51–60 of 261 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would "Terrorist User's" have been better?
"MS backs Apple in debate over phone unlocking"
The media is using it in a way that just makes the article more recognizable and clickbaity.
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…
As long as laws are not absolute truth, and are written by misguided representatives, and representatives are intimidated by the possibility to lose their power, and fear can be generated through misinformation, when it comes to freedom of speech and thinking, we are all domestic terrorists by "definition" [1]. [1] https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism...
So you have to start by doing something dangerous to human life. Like cut down a tree, or give someone a glass of water, or sell them a ski pass.
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.The tech industry seems to be a bit like Hollywood in how it supports the military industrial complex - the pendulum swings between 'pro-totalitarianism' (where everyone signs up the the Patriot Act of the day without hesitation) and something more 'pro-democratic' (when a Snowden type situation comes along and freedom stuff gains traction). In a way we are lucky that money talks in the U.S.A., it allows for this dyn…
Microsoft is a bit too late the user security game. Since they don't make their own CPUs, they can't play in the same league.
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 clicked on comments to say the exactly same thing. I will not be surprised to learn later that FBI was arm twisting media houses against Apple. I need to read Orwell's books again. They are like handbook for life in modern America.
Hmm I'm confused, so is FBI asking to unlock just this terrorist's phone or setup a backdoor to all iPhones? If they are asking to unlock only this terrorists phone I don't see why Apple should be fighting a case over this.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure that it's easy to dismiss political bias as coincidental given that the people publishing the article are professional wordsmiths who understand the impact of every word they choose.
There's an easier explanation. "...around user privacy." Boring. No one will click that. "...against federal conscription." Sounds like a conspiracy rag. "...terrorist phone." Interesting! Let's click.
Don't assume nefarious intent when there is a profit motive involved.
From recent polls most people think this debate is about: "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 Indus…
That's far too long and complicated for average citizens to parse and grasp implications immediately and intuitively. The second half of your question veers heavily into leading a person toward the conclusion you want them to have. Not ideal. Moreover, I think an average poll responder would get confused by the second half of the question as you've phrased it.
Perhaps try to phrase it like a simple headline or poll question that gets to the heart of the matter:
"Should government be able to force companies to change or disable your passwords?"
Here, I think, you have a much greater chance of grabbing the attention of the casual onlooker. Admittedly, it's a mostly true statement of the core issue here, while leveraging the need to hook a reader at a glance. An article/reporter/anchor can dive deep into the case particulars or not, cover and present its view of what's at stake in asking the question, include discussion of a "right to security" that may or may not be enjoyed by companies and individuals. But you want citizens to immediately grok what you're asking, and be able to, on their own, extrapolate possible implications that matter to them. This is going to be far more powerful in getting people to invest themselves in the issue--they must be able to imagine, see, understand that what's at stake could affect them.
The first half of the battle is this: You've got to get people to fucking care. And you can't get them there if you confuse or lose them at the start.