, or tactically denied, with specious bomb threats or actual terror acts blamed on a different group. It was a very complex situation, as smouldering war zones usually are. Eventually the leaders from various camps developed codewords and protocols, so that for example the IRA or UVF could message MI5 and have a bomb warning taken seriously, or properly attributed in reporting. Many things that happened in those days were not at all clear cut and remain unknown to this day who really did what. Based on this I would counter that clarity is the exception.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles


False flag operations.. and you should hope so, because that would be considered an act of war.. anyways nothing can be excluded


This is about Microsoft, a corporation so giant and unaccountable that it's able to hide behind complexity. The OP's email issues may even be a non-malicious expression of that complexity. Nonetheless, the result is opaque power, from which European tech must rapidly divest dependency.

But there is a larger pattern to acknowledge here. It's about unaccountable digital privilege and the ability to wield technology for capricious harm.

This week I've been interviewing US government tech workers about the misuse of the SSA "master death file". If you're in this file you're digitally "deleted from society", after which all credit cards are automatically cancelled, bank accounts frozen, so one cannot get paid, see a doctor, travel or function in US society. DOGE are actively working to consolidate and centralising systems to make it "easier" to nudge undesirables to "self-deport".

In order to do this, huge amounts of illegal activity are already afoot, but most people, including judges, are not technically able to comprehend what is being done or what technofascism looks like.

If we want a "Bill of Bytes", it is going to need some very wise and far sighted thinkers who understand the nature of digital harms, and it will need to apply as much to governments and individuals as to private enterprise.

Existing "cyberlaw", including things like "computer misuse" are looking decidedly stone-age in the face of 21st century "layer-8/9" threats.


> …”the SSA "master death file". If you're in this file you're digitally "deleted from society", after which all credit cards are automatically cancelled, bank accounts frozen, so one cannot get paid, see a doctor, travel or function in US society.”

That is the general idea and working theory, but in practice experience has taught me that the MDF doesn’t actually reliably perform this function. As always, it comes down to implementation.

I’ve handled the estates of multiple deceased members of my family, and in that capacity I have witnessed that the result of your death being reported to SSA varies wildly even across businesses in the same industry.

My favorite is ISPs. At least two of the major national ones don’t actually seem to close accounts upon death, even if notified, with no services active and the account settled to $0.

I still receive bills even after notifying the sender of the account holder’s death. There are still financial services accounts with no activity that seem never to close.

I assume that many businesses are just using open accounts they know belong to dead people in order to artificially inflate their customer counts.

The federal government and its agencies very quickly update their databases with additions to the death file, and that seems to stick. Private sector is a crap shoot.


Praise inefficiency! It actually seems a really useful garbage collection mechanism. And such a lame tool to abuse, if indeed the points made about "weaponising" it are accurate. I'll post link to the episode here when it's out.


As promised, here's an interview with Alt US Digital Service (AKA "We The Builders") with some eye opening talk about misuse of digital systems to harry and bully US citizens into "self-deportation".

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43903037


Last part of ZTW2025. Interviews with KnowBe4 and TryHackMe on training labs and how to boost infosec education.


Editing audio interviews for podcast I sometimes remove lots of "particles" as the author calls them (I just call them "ums and ahs"), TFA poses a question. Do particles have "meaning"? Don't think I ever heard a discussion of that in any linguistics class, but they do have an effect. Working in radio/podcast you get quite a deep feel for speech as more than just words.

I've heard there are effective "de-um" plugins, but I prefer to work with them by hand because they create non-verbal signals, mood, excitement, confidence or lack of confidence about a statement. So often I decide to leave them in. They can signal relations between multiple interviewees, like deference or conversational leadership. Some speakers are impossible to 'de-um' as it's so woven into their speech.


(The article is satire. Particles are an ill-defined class, they may have "meaning" or change the meaning of something, like "up" in "look up!", or they may say something about the speaker's attitude towards the statement or they may be required syntactically e.g. when posing a question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_particle#Modern_me... )


That sounds like the last few universities I taught in. (quite seriously).


