5 ms·

>> "The Apple boss, who last year publicly acknowledged he is gay, added that “history has shown us that sacrificing our right to privacy can have dire conseque

by TheBiv 12y ago

>> "The Apple boss, who last year publicly acknowledged he is gay, added that “history has shown us that sacrificing our right to privacy can have dire consequences” Why would this detail possibly be relevant to the point Tim Cook was making?

MarcScott 12y ago
Cook also said >> "“We still live in a world where all people are not treated equally. Too many people do not feel free to practice their religion or express their opinion or love who they choose,”
AdeptusAquinas 12y ago
I agree. Seemed an odd, irrelevant comment to make. Maybe they were suggesting he didn't fit the stereotype of big-business, conservative ceos, in order to suggest his words were not just money-motivated? Even then, it's a big, poor taste stretch.
harshreality 12y ago
If he were in certain other countries, his sexual orientation might result in death, or have other severe legal or social consequences. Even in the United States, there is a social cost to being known to be gay. Arguably [in most communities] it's low enough that it's better than the alternative of trying to keep it a secret, but the cost still exists. Certain people will not want to be your friend or do business with you if they know you're gay. You may not care about those lost opportunities... you may have plenty of friends and business opportunities... but it still limits your options. In some small dogmatic communities even in socially liberal countries, you might be ostracized, and your only options are to keep it a secret or to start a new life somewhere else. Privacy in the "cloud" means keeping information secret from people who you'd rather not have judging you based on that information. It could be a close-minded community, or health insurance companies, or even something relatively innocuous and minor like some interest of yours that would raise eyebrows even among your friends.
- s_q_b 12y ago
  > If he were in certain other countries, his sexual orientation might result in death, or have other severe legal or social consequences. Among those social consequences could be regular physical abuse, or even being beaten to death. In the U.S., the cultural shift on this issue was so fast that it's easy to forget that we're not that far removed from Laramie, Wyoming and the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard in 1998 for being gay, or that LGBT individuals couldn't serve openly in the Armed Forces until 2011. [0][1] Today that same state issues and recognizes gay marriages, and DADT is a fading memory. That's head-spinningly fast for a cultural and legal change of that magnitude. Personally I think that this is one area where Tim Cook's sexual orientation probably influences his thinking, and in a very good way. He's smart enough to know that government access to Apple's data is more than enough for the government to build its own "pink lists" today. Like Tim Cook, I believe we are not so close to the precipice that we can't use the normal political process to put a framework around our intelligence services that both safeguards privacy and protects our nation's interests. I (contrary to prevailing opinion here), have great respect for our security agencies, and believe the men and women that staff them are mostly well-meaning public servants performing a valuable service. But as we all know, this is not about today's government. It's about the unknown governments that will come to power in 10, 20, or 100 years, and in countless generations to come. It's easy to design a government that you know will be staffed by decent men and women. But historically that is not an assumption upon which we can rely. As James Madison said, our institutions should be designed to survive being "run by devils." If I confront the issue directly: Do I feel our nation could survive as a free society if today's security apparatus was run by devils? No. No, I do not. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard [1] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43859711/ns/us_news-life/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43859711/ns/us_news-life/
  - leesalminen 12y ago
    What a well thought out opinion on why privacy matters. Personally, I have a lot of trouble talking about privacy to my mother. She's firmly seated in the "I've got nothing to hide" camp. I'm forwarding her this thread so she can see some differing opinions (that weren't written by me).
approbatory 12y ago
He made a comment about people's lives being in danger if they are in the closet in regions where homosexuality is punishable and have no data privacy. Somewhat related.
patcon 12y ago
I think the author is possibly alluding to the fact that gay rights are frequently referenced as an historic example of how the ability to break the law is important to a society's ability to adjust it's cultural norms and make way for change. Sodomy was illegal until quite recently, but if that could have been enforced (as a dragnet allows), we might not be where we are today, because people couldn't test the limits of laws we came to view as unjust :)
stanley 12y ago
I'm by no means disagreeing with the point others are making in response to your comment, but I do think that sentence could have been worded better. It's stated out of context and would have been a better fit had the author mentioned that next to Cook's quote regarding equality, rather than in the middle of the statement regarding privacy. I was equally confused when I first read it.
mpweiher 12y ago
In the (democratic) Weimar Republic, the authorities collected "pink lists" naming homosexuals. Homosexuality was technically illegal, but not prosecuted, and in fact, the Weimar Republic was known for its tolerance. When the Nazis came to power, they used those previously obtained lists to round up the homosexuals and send them to death camps. A lesson that privacy matters even if you think your current government and/or its use of data is benign. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005261 http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005261
- simonh 12y ago
  This is a really key point. Obama and Cameron are telling us that it's ok to let them snoop on all our private communications because we can trust them and they can protect us. Even if we can trust them, they can't protect us. Also, who knows about the next president of the USA, or the next UK Prime Minister? What if we get another Nixon or worse? These things have happened and will happen again. Beyond that, by saying it's ok for governments to snoop on private communications, it's normalising that same behaviour by China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc. It's not good enough to say that it's alright for the West to do it because they are good guys and not ok for despotic regimes to do it because they are bad guys. It's a matter of principle that it's wrong for everyone to do it. That is the only way to set a standard and hold every government to it. We should figure out what line in terms of privacy and respect for personal rights we would like China, Russia, etc to abide by. It's only ok for our governments to do things that we would accept as being legitimate for those governments to do. That is the only way to normalise respect for the individual and protect our personal freedoms in the long term.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
  Related: Why were the Nazis so efficient at rounding up and murdering Jewish people? Because the 1933 Census asked if you were Jewish, and IBM sold them (mechanical) data processing systems.
morgante 12y ago
It's incredibly relevant. For one thing, his speech included direct references to the importance of privacy for marginalized groups (including homosexuals), especially in places where it is been illegal. Moreover, I personally think it's one of the reasons that I believe Cook (far more so than other technology people) has a credible commitment to privacy. He's a very private person himself (in fact, he only came out last year), and I think that personal preference for privacy shines through in how he's running Apple.
Joona 12y ago
I think it's mainly about telling the readers who Tim Cook is. The name doesn't ring a bell for many, but when you refer to news about him, it's a bit easier to remember.

by TheBiv 12y ago

MarcScott 12y ago

Cook also said >> "“We still live in a world where all people are not treated equally. Too many people do not feel free to practice their religion or express their opinion or love who they choose,”

AdeptusAquinas 12y ago

I agree. Seemed an odd, irrelevant comment to make. Maybe they were suggesting he didn't fit the stereotype of big-business, conservative ceos, in order to suggest his words were not just money-motivated? Even then, it's a big, poor taste stretch.

harshreality 12y ago

If he were in certain other countries, his sexual orientation might result in death, or have other severe legal or social consequences. Even in the United States, there is a social cost to being known to be gay. Arguably [in most communities] it's low enough that it's better than the alternative of trying to keep it a secret, but the cost still exists. Certain people will not want to be your friend or do business with you if they know you're gay. You may not care about those lost opportunities... you may have plenty of friends and business opportunities... but it still limits your options. In some small dogmatic communities even in socially liberal countries, you might be ostracized, and your only options are to keep it a secret or to start a new life somewhere else. Privacy in the "cloud" means keeping information secret from people who you'd rather not have judging you based on that information. It could be a close-minded community, or health insurance companies, or even something relatively innocuous and minor like some interest of yours that would raise eyebrows even among your friends.

s_q_b 12y ago
> If he were in certain other countries, his sexual orientation might result in death, or have other severe legal or social consequences. Among those social consequences could be regular physical abuse, or even being beaten to death. In the U.S., the cultural shift on this issue was so fast that it's easy to forget that we're not that far removed from Laramie, Wyoming and the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard in 1998 for being gay, or that LGBT individuals couldn't serve openly in the Armed Forces until 2011. [0][1] Today that same state issues and recognizes gay marriages, and DADT is a fading memory. That's head-spinningly fast for a cultural and legal change of that magnitude. Personally I think that this is one area where Tim Cook's sexual orientation probably influences his thinking, and in a very good way. He's smart enough to know that government access to Apple's data is more than enough for the government to build its own "pink lists" today. Like Tim Cook, I believe we are not so close to the precipice that we can't use the normal political process to put a framework around our intelligence services that both safeguards privacy and protects our nation's interests. I (contrary to prevailing opinion here), have great respect for our security agencies, and believe the men and women that staff them are mostly well-meaning public servants performing a valuable service. But as we all know, this is not about today's government. It's about the unknown governments that will come to power in 10, 20, or 100 years, and in countless generations to come. It's easy to design a government that you know will be staffed by decent men and women. But historically that is not an assumption upon which we can rely. As James Madison said, our institutions should be designed to survive being "run by devils." If I confront the issue directly: Do I feel our nation could survive as a free society if today's security apparatus was run by devils? No. No, I do not. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard [1] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43859711/ns/us_news-life/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43859711/ns/us_news-life/
- leesalminen 12y ago
  What a well thought out opinion on why privacy matters. Personally, I have a lot of trouble talking about privacy to my mother. She's firmly seated in the "I've got nothing to hide" camp. I'm forwarding her this thread so she can see some differing opinions (that weren't written by me).

approbatory 12y ago

He made a comment about people's lives being in danger if they are in the closet in regions where homosexuality is punishable and have no data privacy. Somewhat related.

patcon 12y ago

I think the author is possibly alluding to the fact that gay rights are frequently referenced as an historic example of how the ability to break the law is important to a society's ability to adjust it's cultural norms and make way for change. Sodomy was illegal until quite recently, but if that could have been enforced (as a dragnet allows), we might not be where we are today, because people couldn't test the limits of laws we came to view as unjust :)

stanley 12y ago

I'm by no means disagreeing with the point others are making in response to your comment, but I do think that sentence could have been worded better. It's stated out of context and would have been a better fit had the author mentioned that next to Cook's quote regarding equality, rather than in the middle of the statement regarding privacy. I was equally confused when I first read it.

mpweiher 12y ago

In the (democratic) Weimar Republic, the authorities collected "pink lists" naming homosexuals. Homosexuality was technically illegal, but not prosecuted, and in fact, the Weimar Republic was known for its tolerance. When the Nazis came to power, they used those previously obtained lists to round up the homosexuals and send them to death camps. A lesson that privacy matters even if you think your current government and/or its use of data is benign. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005261 http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005261

simonh 12y ago
This is a really key point. Obama and Cameron are telling us that it's ok to let them snoop on all our private communications because we can trust them and they can protect us. Even if we can trust them, they can't protect us. Also, who knows about the next president of the USA, or the next UK Prime Minister? What if we get another Nixon or worse? These things have happened and will happen again. Beyond that, by saying it's ok for governments to snoop on private communications, it's normalising that same behaviour by China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc. It's not good enough to say that it's alright for the West to do it because they are good guys and not ok for despotic regimes to do it because they are bad guys. It's a matter of principle that it's wrong for everyone to do it. That is the only way to set a standard and hold every government to it. We should figure out what line in terms of privacy and respect for personal rights we would like China, Russia, etc to abide by. It's only ok for our governments to do things that we would accept as being legitimate for those governments to do. That is the only way to normalise respect for the individual and protect our personal freedoms in the long term.
TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
Related: Why were the Nazis so efficient at rounding up and murdering Jewish people? Because the 1933 Census asked if you were Jewish, and IBM sold them (mechanical) data processing systems.

morgante 12y ago

It's incredibly relevant. For one thing, his speech included direct references to the importance of privacy for marginalized groups (including homosexuals), especially in places where it is been illegal. Moreover, I personally think it's one of the reasons that I believe Cook (far more so than other technology people) has a credible commitment to privacy. He's a very private person himself (in fact, he only came out last year), and I think that personal preference for privacy shines through in how he's running Apple.

Joona 12y ago

I think it's mainly about telling the readers who Tim Cook is. The name doesn't ring a bell for many, but when you refer to news about him, it's a bit easier to remember.