5 ms·

"Apathetic software developers who refuse to take the privacy fight seriously." This article is hosted by a third-party and has Google Analytics.

snarf21 10y ago
Exactly. The whole premise is a cop out. Software engineers will collectively all care about privacy and security when their employers do. The employers will when their users/customers demand it. For right now, they prefer free to private/secure. It will take an outside force to change that like legislation or if people get in "trouble" for sharing things that disagree with the powers that be. The super hard thing is to help people value their privacy/security. They already share everything on their social accounts showing they don't really care. They only care when an ex uses that information to stalk them or something. Or they make stupid myopic comments like "I have nothing to hide..." until you do because one of your FB friends has a muslim sounding name. Then they want privacy and security but still only from that person/group.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  Actually I prefer the original Google privacy policy, I would not have signed up to gmail if it had, then, the current non-privacy policy. It's going to take me years - at least - to back out of using Google products, but I am starting that process; and just hoping I end up actually having a choice. Privacy is one more "race to the bottom" where the government has to intervene, since acting one at a time consumers are helpless.
kerkeslager 10y ago
If a murderer says murder is wrong, does that mean murder is right? Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't mean they're wrong.
- devmunchies 10y ago
  nobody would disagree. The point was that there is no accountability in the article. It even says "they're sleeping" instead of "we're sleeping". Everybody else is too lazy but not me because I'm writing about it so I'm doing something (you're not).
  - the_greyd 10y ago
    I don't think there can be a satisfactory proposition of "accountability". We have an Oligarchic system which again, systematically undermines the rights of users. Software which is made primarily for short term profit, will undervalue privacy, because it does not sell. Things are centralized because with the current technology that's how they scale, and are easier to control, and convenient. And also because data about you is important, that's the real treasure. De-centralization is what will give power back to users. Ofcourse I don't want every user configuring their own synchronization solution instead of using Dropbox, and Drive. But running your own server , with modular services like these (sync, backup, email etc), should be like installing apps on your phone.
  - kerkeslager 10y ago
    > nobody would disagree. People have disagreed in this very thread. And can you honestly say that finding out the author was being hypocritical didn't weaken his argument in your mind? It did in mine: this is a very human impulse and in this case it leads us wrong. Now instead of evaluating whether what the author said it's true, we're evaluating whether the author is trustworthy. This needs not to even be considered because the author's statement stands on its own, independent of who said it. > The point was that there is no accountability in the article. It even says "they're sleeping" instead of "we're sleeping". I get the point, but why make this point? It's not an ad hominem attack because the logical leap from "the author was a hypocrite" to "the author is wrong" was never explicitly made, but it's hard to imagine a reason why attacking the author is relevant if you don't make that logical leap. And many readers will make that logical leap, as evidenced by responses to my post. If the intent is only to attack the author, it's off topic; if the intent is to undermine the author's statement, it's an ad hominem; either way it's counterproductive to the kind of discussion I want to see on HN. Security is the responsibility of people who implement software. That's important and it's worthwhile to stay on that topic.
- owebmaster 10y ago
  If it is up to them to fuel the change, it do make them wrong. A better comparison would be to murder someone and write an essay about how the world is a violent place.
  - kerkeslager 10y ago
    > If it is up to them to fuel the change, it do make them wrong. So you're saying if a murderer says murder is wrong, and it is up to them to fuel the change, then murder is right? > A better comparison would be to murder someone and write an essay about how the world is a violent place. So you're saying that in this case murder would be right?
    - owebmaster 10y ago
      No, I'm first talking about why the writer is not only hypocrite but the vector of the problem. You may had got into an infinite loop in your own poor comparison, though.
the_greyd 10y ago
I get what you are saying - "Practice what you Preach", but wouldn't blame the author for using Medium for reaching a broader audience. Many developers do use Medium. Advocacy which is done on invasive but popular platforms such as Facebook, and Medium (which is not the worst but still) is better than Advocacy done in a way aligning with each and every ideological belief that you have. Those two do not have to be mutually exclusive, but sadly the current scenario is different.
- 794CD01 10y ago
  Is it really? RMS doesn't appear to have a problem reaching as broad of an audience as is willing to listen to him, and afaik he does not compromise his principles by using non-free software.
  - the_greyd 10y ago
    I disagree with the statement. But let me make this clear, I think RMS is great, and plays a very important role in todays society. He has an exceptional devotion to his ideology, but seen from a normal person's eyes, he is an extremist. For this normal person,(and the masses in general) abstaining from propriety services is not the solution. You cannot expect everybody to just install Linux and start using FOSS alternatives (as things are now). The barrier to entry is too high. The end result is that we are trapped in our own bubbles, preaching to only those who already agree with us. Ideological purity goes on to alienate people. The new generation of computer scientists, developers are not exposed to these ideas, because they are not as accessible. They are using facebook, slack and medium, and we refrain to use those. These are tradeoffs, and clearly, there is needs to be a balance.
    - 794CD01 10y ago
      And by tradeoff, you mean you are giving your usage, which is all these platforms really want from you, and in exchange, you get the ability to reach an audience who is not interested in the ideology you're preaching. Is that accurate?

snarf21 10y ago

Exactly. The whole premise is a cop out. Software engineers will collectively all care about privacy and security when their employers do. The employers will when their users/customers demand it. For right now, they prefer free to private/secure. It will take an outside force to change that like legislation or if people get in "trouble" for sharing things that disagree with the powers that be. The super hard thing is to help people value their privacy/security. They already share everything on their social accounts showing they don't really care. They only care when an ex uses that information to stalk them or something. Or they make stupid myopic comments like "I have nothing to hide..." until you do because one of your FB friends has a muslim sounding name. Then they want privacy and security but still only from that person/group.

Nomentatus 10y ago
Actually I prefer the original Google privacy policy, I would not have signed up to gmail if it had, then, the current non-privacy policy. It's going to take me years - at least - to back out of using Google products, but I am starting that process; and just hoping I end up actually having a choice. Privacy is one more "race to the bottom" where the government has to intervene, since acting one at a time consumers are helpless.

kerkeslager 10y ago

If a murderer says murder is wrong, does that mean murder is right? Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't mean they're wrong.

devmunchies 10y ago
nobody would disagree. The point was that there is no accountability in the article. It even says "they're sleeping" instead of "we're sleeping". Everybody else is too lazy but not me because I'm writing about it so I'm doing something (you're not).
- the_greyd 10y ago
  I don't think there can be a satisfactory proposition of "accountability". We have an Oligarchic system which again, systematically undermines the rights of users. Software which is made primarily for short term profit, will undervalue privacy, because it does not sell. Things are centralized because with the current technology that's how they scale, and are easier to control, and convenient. And also because data about you is important, that's the real treasure. De-centralization is what will give power back to users. Ofcourse I don't want every user configuring their own synchronization solution instead of using Dropbox, and Drive. But running your own server , with modular services like these (sync, backup, email etc), should be like installing apps on your phone.
- kerkeslager 10y ago
  > nobody would disagree. People have disagreed in this very thread. And can you honestly say that finding out the author was being hypocritical didn't weaken his argument in your mind? It did in mine: this is a very human impulse and in this case it leads us wrong. Now instead of evaluating whether what the author said it's true, we're evaluating whether the author is trustworthy. This needs not to even be considered because the author's statement stands on its own, independent of who said it. > The point was that there is no accountability in the article. It even says "they're sleeping" instead of "we're sleeping". I get the point, but why make this point? It's not an ad hominem attack because the logical leap from "the author was a hypocrite" to "the author is wrong" was never explicitly made, but it's hard to imagine a reason why attacking the author is relevant if you don't make that logical leap. And many readers will make that logical leap, as evidenced by responses to my post. If the intent is only to attack the author, it's off topic; if the intent is to undermine the author's statement, it's an ad hominem; either way it's counterproductive to the kind of discussion I want to see on HN. Security is the responsibility of people who implement software. That's important and it's worthwhile to stay on that topic.
owebmaster 10y ago
If it is up to them to fuel the change, it do make them wrong. A better comparison would be to murder someone and write an essay about how the world is a violent place.
- kerkeslager 10y ago
  > If it is up to them to fuel the change, it do make them wrong. So you're saying if a murderer says murder is wrong, and it is up to them to fuel the change, then murder is right? > A better comparison would be to murder someone and write an essay about how the world is a violent place. So you're saying that in this case murder would be right?
  - owebmaster 10y ago
    No, I'm first talking about why the writer is not only hypocrite but the vector of the problem. You may had got into an infinite loop in your own poor comparison, though.

the_greyd 10y ago

I get what you are saying - "Practice what you Preach", but wouldn't blame the author for using Medium for reaching a broader audience. Many developers do use Medium. Advocacy which is done on invasive but popular platforms such as Facebook, and Medium (which is not the worst but still) is better than Advocacy done in a way aligning with each and every ideological belief that you have. Those two do not have to be mutually exclusive, but sadly the current scenario is different.

794CD01 10y ago
Is it really? RMS doesn't appear to have a problem reaching as broad of an audience as is willing to listen to him, and afaik he does not compromise his principles by using non-free software.
- the_greyd 10y ago
  I disagree with the statement. But let me make this clear, I think RMS is great, and plays a very important role in todays society. He has an exceptional devotion to his ideology, but seen from a normal person's eyes, he is an extremist. For this normal person,(and the masses in general) abstaining from propriety services is not the solution. You cannot expect everybody to just install Linux and start using FOSS alternatives (as things are now). The barrier to entry is too high. The end result is that we are trapped in our own bubbles, preaching to only those who already agree with us. Ideological purity goes on to alienate people. The new generation of computer scientists, developers are not exposed to these ideas, because they are not as accessible. They are using facebook, slack and medium, and we refrain to use those. These are tradeoffs, and clearly, there is needs to be a balance.
  - 794CD01 10y ago
    And by tradeoff, you mean you are giving your usage, which is all these platforms really want from you, and in exchange, you get the ability to reach an audience who is not interested in the ideology you're preaching. Is that accurate?