The Walrus article argues that sortition, a system where government officials are chosen by lottery from a pool of eligible citizens, is a superior alternative to elections. It contends that elections inherently favor those with wealth, charisma, and connections, leading to corruption and policies that benefit elites. Sortition, by contrast, would create a truly representative government reflective of the population's diversity and less susceptible to special interests. This system, modeled after ancient Athenian democracy, would empower ordinary citizens, foster deliberation and compromise, and lead to more just and equitable outcomes. While acknowledging potential challenges, the article suggests sortition could revitalize democracy and address its current shortcomings.
France has officially endorsed the UN's open source principles, recognizing the importance of open source software for achieving sustainable development goals. The French government believes open source fosters collaboration, transparency, and inclusivity, ultimately benefiting citizens by providing more efficient and adaptable digital public services. This endorsement reinforces France's commitment to promoting open source within its own administration and internationally.
HN commenters generally support France's endorsement of the UN's open source principles, viewing it as a positive step towards greater adoption of open source software in government. Some express skepticism about the practical impact, noting that endorsements don't necessarily translate to action. A few commenters discuss the potential benefits of open source, including increased transparency, security, and cost savings. Others raise concerns about sustainability and the potential for "openwashing," where organizations claim to support open source without genuinely contributing. One commenter highlights the importance of government support for creating a thriving open source ecosystem, while another points out the role of public money in funding open source projects and the need for reciprocity.
Mexico's government has been actively promoting and adopting open source software for over two decades, driven by cost savings, technological independence, and community engagement. This journey has included developing a national open source distribution ("Guadalinex"), promoting open standards, and fostering a collaborative ecosystem. Despite facing challenges such as bureaucratic inertia, vendor lock-in, and a shortage of skilled personnel, the commitment to open source persists, demonstrating its potential benefits for public administration and citizen services. Key lessons learned include the importance of clear policies, community building, and focusing on practical solutions that address specific needs.
HN commenters generally praised the Mexican government's efforts toward open source adoption, viewing it as a positive step towards transparency, cost savings, and citizen engagement. Some pointed out the importance of clear governance and community building for sustained open-source project success, while others expressed concerns about potential challenges like attracting and retaining skilled developers, ensuring long-term maintenance, and navigating bureaucratic hurdles. Several commenters shared examples of successful and unsuccessful open-source initiatives in other governments, emphasizing the need to learn from past experiences. A few also questioned the focus on creating new open source software rather than leveraging existing solutions. The overall sentiment, however, remained optimistic about the potential benefits of open source in government, particularly in fostering innovation and collaboration.
The Economist article explores the stark contrast between Haiti and the Dominican Republic, two nations sharing the island of Hispaniola. While the Dominican Republic experiences relative prosperity and stability, attracting tourists and foreign investment, Haiti remains mired in poverty, political instability, and gang violence. The article attributes this divergence to a complex interplay of historical factors, including Haiti's brutal French colonial past, its devastating 2010 earthquake, and its more recent struggles with corruption and weak governance. Despite sharing an island and some cultural similarities, the two nations have followed drastically different paths, highlighting the impact of historical legacies and political choices on development.
Hacker News commenters discuss potential root causes for the stark differences between Haiti and the Dominican Republic beyond the commonly cited deforestation narrative. Some highlight the impact of Trujillo's massacre of Haitians and subsequent discriminatory policies creating lasting ethnic tensions and hindering integration. Others point to the Dominican Republic's earlier embrace of tourism and its more stable political landscape, fostering investment and economic growth. A few commenters criticize the Economist article for oversimplification and suggest deeper historical research, citing differing colonial legacies, legal systems, and cultural influences as contributing factors. The role of foreign aid and its potential to exacerbate corruption in Haiti is also debated, with some arguing that aid dependency has stifled local development initiatives.
A writer for The Atlantic was accidentally added to a Signal group chat containing several prominent figures discussing national security matters, including a former National Security Advisor, a former CIA Director, and a retired four-star general. The chat's purpose seemed to be coordinating public statements and media appearances related to an escalating international conflict. The writer was quickly removed after pointing out the error, but not before observing discussions about strategic messaging, potential military responses, and internal disagreements on how to handle the crisis. While the exact details of the conflict and the participants remain unnamed to protect sensitive information, the incident highlights the potential for communication mishaps in the digital age, even at the highest levels of government.
HN commenters are highly skeptical of the Atlantic article's premise, questioning its plausibility and the author's motivations. Several suggest the author was likely added to a spam or scam group chat, mistaking it for a genuine communication from national security officials. Others highlight the unlikelihood of such high-ranking officials using a standard SMS group chat for sensitive information, citing secure communication protocols as the norm. Some commenters criticize The Atlantic for publishing the piece, deeming it poorly researched and sensationalized. The lack of technical details and verification also draws criticism, with some suggesting the author fabricated the story for attention. A few entertain the possibility of a genuine mistake, perhaps involving an intern or contractor, but remain largely unconvinced.
