If everyone were working together, it wouldn't be stealing. I don't steal someone's software when I fork a project on github, and they don't steal mine when they accept my pull request.
That narrative is only applicable retrospectively. It doesn't say anything about the future. Whichever way the arc of the universe bends, we call justice.
It's not a narrative, it's a forecast. It reflects a belief that divinely inspired human intelligence will win over evil. MLK was an activist, not a historian. If justice was the same as history, we wouldn't have a word for justice.
As natural as it might be, it's wrong. If you are, for example, a US resident, the US government is in a great position to use any information they have about you. The Chinese government, not so much, especially if you have no desire or plans to travel to China.
what if you have skeletons in your closet (infidelity, drug use, fetishes, etc.), and China used them as leverage to get you to do stuff against your employer?
Buying and installing your own permanent elevators is too difficult and expensive. Think of what happens in 25 years when they need to be replaced. You'd be a fool not to pay a monthly fee for elevators-as-a-service.
The part that's clearly wrong is stopping innocent people from engaging in harmless trade. If it weren't for the sanction, it would probably be illegal for slack to deliberately block Iranians just because of the country they're from.
And something doesn't have to be morally good for stopping it to be morally bad. For example, playing chess is morally completely neutral, but it would be morally bad to attempt to ban chess.
Likewise, Iranians using slack isn't obviously morally good, it seems morally neutral, but enforcing a slack ban against Iranians is obviously morally bad.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Canada doesn't have anything to do with this. Amir's account was closed because of his Iranian ties, not his Canadian ones.
Other way around. The EU is the one who bears the burden of forcing American companies like slack to comply with their laws. Though jumping straight to a shooting war feels like an overreaction. Maybe start with a fine and ban the company if they don't pay.
Absolutely. Fine everyone into the ground. Doesn't look like there is any other way to make people take security seriously.
I'm not a fan of the overregulation of industries like aviation, but consumer software has gone too far in the other direction and is long overdue for an adjustment.
The end result of this is that the number of software companies drops by 99.99%. Does your company run anything on Linux? Too bad, there are vulns in the kernel and now you are fined into the ground.
Let's assume you're not being dramatic. It would be a pretty lucrative market if 99.99% of current software companies went under. New businesses would show up with a much greater focus on security and quality. That's a bad thing?
The realm problem is the inevitable regulatory capture that occurs in every market with even an ounce of complexity.
Given the number of high profile breaches we see every month, I definitely think we're due for some consequences.
Um yea, not the way it works. First external services, such as those provided by Krebs would find your data on the darknet. Second, offer employees a cut from the fines.
Really? How has "consumer software gone too far in the other direction"?
Does it ... kill people? Does it enforce bad policies like the healthcare industry did for the past couple of decades, causing an epidemic of obesity, diabetes and heart disease, which are the top causes of death?
Facebook asked users to upload nude photos. what if those get leaked and users commit suicide because of it? Would you (partially) blame facebook for their death?
> Does it enforce bad policies like the healthcare industry did for the past couple of decades, causing an epidemic of obesity, diabetes and heart disease, which are the top causes of death?
Genuine question but what policies are the reasons for the epidemic of the three death causes you just mentioned?
They asked you to upload nude photos to help them identify revenge porn... so presumably this only makes sense for people whose nude photos are already online. Can’t really blame Facebook for that...
> "Would you (partially) blame facebook for their death?"
No, because doing nude pictures of yourself and then distributing them, no matter where, is just stupid. Parents should educate their kids to know better, or seek counseling if that mistake was made.
You're also talking of a hypothetical situation. When planes crash, people die, guaranteed. And yearly there are more than 100 plane crashes.
> "Genuine question but what policies are the reasons for the epidemic of the three death causes you just mentioned?"
The recommendation for a diet high in sugar, high in wheat and other grains, high in vegetable oils / polyunsaturated fats (e.g. Omega-6), low in saturated fat, low in dietary cholesterol, low in salt.
Children were fed in schools, diets were set in hospitals, foods where preferred in supermarkets according to these guidelines. That's not a debate I want to get into though.
Considering this article is about Facebook leaking 6+million photos to third parties, including photos that were uploaded but never shared, it's well within the realm of possibility that at least one of those millions of photos was a nude. In fact, I'd bet there were quite a few nudes in the leaked set. It only takes one more step to turn that hypothetical of yours into a reality.
There have been several cases of bullying people to commit suicide where it's not obvious how the same thing could have been accomplished without without the leverage Facebook provides.
I'm grateful I didn't have to live through this as a teenager, it's a shark pool.
So how long do we keep pretending that allowing this to go on is a viable way forward?
Others sufficiently cover the actual killing. I would only add that wasting peoples' time and/or money at scale is just as bad. Waste 30 seconds for each of 100 million people and that's an above average human lifetime.
BTW, how do you think anti-vaccination, healthy at any size, and minor attracted people ideas became popular? I specify those only because they are particularly heinous, but if you want official policy, just look at literally any election, though the 2016 US presidential election and the brexit referendum are the standouts in terms of memes.
I haven't seen any response yet. Does Facebook kill people, yes or no, it's a simple answer.
> "wasting peoples' time and/or money at scale is just as bad"
What?
> "how do you think anti-vaccination, healthy at any size, and minor attracted people ideas became popular?"
In that regard all Facebook does is giving people the tools to exercise their freedom of speech, possibly with an algorithm for that feed whose effects they couldn't predict, because it was built to maximize profits, not sanity ... and that will never be illegal ;-)
I understand some of the arguments that Facebook encouraged fake news, however speaking as somebody that was born in communism, I can tell you that fake news isn't new, it happened before WW I, it happened before WW II, it happened at the east of the Iron Curtain (at least) during the Cold War, and it happened just as well afterwards.
In my country distributing news via Facebook isn't even that popular, yet fake news is flourishing ... on TV. People are always looking for a scapegoat, for an easy answer, for an easy fix. It's only natural, but it doesn't make it right.
No, I don't think Facebook is to blame for fake news, even if it might have contributed. Facebook can't be responsible for the poor education that people are given.
