4 ms·
"at the end of the day if amazon doesn't do this someone else will" "If Amazon doesn't fuck over people someone else will, so who cares" is a shit argument.
by zaptheimpaler 8y ago
"at the end of the day if amazon doesn't do this someone else will"
"If Amazon doesn't fuck over people someone else will, so who cares" is a shit argument.
- boubiyeah 8y agoMan, this argument is so dumb indeed... Even dumber than the "Hey, why should we care about the environment since a few countries can decide not to"
- ta_egdhs 8y ago"if amazon doesn't fuck people over someone else will" yeah i said that. "so who cares" no i didn't say that. I said the best defense isnt the benevolence of corporations willing to say no to gov contracts on principal. the best defense is a populace able to subvert these technological systems of oppression. For facial recognition this means adversarial patches. for Internet censorship this means VPNs. in other cases it means encryption and cryptocurrency.
- zaptheimpaler 8y agoThanks for responding kindly to a not so kind comment - sorry. Your point does make a lot of sense. It sucks we live in this world where we have to operate as if our own government is an adversary. Technologically its very sound to operate in this way, but at best that means citizens in an arms race vs. an all-powerful government with infinite money and resources. In the long run, we will lose that race. For example: Use masks/patches to circumvent facial recognition? Govt. outlaws those, builds better tech. Use cryptocurrency? Govt heavily monitors crypto exchanges, ties them back to your identity (this is already happening! - coinbase requires SSN and identity verification), defeating the point. The only way to really win then is to demand our government, which is supposed to have its citizens interest at heart, actually does. No amount of tech can beat the govt because the govt eventually gets access to that tech & talent too, plus a police force and authority to make laws. The only solution is to have them on OUR side.
- chrismeller 8y agoPersonally, I see it as the opposite side of the same argument people use about drugs - that simply banning things doesn't work, motivated people will find another way to obtain them. There is no one more motivated and persistent than the US Government... Even if all the US tech firms join together and refuse to sell to them, the US is not the only country on Earth with tech companies making innovations in this area. So in that sense, yes, they'll keep looking and someone else absolutely will. As someone pointed out below, the real solution is to have them lobby the US Government to give up their pursuit, anything else is just a delaying tactic.
- abc-xyz 8y agoEven if all you gained was a delay, which I certainly don't believe is true[1], then it would still be a big win. [1] their tech would most likely be much inferior, and when the likes of Google/Amazon/Facebook/etc. have to choose between getting kicked out of countries or providing their tech to authoritarian governments, then they usually pick the latter.. because profits is more important than the imprisonment and death of millions.
- nostrebored 8y agoPeople who don't think that the NSA already has technology that even casinos use have their heads in the sand.
- chrismeller 8y agoI also firmly believe that is true and we’re making a big deal out of absolutely nothing with these kinds of open letters.
- la6470 8y agoIf you don’t care then you are just being anti amazon and not the idealist position you or TFA portrays