Apple is challenging a UK court order demanding they create a "backdoor" into an encrypted iPhone belonging to a suspected terrorist. They argue that complying would compromise the security of all their devices and set a dangerous precedent globally, potentially forcing them to create similar backdoors for other governments. Apple claims the Investigatory Powers Act, under which the order was issued, doesn't authorize such demands and violates their human rights. They're seeking judicial review of the order, arguing existing tools are sufficient for the investigation.
HN commenters are largely skeptical of Apple's claims, pointing out that Apple already complies with lawful intercept requests in other countries and questioning whether this case is truly about a "backdoor" or simply about the scope and process of existing surveillance capabilities. Some suspect Apple is using this lawsuit as a PR move to bolster its privacy image, especially given the lack of technical details provided. Others suggest Apple is trying to establish legal precedent to push back against increasing government surveillance overreach. A few commenters express concern over the UK's Investigatory Powers Act and its implications for privacy and security. Several highlight the inherent conflict between national security and individual privacy, with no easy answers in sight. There's also discussion about the technical feasibility and potential risks of implementing such a system, including the possibility of it being exploited by malicious actors.
Court documents reveal that the US Treasury Department has engaged with Dogecoin, specifically accessing and analyzing Dogecoin blockchain data. While the extent of this activity remains unclear, the documents confirm the Treasury's interest in understanding and potentially monitoring Dogecoin transactions. This involvement stems from a 2021 forfeiture case involving illicit funds allegedly laundered through Dogecoin. The Treasury utilized blockchain explorer tools to trace these transactions, demonstrating the government's growing capability to track cryptocurrency activity.
Hacker News users discussed the implications of the linked article detailing Dogecoin activity at the Treasury Department, primarily focusing on the potential for insider trading and the surprisingly lax security practices revealed. Some commenters questioned the significance of the Dogecoin transactions, suggesting they might be related to testing or training rather than malicious activity. Others expressed concern over the apparent ease with which an employee could access sensitive systems from a personal device, highlighting the risk of both intentional and accidental data breaches. The overall sentiment reflects skepticism about the official explanation and a desire for more transparency regarding the incident. Several users also pointed out the irony of using Dogecoin, often seen as a "meme" cryptocurrency, in such a sensitive context.
Bipartisan U.S. lawmakers are expressing concern over a proposed U.K. surveillance law that would compel tech companies like Apple to compromise the security of their encrypted messaging systems. They argue that creating a "back door" for U.K. law enforcement would weaken security globally, putting Americans' data at risk and setting a dangerous precedent for other countries to demand similar access. This, they claim, would ultimately undermine encryption, a crucial tool for protecting sensitive information from criminals and hostile governments, and empower authoritarian regimes.
HN commenters are skeptical of the "threat to Americans" angle, pointing out that the UK and US already share significant intelligence data, and that a UK backdoor would likely be accessible to the US as well. Some suggest the real issue is Apple resisting government access to data, and that the article frames this as a UK vs. US issue to garner more attention. Others question the technical feasibility and security implications of such a backdoor, arguing it would create a significant vulnerability exploitable by malicious actors. Several highlight the hypocrisy of US lawmakers complaining about a UK backdoor while simultaneously pushing for similar capabilities themselves. Finally, some commenters express broader concerns about the erosion of privacy and the increasing surveillance powers of governments.
The blog post argues that Vice President Kamala Harris should not wear her Apple Watch, citing security risks. It contends that smartwatches, particularly those connected to cell networks, are vulnerable to hacking and could be exploited to eavesdrop on sensitive conversations or track her location. The author emphasizes the potential for foreign intelligence agencies to target such devices, especially given the Vice President's access to classified information. While acknowledging the convenience and health-tracking benefits, the post concludes that the security risks outweigh any advantages, suggesting a traditional mechanical watch as a safer alternative.
HN users generally agree with the premise that smartwatches pose security risks, particularly for someone in Vance's position. Several commenters point out the potential for exploitation via the microphone, GPS tracking, and even seemingly innocuous features like the heart rate monitor. Some suggest Vance should switch to a dumb watch or none at all, while others recommend more secure alternatives like purpose-built government devices or even GrapheneOS-based phones paired with a dumb watch. A few discuss the broader implications of always-on listening devices and the erosion of privacy in general. Some skepticism is expressed about the likelihood of Vance actually changing his behavior based on the article.
The NSA's 2024 guidance on Zero Trust architecture emphasizes practical implementation and maturity progression. It shifts away from rigid adherence to a specific model and instead provides a flexible, risk-based approach tailored to an organization's unique mission and operational context. The guidance identifies four foundational pillars: device visibility and security, network segmentation and security, workload security and hardening, and data security and access control. It further outlines five levels of Zero Trust maturity, offering a roadmap for incremental adoption. Crucially, the NSA stresses continuous monitoring and evaluation as essential components of a successful Zero Trust strategy.
