551–560 of 592 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe because guns harm more children than Facebook?
I would put money on that being absolutely, positively, patently false. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if data could be generated that shows cyber bullying on Facebook results in more child suicides than children murdered in school shootings per year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Specifically Apple-related and North American examples? That's an oddly narrow goalpost. Apple shares user encryption keys with the Chinese government, for example, giving the Chinese government access to all iCloud pictures, messages, documents, videos, etc.
That’s not accurate at all.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insigh...
Chinese government nationalized the data centers six months later, gaining access to all the encryption keys and user iCloud data at rest:
https://mashable.com/article/china-government-apple-icloud-d...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do they? Shit, I thought that they’d set things up that sharing the key was extremely difficult if not impossible without access to the device? That’s disappointing if true, is there a good article on this?
AFAIK this is only true for Chinese citizens or people who bought their phone in China or something but it is still scary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a parent, I reject this disingenuous pretense of concern for "the children". Folks are eager to invoke children to justify the surveillance state while conveniently forgetting the plight of children when it comes to concentration camps, poverty, and climate change. Secondly, children themselves have frequently been the victim of surveillance abuses and there is no reason to suspect that this instance will be any d…
"Children have frequently been the victim of surveillance abuses" What are you talking about? I'm seriously asking. This sounds like something people say without having anything real behind it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/opinion/surveillance-stat...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard to take that question serious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#E... explains why. Snowden leaked it years ago now. There is even a scene about that in the movie. And Apple-related? North American? That's not relevant at all.
It's relevant to what I want to see. You boldly claimed that the government is observing me in my home through my devices, and I want you to show your work. PRISM happens at the ISP level, and doesn't mention directly using iPhones, Macs, HomePods or tv as surveillance endpoints... So, where's your proof showing that they're surveilling US Citizens through those specific devices?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe because guns harm more children than Facebook?
I would put money on that being absolutely, positively, patently false. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if data could be generated that shows cyber bullying on Facebook results in more child suicides than children murdered in school shootings per year.
> child suicides
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr67/nvsr67_04.pdf
> In 2016, suicides numbered 2,553, while homicides numbered 1,963
> Firearms were the leading method of homicide for persons aged 10–19 years during 1999–2016, accounting for 87% of all homicides in 2016
> Suicide involving suffocation was the leading method among children and adolescents aged 10–19 years in 2016, slightly outnumbering suicide involving firearms (1,103 and 1,102, respectively).
There are some age and gender difference to the method chosen for suicide.
We probably need to include some deaths by unintentional injury, although 85% of those deaths are motor vehicle traffic, drowning, and poisoning.
I'm still getting to grips with the way the US counts deaths by suicide and I still find it a real struggle to find the data and to understand what they've counted and how they've counted it, which is why I only use the CDC data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm not entirely sure how those four examples are supposedly invalidated by giving them a clever nickname. They're not. A number of horrible things will happen as a result of pervasive end to end encryption. However. You have to run the numbers here. On the one hand, perhaps a bit more crime, some of which horrible. On the other hand, the privacy of everyone . It's a hard sell. Just picture a politician on live tel…
> A mere inconvenience, suffered by enough people, is worth killing a few. Wow. I can't agree with that one even a little bit. The real concern is totalitarian abuse. But being inconvenienced allows us to kill? That rings as downright pathological.
In practice, the tradeoffs are never that extreme.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm not entirely sure how those four examples are supposedly invalidated by giving them a clever nickname. They're not. A number of horrible things will happen as a result of pervasive end to end encryption. However. You have to run the numbers here. On the one hand, perhaps a bit more crime, some of which horrible. On the other hand, the privacy of everyone . It's a hard sell. Just picture a politician on live tel…
So, how do you feel about gun control?
There's also personal defence, but that one has disadvantages too (there might be false positives, were a presumed mugger would get shot). Plus, from what I hear, guns have different effects in different countries.
It's a complicated subject. My opinion right now is not informed enough to be trusted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This administration? Is that singular?
I'm not interested in getting into a slapfight about who was worse, but I think it's pretty clear that _The Trump Administration_ is treating Southern American migrants purposefully poorly. I know you're trying to point out some supposed hypocrisy for not criticizing Obama or Clinton or something, so I'll let you know I think they too enacted unforgivable political violence. Happy? People exist outside the Republican…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, how do you feel about gun control?
I used to have an opinion, but recently realised that I simply don't know the subject well enough. But I can see the tradeof: on the one hand, guns facilitate accidents and murders. On the other hand, arming the population could ensure they can effectively rise up against their government if that's really needed. Not that they will actually, do it, but the mere possibility likely changes the way things are done. Ther…