It would be nice if FB held the same standards because then I wouldn’t have been outed as trans at the law firm I used to work at. It was seriously only an account to talk to family, and held barely anything, but still there was a picture from before I transitioned, and that was enough to make my life a living hell, and get accosted in a bathroom by the maintenance dude.
I’m in the US, where issues are fairly minor, to be honest, but better privacy control that is freaking idiot proof would be safer.
Yes, that’s a very good point. Any minority group, whether race, sexuality, creed, religion, or opinion, has a special understanding of the power of privacy and tolerance. (One reason why the LDS dislike Trump so much.)
It’s also a reason why LGBTQ people should be horrified at Mozilla’s treatment of Brendan Eich, and should be understanding of desires for for freedom of association. However, people behave differently when they’re the despised minority than when they’re the majority. It’s understandingly especially hard to be consistent and merciful when the new minority was the majority not too long ago and showed little consideration themselves. (And, societies and the world being heterogeneous, a minority in one place or situation can be a powerful majority in another.) Turnabout always feels like fair play.
Nothing in the FBI case will change anything. If Apple can do it, that’s a big if, they’ll have to when a FISA warrant forces them to do so or already has. The DOJ case will go to the Supreme Court and will go on for years of appeals. During that time, legislation could change or people’s attitudes can.
I also sincerely doubt that Apple’s services work in places like China, UAE and Saudi Arabia without them co-operating with government surveillance. Every communications service either has to give them access or be banned. iMessage and iOS are freely sold in all these countries.
this is not about the capacity to do so.
Of course they can. And in some places they must.
This is about whether or not The U.S.A. is, from a legal precedent standpoint, one of those places
It would be, literally, unprecedented in this free nation of free people.
Hmmmm… No. Publicly donating money to a cause that is actively oppressing people’s rights is very different than, say, privately saying to a friend that you don’t support gay marriage, or privately voting in favor of a proposition removing gay people’s rights. If he had done either of the latter, you might have a better case.
But what do us petty little LGBTQ people know? It’s clearly more about how this ‘turnabout’ ‘feels’ for us than, say, the parental rights or hospital visitation or healthcare or any of the other incredibly important rights that go alongside marriage.
Dude’s already public donation in support of oppression was further publicized and people reacted saying “fuck you oppressor!”.
His privacy was never violated.
Mozilla dropped him like a hot potato because his public support of oppression and denial of civil rights (and the shitstorm that followed) was contrary to their interests.
He chose to be on the wrong side of history, and nobody violated his rights. He had the right to express his opinion in words and with his money, but he has no right to freedom from the consequences of his speech.
I know several Transgendered folk of one stripe or another and I’ve heard stories. Sorry you got outed.
Here, behind the Iron Curtain, before the Revolution, there was a joke.
We had the freedom of speech.
We didn’t necessarily have freedom after the speech.
You could also reasonably frame it as
"People who understand math vs the FBI.“
"People who don’t want to live in a surveillance state so pervasive that it would make the Stasi cream their pants vs the FBI.”
As long as you allow data from place X to place Y, you can’t really break end to end strong encryption. It is just a bunch of 0s and 1s. iCloud can clearly be read with a warrant, but if a person chooses not to use iCloud to backup, then it can’t be read.
Which this particular terrorist clearly knew to avoid, at least with his work iPhone.
Which is the usual problem:
If you have a smart criminal/terrorist, breaking onto his/her phone is likely useless anyway, because they’re concerned there’s something they don’t know about the NSA.
If you have a dumb criminal/terrorist, breaking onto his/her phone is probably not necessary.
I’ve never really understood the tempest about Brendan Eich. If he’d donated to the KKK, I think a lot less people would have cared–a person who is not merely racist, but so racist that he gives money to support the cause of racism, is clearly not someone who can be expected to fairly administer a multiracial group of employees. Why is it different when the target is a sexual minority instead of a racial one?
False equivalence is false.
I mean… or you could let people discuss the more specific and troublesome issues that LGBT people face in relation to this issue. I’m going to wildly guess, given the US’s history, it’s possible we have different experiences than the larger group of “People who understand math”.
I wasn’t trying to be dismissive, and I’m sorry I came off that way.
What I was getting at is that there’s a lot of groups on the right side here, and it’s kind of shocking that all of those groups together still don’t seem to have a majority. Even if you include everyone who even cares whether LGBTQ people are persecuted, it still probably doesn’t add up to a majority, because of overlap between the groups.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess white christian male?
One thing I’ve noted (not being either a white christian male, or LBGQT) is that 1) If LBGQT became the “majority” some time in the recent past, nobody told me. Sure there’s more support/empathy than there was in even the recent past, but society has a long way to go still before even basic equality is reached (much less this fantasy of being a “majority” in power). And 2) One of the favored positions (also a fantasy) is that white christian males in the US are somehow now a downtrodden minority. Yes, as a group, their power is no longer absolute, but they’re still sitting pretty at the top.
I’m in no way some keyboard SJW, but it pisses me off when I see groups that still dominate and hold power over others bitch and moan that they’re being oppressed. “oh noes! someone wants rights equal to those I’ve always had! That threatens me because I’m no longer the sole party that enjoys those rights! I’m being oppressed!”. What’s really up is that the previously uber dominant group is a little sad that their power is a wee bit less than it formerly was and that they have to share privilege with the previously subordinate. I’m sorry that you don’t get to exercise total control over the rights of others anymore, and that those others may have rights near or equivalent to yours…
But then I guess there are still a lot of butthurt people in the south complaining about the loss of white privilege and who are openly and fervently dreaming of the day “when the South will rise again”…
I am both of these as well as southern and I am quite happy when the balance starts to shift away from the group I belong to having implicit authority and a blank check to do as they please to other people.
That isn’t authority or power, that is xenophobic smallmindnedness and it needs to stop.
Plus I don’t want a world like what I grew up in to be the world my niece grows up in where she gets to make a third less, racism is alive in well, half the time if someone is raped she was ‘asking for it’ and a million other dipshit things that happens in the world. All I generally see (beyond a few folk that don’t quite get the ramifications of what they say or not caring that simply twisting thigns around won’t make things right) is everyone else going 'oi, stop steppin on my face, and us white guys are havign to comply, preferably before said face gets stepped on to begin with.
Not such a bad thing to want really, fair and even treatment.
seem really is the key word there, isn’t it?
Couldn’t agree with you more.
But I will note that there is a big difference between “fair and even treatment” and “ability to freely actively work towards the suppression/destruction of the rights of others without any consequence”. @johnthacker doesn’t quite seem to get the difference between the two.
And it’s not by any means that being a white christian male doesn’t mean that you can’t hold more of a socially enlightened view. Not all white guys are neo-nazi’s, but most neo nazi’s are white guys… (and someone can probably find evidence of non-white neo-nazi’s, but you get the point).
It seems like very often when there’s any push back from minorities of any stripe the conversation somehow turns into “white males are the new minority” or “Christians are so persecuted in the USA” etc… These things simply aren’t true. It may feel like it at times because these two groups in particular are losing their carte blanche to do whatever they want to whoever they want, but losing the ability to persecute others isn’t the same as being persecuted oneself.
Now, making sure that the pendulum doesn’t swing beyond “fair and equal” to “preferential treatment” is important, but may require an outside viewpoint to establish just where the lines lie…