HN commenters generally agree that the NSA's Zero Trust guidance is a good starting point, even if somewhat high-level and lacking specific implementation details. Some express skepticism about the feasibility and cost of full Zero Trust implementation, particularly for smaller organizations. Several discuss the importance of focusing on data protection and access control as core principles, with suggestions for practical starting points like strong authentication and microsegmentation. There's a shared understanding that Zero Trust is a journey, not a destination, and that continuous monitoring and improvement are crucial. A few commenters offer alternative perspectives, suggesting that Zero Trust is just a rebranding of existing security practices or questioning the NSA's motives in promoting it. Finally, there's some discussion about the challenges of managing complexity in a Zero Trust environment and the need for better tooling and automation.
Boston City Hall's Brutalist design emerged from a complex interplay of factors in the 1960s. Facing pressure to revitalize Scollay Square and embrace modernism, the city held an architectural competition. The winning design by Kallmann, McKinnell & Knowles, though initially controversial for its stark departure from traditional styles, aimed to embody democratic ideals with its open plaza and accessible interior. The project, part of a larger urban renewal effort, reflected the era's optimism about government's ability to solve social problems through architecture and urban planning. Despite its initial unpopularity, City Hall stands as a significant example of Brutalist architecture and a testament to the city's ambition for a modern future.
HN commenters discuss Boston City Hall's Brutalist architecture, mostly negatively. Several lament its ugliness and unfriendliness, comparing it to a parking garage or fortress. Some criticize its impracticality and lack of human scale, citing confusing navigation and wind tunnels. A few offer counterpoints, arguing that it's a significant example of Brutalist architecture, reflecting the era's optimism about government's role. One suggests its imposing design might have been intentional, meant to convey authority. The concrete's weathering and the surrounding plaza's design are also criticized. A couple of commenters express appreciation for the building's unique character, suggesting that its starkness has a certain appeal.
Summary of Comments ( 32 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44051162
HN commenters largely criticized the idea of sortition (randomly selecting government officials). Many argued that it wouldn't improve representation or governance, citing the potential for unqualified and unmotivated individuals to be selected. Some pointed out that representative democracy, while flawed, allows for accountability and the selection of individuals based on merit. Others suggested that sortition could be beneficial in specific contexts, like citizen assemblies or juries, but not for running entire governments. A few commenters highlighted the potential for manipulation and corruption even within a lottery system. The lack of engagement or interest in civic duty was also a recurring concern.
The Hacker News post titled "We Should Let a Lottery Decide Our Government (2019)" has generated a number of comments discussing the merits and drawbacks of sortition (randomly selecting government officials).
Several commenters express skepticism about the practicality and potential downsides of a lottery-based government. One commenter argues that randomly selected individuals would lack the necessary experience and expertise to make informed decisions, potentially leading to disastrous outcomes. They suggest that domain expertise is crucial for effective governance and cannot be replaced by random selection. Another commenter raises concerns about the susceptibility of randomly selected officials to manipulation and bribery, highlighting the importance of vetting and accountability mechanisms in any governmental system. The potential for apathy and disengagement among the general populace is also raised, with one commenter questioning whether people would feel represented by individuals chosen at random.
Others are more receptive to the idea, seeing it as a potential solution to issues like political polarization and corruption. One commenter argues that a lottery system could break the cycle of career politicians and special interests dominating government, leading to more representative and responsive governance. They suggest that ordinary citizens, unburdened by political agendas, might bring fresh perspectives and prioritize the common good. Another commenter points out that sortition was used in ancient Athens and could be adapted for modern democracies, potentially incorporating elements of deliberation and citizen assemblies. They mention the example of citizens' assemblies in Ireland as a successful application of sortition in contemporary politics.
Some commenters offer alternative solutions or modifications to the proposed lottery system. One suggests combining sortition with meritocratic selection processes to ensure a balance of representation and expertise. Another proposes a system where randomly selected citizens form deliberative bodies to formulate policy recommendations, which are then voted on by the general public. This approach, they argue, would combine the benefits of sortition with the democratic principle of popular sovereignty.
A few commenters raise more philosophical points about the nature of democracy and representation. One commenter questions the underlying assumption that expertise is essential for good governance, arguing that common sense and ethical judgment might be more important qualities in political leaders. Another discusses the concept of "liquid democracy," where citizens can choose to either vote directly on issues or delegate their voting power to others, as a potential alternative to both representative democracy and sortition.
Overall, the comments on the Hacker News post reflect a diverse range of opinions on the feasibility and desirability of sortition as a method of selecting government officials. While some express serious reservations, others see it as a potential solution to contemporary political challenges, or at least a starting point for rethinking how we govern ourselves.