notquitehuman

7 ms·

31.
by notquitehuman 5y ago
Even if they weren’t lying through their teeth, this changes nothing. My objection is to Apple believing that they can use a device I own for proactive law enforcement and then acting on that belief. Nothing about how they do that is even w
32.
by notquitehuman 5y ago
It doesn’t matter what they do after “looking for something to report to law enforcement.” Nothing after that makes it less invasive.
33.
by notquitehuman 5y ago
There’s no going back now. They revealed themselves to be enthusiastic participants in a creeping global surveillance system. They’d have to fire every single executive who passed on an opportunity to tank this thing before they get the opp
34.
by notquitehuman 5y ago
He was lying. That’s the face Craig makes when he’s lying.
35.
by notquitehuman 5y ago
My opinion of Apple falls pretty substantially with every new justification and explanation. They invented a fancy back door. Privacy-preserving software cannot trigger third party content review under any circumstances, no matter how vile.
36.
by notquitehuman 5y ago
The confusion is caused by Apple using a novel definition of backdoor when they claim that this isn’t a backdoor.
37.
by notquitehuman 5y ago
They’re certainly trying. But the video of Craig trying to use a novel definition of “law enforcement backdoor” and accusing people of being confused is contemptibly dishonest.
38.
by notquitehuman 5y ago
I'll need to see their source before I believe that. Apple ("privacy is a human right") lost their presumption of good faith when they announced that they will automatically notify law enforcement if their algorithms and proc
39.
by notquitehuman 5y ago
He hasn’t had to dissemble in front of a crowd in quite a while. That’s a skill that takes constant practice to maintain.
40.
by notquitehuman 5y ago
It was easier to dismiss in the past because the evidence to the contrary has been largely circumstantial, of sufficiently dubious origin, or not direct enough for people to accept as proof. They publicly announced a backdoor this time. The
41.
by notquitehuman 5y ago
It’s only a misunderstanding in the sense that nobody believes what they’re saying.
42.
by notquitehuman 5y ago
This was such a weird way for them to announce that they’re no longer pursuing privacy as a differentiation strategy.
43.
by notquitehuman 5y ago
It’s the same people who make sure that scamware doesn’t show up in the App Store. Apple does a good job with that, don’t they?
44.
by notquitehuman 5y ago
I’ve turned down 2 offers that were advertised as remote but the but the managers gave off “management by walking around” vibes, and turned down another that paid 10k less for remote. (I’m more than full time employed and I’m being picky)
45.
by notquitehuman 5y ago
JavaScript, as I recall, was the answer to Java being crashy and slow on 50 MHz processors. Microsoft tried to make VBscript happen, but was very Microsofty with the licensing, so JavaScript won by default. It’s been good enough to prevent
46.
by notquitehuman 5y ago
How? Please outline in detail how she should disappear so that I may share this information with the person who needs it.
47.
by notquitehuman 5y ago
Until they release some sort of irrefutable proof, why give them the benefit of the doubt? Their track record warrants assuming dishonesty.
48.
by notquitehuman 5y ago
In life, people who are unable to successfully form coalitions, partnerships, and alliances tend to be at a disadvantage to those who can.
49.
by notquitehuman 5y ago
That means that 1.8M Americans are potentially available to work at any business that can offer more pay and dignity than unemployment. If this labor shortage exists, businesses know what number they need to beat. Is that difficult?
50.
by notquitehuman 5y ago
Not all or even most. Tech platform censorship is just ranked lower on their list of issues/grievances. How do you think activists should be spending their time?
51.
by notquitehuman 5y ago
It looks and sounds like imperialism, but perhaps there’s a more benign reason?