ICE, a federal agency and not a state or municipal police force, had a man face down and unarmed. There were what, half a dozen of them? He was completely subdued. They then shot him in the back.
The core belief of the Trump administration is that there are two groups: an in-group which the law protects but does not bind, and an out-group which the law binds but does not protect. --Someone far more insightful than me
Honestly, and I say it without a shade of irony, it might be for the best, if the collective 'we' stop attempting re-enact fictional events and lives in alternate worlds. It would do everyone, and I do mean everyone, a good solid needful, should they just stopped and thought about what they are doing and the likely course of the events given their actions.
It would be orders of magnitude more productive if we did that.
I’m saying people should watch a powerful series about state violence and masking with real world lessons that can be taken away. I’m unsure what you mean by how we shouldn’t re-enact fictional events. Are you talking about my suggestion? Or are you saying we should end acting? Or is it something g else?
Apologies. I may have come too strong possibly, because I do it myself sometimes by referencing shows as a means to convey relatable message to the audience. Lately, however, I started to think that the shorthand those references introduce may be more of a problem than not. I am not even familiar with the particular show you are referencing.
I think my concern was that we think too much in terms popular culture. That itself is a problem. Still, as problems go, it is not urgent. Hence my apology.
If you introduce friction with something that millions or more use, a few % peeling off or missing things means tens of thousands of people are impacted. And tiktok has a hell of a lot more than a million users.
I still don’t get what you’re trying to say or why you’re downplaying this.
I hope not because it’s bad and that’s really all that matters in this conversation. And nitpicking whether or not there are other avenues for information is completely besides the point. I don’t even really understand what point you’re trying to make. If you think this is bad, then say it’s bad and we shouldn’t be ok with it. Saying “I’m not saying it’s good” then muddying the waters reads like you’re trying to defend the action.
This entire comment thread was me responding to someone claiming that people “in other countries” have easy access to information.
Given the downvotes and angry responses I think a lot of people misinterpreted it as something else. I should learn to avoid comment sections about politics.
I don’t think that’s the lesson here if you’re looking for one. I think it’s just a clarity/phrasing issue. If that’s not what you meant then that’s fine, no harm no foul as far as I’m concerned. I was just going off how I read it.
If you’re looking for feedback, “I’m not saying…” without saying what you are saying generally comes off as obfuscating or at best wishy washy.
While that does support them less, it still drives up the value of their hardware and thus the amount of money others are willing to give Apple for it.
> The headline is misleading. It says that Microsoft will provide the key if asked, but the linked statement to Forbes says Microsoft will provide the key if it receives a valid legal order.
This is an odd thing to split hairs over IMO. Warrants or subpoenas or just asking nicely, whatever bar you want to set, is a secondary concern. The main issue is they can and will hand the keys to LEO’s at all.
If you don’t like the behavior of a company voluntarily doing something, your problem is with that company. If you don’t like a company complying with the law, your problem is with the law. It is unreasonable to expect anyone or any company to break the law or violate a court order to protect you.
If you don’t trust the institutions issuing those court orders, that is an entirely reasonable stance but it should be addressed at its root cause using our democratic process, however rapidly eroding that process may seem to be.
The fourth amendment protects against warrantless search and seizure, it is not carte blanche to fill up your hard drive with child porn and expect Microsoft to fall on their swords to protect you.
> The fourth amendment protects against warrantless search and seizure, it is not carte blanche to fill up your hard drive with child porn and expect Microsoft to fall on their swords to protect you.
I was understanding and felt your points had validity until you threw out this gross, emotionally manipulative, horrible misrepresentation of my stance.
The ideal is that Microsoft's customers are not idiots who will lose their keys. But that's just not reality, and those customers matter more than using what is arguably the objectively correct design in a certain light
I appreciate the sentiment and do think most people should know not to trust Microsoft by this point, but I do think we have to be a little careful not to steer too hard into caveat emptor and forget who the perpetrators are in the first place.
I hate MS as much as anyone else, but I don't have a problem with them doing this. Legally they have to comply if they have evidence in a legal action. Maybe they are at fault for not solely relying on the TPM, or not giving users informed consent about using the cloud, but I cannot fault them for not going to battle for civil liberties when they can't even implement notepad without screwing it up.
ICE, a federal agency and not a state or municipal police force, had a man face down and unarmed. There were what, half a dozen of them? He was completely subdued. They then shot him in the back.
This was not a “mistake.” This was murder.
reply