1x51: Bad Voltage Live in Germany 2015

This is not that show. Instead, it's a pointer to that show, because it was videoed, and you'll want to watch the video; live shows don't translate very well to a pure audio podcast. So, go to badvoltage.org/fulda2015 or the Bad Voltage YouTube channel and you can watch us discuss how to stop cybercrime, that you are the biggest risk facing open source, and hear some truly gratuitous German insults. Thank you to the OpenNMS team and Tarus Balog for inviting us to perform, and we hope you like the show.

Download the show now!


That was a fun show to do. :slight_smile:

Are there any native speakers who can translate the Wrong In 60 Seconds segment? Particularly the bits insulting @jonobacon?

1 Like

I would also be interested in hearing such a translation :slight_smile:

1 Like

I would love to hear it too. :slight_smile:

I would settle for a written translation.

Please, we must have members of this community who can provide a transcript

I’ll see what I can do, I have German and Italian friends.

1 Like

One of the speakers had a good point, but had trouble expressing it I think. There is a fundamental problem with Laws. As a Lawyer I work with recently mused, a law can be seen as a tacit admission that society has failed to solve at root cause, a problem.

One unpopular view of crime that I actually support, is that if you eliminate poverty and inequality in society, you eliminate crime. I would say that this extends to cyber crime.

Just to say, I watched this in snippets, for it is quite inconvenient, for me, to watch the whole thing at once. Once I had finished, I realized that I wish that I had known that I could have listened to most of the show and it would have been fine. If one is in a similar position, I would recommend listening up till about 50 minutes, then watching the show till finish. But only if watching is an inconvenience, otherwise, enjoy!

The biggest threat to opensource software might come from unprofessional behavior of software developers (not necessarily of ones inside the opensource communities).
Taking the most recent example of WV debacle, it is just a matter of when and how big the F-up needs to be for standard (old) society instruments to kick in: Introducing the Laws that set “The Standard”, “The Certification”, “The Revocation” for a professional software developer (A licence like schema similar to those seen in health, law and monetary worlds).
Taking this to the worrying level of: I can’t use this awesome opensource software in my ____ as it is made by enthusiasts and not by “certified” “professional” developers.
Does this make any sense?

Translation from my friend:

I travelled so far to see Brian (without any hair). And now I have to do such shit.
Additionally, Brian isn’t cool. The three blocks just want to say: we are important.
I don’t want to attend any more. You are standing here with your fucking face.
And all the shit your are saying. It sucks.
You can’t invite to a normal evening. No.
is not allowed to attend. And I have to listen to your shit the entire evening.
And there is only beer from Hessen which is shit.
In Hessen they only make shit beer. You have to come to Franken. We now how to make proper beer.
For the next time my advice is to invite Brian and organize proper beer. Thanks in advance.

I’ve always found this to be an interesting subject.

Laws set up the framework by which to punish someone after the fact, but this doesn’t necessarily dissuade anyone from breaking the laws.

I think it would be better if we, as a society and individuals, focused more on root cause solutions rather than punishment after the fact. Especially when punishment after the fact costs taxpayers in terms of housing, clothing, feeding, etc ‘criminals’. I say criminal since I do not agree in many non-violent ‘criminals’ serving prison time at all (ex smoking pot).

It’s interesting we haven’t found a way to solve a large degree of inequality in this day and age. With advancements in tech you’d think we could at least handle housing, water, food, education. Though delivery of these resources seems worse rather than better. Look at the Internet, we could provide people with affordable/free learning resources for any subject they desire, but we still ship children around on buses to sit in classrooms and all learn in a one size fits all environment. Seems rather strange given the possible alternatives. Or teachers that show up year after year to teach a new classroom full of students, couldn’t this be handled, at least in some part, through a series of videos that teacher and others put out and occasionally update when required.

The chap in the live show made this point too. I am not convinced by it. I would like to believe of myself that the reason I buy bread rather than stealing it is purely and absolutely because it’s the right thing to do, but actually at least some of the reason is that I’ll get caught and then I’ll go to prison. This is a strong dissuasion factor. Maybe everyone else is just a nicer person than I am.

I think I am in broad agreement with @sil here but the fact that an act is against the law is not what deters people. They are deterred by the likelihood of getting caught and the severity of any likely punishment.

Note: the punishment can be purely social. When I was young it was common for people to drive to and back from a bar in the UK. It doesn’t happen anywhere near as often now as it is considered socially unacceptable.

1 Like

There is clearly a balance to find here and we do need understand the causes of our problems and take steps to mitigate factors which lead to a worse society and promote factors that help to improve society. We still need sanctions however as while we can do much to improve society there will always bad people and we do need laws to set lines that they can not cross and set appropriate punishments if they do.

