3 ms·

Yeah, but why even bring abortion up? It was a bad segway.

SOLAR_FIELDS 4y ago
For future reference, segway is a mobile transportation device used and beloved by Paul Blart, mall cop. Segue (same pronunciation, Italian origination) is an uninterrupted transition.
- dancemethis 4y ago
  I never understood why it stopped being called "The Thing".
snickerbockers 4y ago
because otherwise nobody would've clicked on the link.
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
Because (as argued I'm the article), it is generally assumed by most people (or, at least say, most tech workers) in the US that our laws are, generally, "good". That is, unlike, say, laws in China or Saudi Arabia, most tech workers would be OK with a lawful, court-ordered data request from a US jurisdiction. (Related - yes, of course I realize that there are some laws, maybe even many laws, that some people very strongly disagree with, but in balance, I think most people think data requests in the US are to solve "unambiguous" crimes like assault, theft, murder, child abuse, etc.). With abortion, though, that assumption goes out the window. Many people, especially tech workers in coastal states, strongly believe that laws criminalizing abortion are downright evil. This would be a huge shift in that, for the first time, many of these folks could be convinced that protection from sharing data with the state, even one you think has generally "good" laws, because the idea to share data to prosecute someone for aiding an abortion is so deeply abhorrent to them. For these folks, it's likely this is the first time that the importance of strong encryption will "click" for them, due to them feeling like this is a clear case where legal requests from US law enforcement are unambiguously wrong.
- refurb 4y ago
  Seems like a stretch considering the laws against gay marriage, heck homosexuality in general, laws against drugs including marijuana and laws like asset forfeiture. There plenty of laws that “coastal tech workers” didn’t agree with long before abortion jumped into the headlines. I fail to see how anything has changed other than another straw on the pile of hay.
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    Great, lets take each of your examples 1 by 1, and I'll give an explanation of why I think overturning Roe v Wade would be in a very different category: 1. Laws against gay marriage. Gay marriage has been legal in all US states since 2015. But specifically as it relates to encryption, even if gay marriage were made illegal again, it's not quite like people would be getting "surreptitiously" married (the whole point of legal gay marriage is legal benefits and societal acceptance), so I don't think folks would think that a governmental data request would somehow "expose" someone who was gay and married. 2. Lawrence v Texas outlawed most laws against homosexuality in 2003, before most people were aware of the issues of broad data collection (and before tech companies started to go all in on it). But I totally agree, if Lawrence v Texas were overturned, I think it would absolutely be in the bucket of Roe v Wade being overturned as it relates to tech workers thinking government data requests could be "evil". 3. Laws against drugs. Even if you disagree with the war on drugs, I think most tech workers, even if they were uncomfortable with a government data request for drug crimes, could quite easily rationalize it as "OK, the government is probably going after some big drug dealer who does bad shit. They're not likely going to ask Google for a data request for someone with a joint on them." I think that's fundamentally different from them thinking "The government wants data so they can arrest this woman who had an abortion." 4. Laws like asset forfeiture. Again, even if tech workers had real problems with asset forfeiture laws, I think most people could be able to rationalize a data request for it. And perhaps most importantly is that Roe v. Wade has been the status quo for 50 years. It's not just about "tech workers disagree with a law", but it's about "tech workers seeing an important right being removed", and the emotions involved there are very different. If personal marijuana use was legal nationwide for 50 years, but then SCOTUS suddenly decided it would be OK for governments to start throwing people in jail for it, I think that would be a much more comparable situation.

For future reference, segway is a mobile transportation device used and beloved by Paul Blart, mall cop. Segue (same pronunciation, Italian origination) is an uninterrupted transition.

dancemethis 4y ago
I never understood why it stopped being called "The Thing".

snickerbockers 4y ago

because otherwise nobody would've clicked on the link.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

Because (as argued I'm the article), it is generally assumed by most people (or, at least say, most tech workers) in the US that our laws are, generally, "good". That is, unlike, say, laws in China or Saudi Arabia, most tech workers would be OK with a lawful, court-ordered data request from a US jurisdiction. (Related - yes, of course I realize that there are some laws, maybe even many laws, that some people very strongly disagree with, but in balance, I think most people think data requests in the US are to solve "unambiguous" crimes like assault, theft, murder, child abuse, etc.). With abortion, though, that assumption goes out the window. Many people, especially tech workers in coastal states, strongly believe that laws criminalizing abortion are downright evil. This would be a huge shift in that, for the first time, many of these folks could be convinced that protection from sharing data with the state, even one you think has generally "good" laws, because the idea to share data to prosecute someone for aiding an abortion is so deeply abhorrent to them. For these folks, it's likely this is the first time that the importance of strong encryption will "click" for them, due to them feeling like this is a clear case where legal requests from US law enforcement are unambiguously wrong.

refurb 4y ago
Seems like a stretch considering the laws against gay marriage, heck homosexuality in general, laws against drugs including marijuana and laws like asset forfeiture. There plenty of laws that “coastal tech workers” didn’t agree with long before abortion jumped into the headlines. I fail to see how anything has changed other than another straw on the pile of hay.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  Great, lets take each of your examples 1 by 1, and I'll give an explanation of why I think overturning Roe v Wade would be in a very different category: 1. Laws against gay marriage. Gay marriage has been legal in all US states since 2015. But specifically as it relates to encryption, even if gay marriage were made illegal again, it's not quite like people would be getting "surreptitiously" married (the whole point of legal gay marriage is legal benefits and societal acceptance), so I don't think folks would think that a governmental data request would somehow "expose" someone who was gay and married. 2. Lawrence v Texas outlawed most laws against homosexuality in 2003, before most people were aware of the issues of broad data collection (and before tech companies started to go all in on it). But I totally agree, if Lawrence v Texas were overturned, I think it would absolutely be in the bucket of Roe v Wade being overturned as it relates to tech workers thinking government data requests could be "evil". 3. Laws against drugs. Even if you disagree with the war on drugs, I think most tech workers, even if they were uncomfortable with a government data request for drug crimes, could quite easily rationalize it as "OK, the government is probably going after some big drug dealer who does bad shit. They're not likely going to ask Google for a data request for someone with a joint on them." I think that's fundamentally different from them thinking "The government wants data so they can arrest this woman who had an abortion." 4. Laws like asset forfeiture. Again, even if tech workers had real problems with asset forfeiture laws, I think most people could be able to rationalize a data request for it. And perhaps most importantly is that Roe v. Wade has been the status quo for 50 years. It's not just about "tech workers disagree with a law", but it's about "tech workers seeing an important right being removed", and the emotions involved there are very different. If personal marijuana use was legal nationwide for 50 years, but then SCOTUS suddenly decided it would be OK for governments to start throwing people in jail for it, I think that would be a much more comparable situation.