4 ms·
>Just because the government wants to violate its citizens’ privacy doesn’t mean its citizens want that. If the majority of the citizens want that, then they c
by rydre 6y ago
>Just because the government wants to violate its citizens’ privacy doesn’t mean its citizens want that.
If the majority of the citizens want that, then they can outvote their leaders. If the minority of the citizens want that, they either convince the majority to agree, or they keep quit.
I haven't bought the iPhone for the privacy stance. Apple is a part of PRISM. There is ZERO % chance that their privacy stance is more then a façade. While I try to protect my privacy from other private companies, I do not have that privacy requirement from the government as long as what they're doing is legal and collecting it to the extent permitted by the law. I will instead petition and support senators that would change the law to my liking. But if the majority disagrees, either I stop doing it, or I keep trying to change the law slowly by spreading awareness about why it's wrong.
- AsyncAwait 6y agoSo assuming I do not want my privacy violated, I am simply at the tyranny of the majority?
- rydre 6y agoNo, you convince the majority. If they don't agree then maybe the really are right until you convince them otherwise. Imagine if you want to employ slave labor. The majority today disagrees. Would would still call it the tyranny of the majority?
- AsyncAwait 6y ago> If they don't agree then maybe the really are right until you convince them otherwise. How far back can you take that? Were they right about slavery, the nazis etc.? Or were they somehow magically wrong then, but are right ever since?
- gear54rus 6y agoYou are to research encryption and other privacy-enabling tech instead of listening to marketing. Majority will never have your back in this, forget it.
- Barrin92 6y agoassuming I don't want to contract COVID because I'm a sick person in the UK, do I need to live free or(and) die by American values because Apple has de-facto replaced a government? tyranny of the majority is scary to you, neglect by the minority is scary to me. What should happen in a reasonable world is that governments maintain sovereignty and that Apple, in particular on software questions (hardware would be tricky to do), to comply with regional governments. What's blatantly absurd is that a gadget company even starts to argue with the government of the United Kingdom.
- AsyncAwait 6y agoAm actually not from the U.S. and quite far left on the political spectrum, I am not against government regulation where it makes sense at all, I do find it absurd in principle that Apple can essentially supersede a national government, but in practice I find it unlikely that the UK government would be more conscious of my own privacy than Apple and that's saying something as I disdain Apple's practices quite a bit in general. You seem to assume I am arguing for no tracing at all, but am simply saying I doubt the UK's own technology is better in terms of preserving privacy than Apple's, while achieving the same goal.
- threatofrain 6y agoWithout considering righteousness, by what might does any small thing secure itself except by tyranny or persuasion?
- AsyncAwait 6y agoThere might no be any "might" by which a minority can actually protect itself, but that is true for almost any interaction you have where the balance of power is not in your favor. Laws, at least theoretically, exist so that you're protected in certain situations even if you don't have any actual "might".
- lozenge 6y agoJust don't install the app?
- AsyncAwait 6y agoThat's assuming I don't want to help/participate in tracing at all. What if I am happy to help, assuming I have reasonable belief in my privacy being protected? I am simply saying that my belief in UK's own, homegrown tech, is less than Apple's/Google's tech, which is saying something as I am no fan of either.
- Razengan 6y ago> There is ZERO % chance that their privacy stance is more then a façade. Do you have a source for that? Or a reason for us to believe an anonymous persona instead of a corporation that could be held liable if their claims were proven to be false?