You specifically mention drug use and I would certainly not advocate people taking drugs but I feel drug laws in the US, UK and many places are totally misplaced. I have seen the effects of drugs ruining lives, either as a direct effect of the drugs themselves, or as a result of the criminal activity addicts are often forced into to fund and find the drugs needed by their addiction. This should be seen as a public health issue and suffers seen as patients in need of treatment and not criminals. Criminalising drug use forces users to hide their habit so they are less likely to seek help if they find themselves moving from a social user to the point where they are starting to feel dependant.

We are actually making a lot of progress here, though I admit we could be making more, In the developed world the gap between the rich and poor has increased in recent years but elsewhere things are improving and there is a real possibility that we can eliminate extreme poverty in the next 15 years, a UN commitment.

I won’t bother you with the details but if you are interested there is an excellent web based interactive tool to help you see global trends at Gapminder World.

“I think I am in broad agreement with @sil here but the fact that an act is against the law is not what deters
people. They are deterred by the likelihood of getting caught and the severity of any likely punishment.”

But punishment without law (i.e. a predetermined agreement on what is wrong and what will happen if you do it) is vigilantism. So yes, perhaps people are deterred by the punishment part, but you really don’t want that deterrent outside the framework of law.

I disagree, though, that law is a tacit admission from society that they’ve failed to solve a problem - because human sinfulness and selfishness is not fully solvable this side of the Second Coming of Christ. In the mean time, laws and their associated punishments have a deterrent effect.

I concur, here… or, rather, I agree with the initial assertion (laws are in fact a tacit admission that a problem isn’t solved yet) but that doesn’t mean that a solution is currently available but being ignored. In a world with a Star Trek replicator on every street corner, the incidence of theft would be much, much reduced (it’s hard to see why anyone would steal anything when they can have their own one for free, although some people will do so just because they’re dicks), but that’s not actually a tenable solution right now (we don’t know how to build a Star Trek replicator) and it is extremely difficult to see a way in which theft can be eliminated without eliminating scarcity. So, yes, laws against theft are there because we haven’t solved the problem of scarcity, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws; we need them until we’ve solved the problem of scarcity, and we haven’t, yet.

I’m not suggesting vigilantism is ever justified but there is nothing wrong with peaceful social pressure. As a young boy where I grew up many of my parents generation thought that it was OK to have a few drinks and drive home. Nobody was suggesting that they should be allowed to drive when they were clearly incapable but many underestimated how much their capabilities we’re diminished.

Now in the UK the social climate has changed. If I were to drive to a bar, drink a couple of pints of beer and want to drive home my friends would:

1 - Call me an idiot
2 - Suggest I walk home or call a taxi
3 - Steal my keys and call the police if I refused

The law has not changed significantly in the last 30 the last thirty years, but public opinion has. As young boy my parents would only have intervened if a friend was clearly intoxicated. But, bear in mind my parents had also been drinking so their judgement was also impaired.

I’m not suggesting my parents or any of their friends ever drove when clearly “out of their skulls” but it is obvious that they were driving with impaired reaction times and judgement. Back then most people turned a blind eye to others breaking this particular law. Today it’s very different.

To pick up on your second point laws can not be applied retroactively, though they can cancelled retrospecivly. To clarify this it is unacceptable for someone to be punished for something that was not a crime at the time it was committed, or to be punished more severely than the legal punishment at the time it was committed. It is of course perfectly acceptable to reduce the punishment if it felt that the previous punishment was excessive or to review the punishment upward or downward as required for anyone committing a similar act in the future.

1 Like

Since no one bothered to translate it as of yet, I’ll try it out. This is the first, german, rant. As with all translations, many notions will be lost but I hope you’re fine with the content alone.

What kind of shit is this. I came from so far to watch fucking Bryan, instead of him now here’s a bald half-american asshole in front of me who just can’t not stand here being like “boo hoo I’m so important, ooh tatu tata”. Jo no or jo yes, motherfucker. You know? I’m done with this, you and your face and the crap you’re talking about. It makes me sick. You can’t be bothered to invite a proper american here, nooo, noo, noo, he’s not allowed to. Instead I have to listen to YOUR shit this whole evening. Yees, this is how it is. On top of that, there’s just ugly beer (TN: Trust me, it sounds weird in German too.), what bullshit. Hessen doesn’t produce “beer”, that’s not real beer, you have to come to Franken (TN: I’m bad at geography) for that. Now, to proceed, I’d suggest that next time you bring Bryan and REAL beer so I can drink something. Thank you.

Oh, this was fun.

Please respect our code of conduct which is simple: don't be a dick.