21–30 of 261 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also Gates consults with Microsoft occasionally and is a large stakeholder but that does not mean Gates speaks for Microsoft, or that Microsoft speaks for Gates. In fact, they disagree pretty regularly.
He's a member of their board of directors and for a time was even the head of it. The board has more control than even the CEO so it's safe to say Gates is speaking for the company.
"Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI"
When what it's really about:
"Should the FBI be able to compel technology companies to use their resources against their own and their Customers right to Security."
In order for the public to be properly informed about what's really at stake this case needs to be about the "Technology Industry vs FBI", not what the US Govt is trying to set the narrative to: "Apple protecting Terrorism". With this announcement this brings us to:
- Apple
- Twitter
- Yahoo
- Facebook / WhatsApp
- Microsoft
- Google (Sundar lukewarm)
- Amazon
- Linked InNotice how the headline makes sure to specify "over terrorist's phone" and not "over user privacy" or "against federal conscription by the FBI." Take a second and re-read the headline. What does it say? To me, it spells out Microsoft joins Apple to back terrorist's privacy against the FBI. The government couldn't have chosen a better case to publicize in search of a precedent in their favor. And the media isn't helpi…
> The government couldn't have chosen a better case to publicize in search of a precedent in their favor.
If you'll allow me to be pedantic, they could have; we can be pretty sure this phone has none of the evidence they want it to, and it's not like anyone at Apple will lose sleep feeling responsible for aiding terrorism.
But my point is, this is simply the headline that will get the most clicks. Any political bias in it is coincidental. (And of course, it seems reasonable for most people to agree that, in a vacuum, it would be OK for Apple to unlock the phone, as long as it never affected other users.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also Gates consults with Microsoft occasionally and is a large stakeholder but that does not mean Gates speaks for Microsoft, or that Microsoft speaks for Gates. In fact, they disagree pretty regularly.
He's a member of their board of directors and for a time was even the head of it. The board has more control than even the CEO so it's safe to say Gates is speaking for the company.
Notice how the headline makes sure to specify "over terrorist's phone" and not "over user privacy" or "against federal conscription by the FBI." Take a second and re-read the headline. What does it say? To me, it spells out Microsoft joins Apple to back terrorist's privacy against the FBI. The government couldn't have chosen a better case to publicize in search of a precedent in their favor. And the media isn't helpi…
I need to read Orwell's books again. They are like handbook for life in modern America.
In a way we are lucky that money talks in the U.S.A., it allows for this dynamic. If too much 'totalitarianism' hurts the bottom line then things get pushed back a bit and the noose loosens a bit. All the government needs is another big polarizing incident and I am sure Microsoft will be back doing as much of the government's dirty work as possible.
Notice how the headline makes sure to specify "over terrorist's phone" and not "over user privacy" or "against federal conscription by the FBI." Take a second and re-read the headline. What does it say? To me, it spells out Microsoft joins Apple to back terrorist's privacy against the FBI. The government couldn't have chosen a better case to publicize in search of a precedent in their favor. And the media isn't helpi…
I wonder why is that.
Notice how the headline makes sure to specify "over terrorist's phone" and not "over user privacy" or "against federal conscription by the FBI." Take a second and re-read the headline. What does it say? To me, it spells out Microsoft joins Apple to back terrorist's privacy against the FBI. The government couldn't have chosen a better case to publicize in search of a precedent in their favor. And the media isn't helpi…
Notice how the headline makes sure to specify "over terrorist's phone" and not "over user privacy" or "against federal conscription by the FBI." Take a second and re-read the headline. What does it say? To me, it spells out Microsoft joins Apple to back terrorist's privacy against the FBI. The government couldn't have chosen a better case to publicize in search of a precedent in their favor. And the media isn't helpi…
I disagree. "Terrorist's Phone" is simply the most efficient way to identify the case. "User's Privacy" would mean absolutely nothing to someone who hasn't heard of the case as much as we have, especially considering most of Apple's marketing nowadays is through that lens… > The government couldn't have chosen a better case to publicize in search of a precedent in their favor. If you'll allow me to be pedantic, they…