Yup, I recall Atari ST (68000) and BBC Micro (6502) having unbuffered and interrupt access to 6402 UART - which I used to C/ASM to fire MIDI bytes to and from.


> our world is getting more and more complex,

I'll counter that. The argument that complexity somehow itself justifies anything is a retreat to the folly of philosopher kings that Plato wrote an entire work against (you all have heard of "The Republic" - which careful, thorough readers of political science understand is a rejection of such simplicity. Indeed all philosopher kings, like Hitler, Mao, Stalin etc... fail horribly and cause misery and death)

Furthermore, incumbent conditions foster complexity. Complexity is a symptom of political failure as much as a cause.

> professional politicians

We are surely seeing that these two words do not belong together in 21st century society. Most of our "politicians" are the antithesis of "professional", being vain, shallow, corrupt and immoral.

It is surely clear that any randomly selected mature person could fare better, with minimal training/induction.

With communication technology and "AI" as their new weapons, the present cadre of egotist politicians are an ever more dangerous breed. As the OP rightly says, that's because of a corrupt and captured mainstream and social media landscape that they learn to play rather than engage in listening, thinking and policy making.

We will have no fair politics or justice until the "lies machine" is utterly destroyed along with those that ride on it. It's not that we haven't had lies-machines all along, but part of ur political/civic duty is to tear it down and counter it - something we have failed to do in the Internet age.

Real experts, who are quiet civil servants and scientists are being attacked and displaced precisely because they are ones able to manage complexity and to communicate rationally. Almost all of these people, who form the real government, are driven by duty, or pursuit of truth, not base ambition.

(some light edits)


You are confusing some things, but your central point is still correct imo.

Philosopher kings != democratic representants.

Our societal complexity is a result of our cultural evolution and not caused by political failure.

Professional politicans in the most basic sense know their craft and their field of expertise well enough to articulate legalese that achieves something intended and does not get ripped appart by courts or adused by others. Corruption, etc. is not a contradictor of professionalism.

That said, why should randomly selected people be better and not get corrupted or misinformed? Even harder, why should they push urgently needed political change that impacts them and many other negatively (bad short term, good/needed long term)?

Your central point of civic duty and democratic literacy falls on all of us, and right now, imo it requires long term thinking professionals to reform child care, education and as a 2nd order, our media and state. Right now, the populus is not able to drag itself out on its own.


> Philosopher kings != democratic representants. Professional politicans in the most basic sense know their craft and their field of expertise well

Indeed. What we see though is a decline in the quality of representatives who are forced to skew toward immodest grandiosity and media theatrics instead of statecraft. They forced into a race to the bottom to present a veneer of "expertise" in everything, and pontificate confidently.

> Our societal complexity is a result of our cultural evolution and not caused by political failure.

I'll hold my position here; Culture and politics are not separate. If politics is the project to attain a "good life" (Aristotle), then managing complexity is part of that. There is no "perfect" society that is such a burden on its people it's unfit to live in (Tocqueville).

> Corruption, etc. is not a contradictor of professionalism.

Your pragmatic slant maybe, but it is not a definition of public office I recognise or respect. Integrity and professionalism are bedfellows in my take.

> That said, why should randomly selected people be better and not get corrupted or misinformed?

This is a very good question. The question, indeed.

I don't think I've even thought about it, but simply started from the clear perspective (one that I've arrived at reluctantly through observing the world) that a random person could do no worse than those who seek power today.

Maybe that's what the "anti-elite" populists wanted to achieve - a devaluation of politics itself. Ready to offer up their "technical solutions".

> civic duty and democratic literacy falls on all of us, and right now,

How do you think real professionals and experts, who are being excluded from the decision making arena, can be effective in exile?

Working with these guys [0] recently I see the emerging idea of a functional government in exile ready to "restore from backups" after DOGE crash the system.

[0] https://www.wethebuilders.org/


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

Search: