4 ms·

Out of curiosity - how do people who employ these marketing tactics reconcile this? do they drink their own Kool-Aid or do they willfully turn a blind eye to th

Out of curiosity - how do people who employ these marketing tactics reconcile this? do they drink their own Kool-Aid or do they willfully turn a blind eye to the grey/blackhat clients because they don't want to think about it?

zitterbewegung 9y ago
Who knows? That would depend on the person and the situation.
fleitz 9y ago
You can't turn a blind eye to it. It's like being a gun dealer, if someone says they want to use it to harm someone you have to not sell to them. That's why gun dealers always ask what the gun is for to avoid negligence. Basically what the law would require is for the CEO to ask and them to say give a reason that's not illegal, like corporate security, etc.
1024core 9y ago
You could, basically, say the same about guns. Guns kill 10s of 1000s of people in the US each year. Any manufacturer who makes, for example, semi-automatics and other military style weapons knows that it's for killing people, not deer. But they still make them. Why? Ostensibly, due to the 2nd Amendment. So why doesn't the same apply to these phones vis-a-vis the 1st Amendement? Sure, you could use the phone for drug transactions; but that's not what it was designed to do; just like you could use a car to carry drugs, but that's not what it was designed for.
- jjeaff 9y ago
  Plenty of hunting rifles are semi automatic. By "military style" do you mean "black guns"? Because you can hunt with black rifles as well. And lots of people simply like guns and have fun taking them out to the shooting range. And they have absolutely zero intention or desire to shoot another human. And by "lots" I mean the huge majority, most likely.
  - rhizome 9y ago
    Because you can hunt with black rifles as well. Well you used to be able to buy cocaine at the corner store, too, but cooler heads eventually prevailed. And lots of people simply like guns and have fun taking them out to the shooting range. Ibid.
  - pembrook 9y ago
    I'm an avid hunter and have never known, seen, heard of, or even imagined using an AR15 (for example) for hunting. Although I’m sure some people will claim they do. The modern AR15 a semi-automatic "retail" version of a gun designed to be optimally efficient at killing multiple humans in combat scenarios. And absolutely you're 100% correct. The vast majority of owners are law-abiding and just enthusiasts who like customizing and shooting their semi-neutered human killing tool at the range. Hey, I agree, the AR-15 is cool looking and fun to shoot in "safe" environments. However, humans are unpredictable, unreliable bags of irrational emotions. The future is going to be marked by a steady removal of humans from things they are unreliable and unsafe at doing (ie. driving, etc). If you think 100 years from now Bob is going to be driving himself to the range to go shoot whatever absurdly powerful handheld-railgun-type-instrument-of-death exists in the future I'd say you're comedically on the wrong side of history.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - dmix 9y ago
      > to go shoot whatever absurdly powerful handheld-railgun-type-instrument-of-death exists in the future I'd say you're comedically on the wrong side of history. Let me get this straight, some hypothetical extremely dangerous future weapon might exist and so not allowing ownership of that is like banning the most popular rifle in the United States because it's marginally more 'dangerous' than your hunting rifle?
      - simonh 9y ago
        Nothing after the ‘and so’, or anything remotely like it or construable from it, is present in the post you’re replying to.
- simonh 9y ago
  I don’t think that’s a valid argument. The vast majority of guns, ‘tactical’ or not, sold in the US are never used to kill anybody and are used for hobby purposes only. It’s one thing to knowingly sell tools to criminals for criminal purposes, and quite another to sell tools, some of which you know may fall into the hands of criminals. There are plenty of compelling, imperative moral arguments I could make for meaningful gun control, but this isn’t really one of them and if anything it waters down the case.
sixtypoundhound 9y ago
It depends on your opinion of the laws in question. Do you feel the individual's right to privacy should prevail over the public interest in monitoring for illegal activity? Then you'll have no issue building strong crypto products. Drugs should be legalized and people should be allowed to grow their own supply? A entire family of products... And yes, some people really do believe that cheap guns save lives and protect individual freedoms...

zitterbewegung 9y ago

Who knows? That would depend on the person and the situation.

fleitz 9y ago

You can't turn a blind eye to it. It's like being a gun dealer, if someone says they want to use it to harm someone you have to not sell to them. That's why gun dealers always ask what the gun is for to avoid negligence. Basically what the law would require is for the CEO to ask and them to say give a reason that's not illegal, like corporate security, etc.

1024core 9y ago

You could, basically, say the same about guns. Guns kill 10s of 1000s of people in the US each year. Any manufacturer who makes, for example, semi-automatics and other military style weapons knows that it's for killing people, not deer. But they still make them. Why? Ostensibly, due to the 2nd Amendment. So why doesn't the same apply to these phones vis-a-vis the 1st Amendement? Sure, you could use the phone for drug transactions; but that's not what it was designed to do; just like you could use a car to carry drugs, but that's not what it was designed for.

jjeaff 9y ago
Plenty of hunting rifles are semi automatic. By "military style" do you mean "black guns"? Because you can hunt with black rifles as well. And lots of people simply like guns and have fun taking them out to the shooting range. And they have absolutely zero intention or desire to shoot another human. And by "lots" I mean the huge majority, most likely.
- rhizome 9y ago
  Because you can hunt with black rifles as well. Well you used to be able to buy cocaine at the corner store, too, but cooler heads eventually prevailed. And lots of people simply like guns and have fun taking them out to the shooting range. Ibid.
- pembrook 9y ago
  I'm an avid hunter and have never known, seen, heard of, or even imagined using an AR15 (for example) for hunting. Although I’m sure some people will claim they do. The modern AR15 a semi-automatic "retail" version of a gun designed to be optimally efficient at killing multiple humans in combat scenarios. And absolutely you're 100% correct. The vast majority of owners are law-abiding and just enthusiasts who like customizing and shooting their semi-neutered human killing tool at the range. Hey, I agree, the AR-15 is cool looking and fun to shoot in "safe" environments. However, humans are unpredictable, unreliable bags of irrational emotions. The future is going to be marked by a steady removal of humans from things they are unreliable and unsafe at doing (ie. driving, etc). If you think 100 years from now Bob is going to be driving himself to the range to go shoot whatever absurdly powerful handheld-railgun-type-instrument-of-death exists in the future I'd say you're comedically on the wrong side of history.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - dmix 9y ago
    > to go shoot whatever absurdly powerful handheld-railgun-type-instrument-of-death exists in the future I'd say you're comedically on the wrong side of history. Let me get this straight, some hypothetical extremely dangerous future weapon might exist and so not allowing ownership of that is like banning the most popular rifle in the United States because it's marginally more 'dangerous' than your hunting rifle?
    - simonh 9y ago
      Nothing after the ‘and so’, or anything remotely like it or construable from it, is present in the post you’re replying to.
simonh 9y ago
I don’t think that’s a valid argument. The vast majority of guns, ‘tactical’ or not, sold in the US are never used to kill anybody and are used for hobby purposes only. It’s one thing to knowingly sell tools to criminals for criminal purposes, and quite another to sell tools, some of which you know may fall into the hands of criminals. There are plenty of compelling, imperative moral arguments I could make for meaningful gun control, but this isn’t really one of them and if anything it waters down the case.

sixtypoundhound 9y ago

It depends on your opinion of the laws in question. Do you feel the individual's right to privacy should prevail over the public interest in monitoring for illegal activity? Then you'll have no issue building strong crypto products. Drugs should be legalized and people should be allowed to grow their own supply? A entire family of products... And yes, some people really do believe that cheap guns save lives and protect individual freedoms...