undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbacklava12y ago0 comments

Well, consensus seems to be that you're wrong, but I think you're obviously right. However, you left off one of the most important conditions: the interrogator has to be able to tell that you've told him the truth. The scenario where torture would best work is when you pick up someone with an encrypted laptop and want the password that they have. In that situation, it will work.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

aestra12y ago· 1 in thread

>but I think you're obviously right

Did you read all the research presented in the article and here in the comments and come up with that conclusion, or are you just talking out of your ass?

What if they didn't have the password? This is a real life example. I'm going to use an example. This lady was stopped on an airplane because she was carrying explosives. Her husband packed her bags and she didn't know she was carrying them. What if it was a really important laptop? Would you torture her? Would you risk giving her a lifetime of mental and physical scars because you thought she had a password she didn't even have?

>In that situation, it will work.

You sure about that? Some people would rather be a martyr and die. Examples are all around.

Waterboarding can cause death by the way.

backlavaOP12y ago

You're confused. The question is whether torture works. Many people in this thread and elsewhere have claimed that it never does because they wish it were true. I have not seen anyone even claim that torture can be resisted, let alone provide evidence of this claim. Please provide a link. What people argue is that you can't trust the information produced by torture, but this misses the obvious set of cases where trust is not required.

Please note: I am not arguing for the use of torture! You're right that in many cases the victim will not have the sought information. That doesn't mean torture doesn't work.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse