There is no point being articulated at all in the above comment. It's an vague insinuation meant to derail. Please don't prop up his shitposting just because you think you might agree with something he might have meant.
If you're not here to tell us that (e.g.) you think Bill Gates is racist because of the books he read this year then what do you really even have to say? White guilt platitudes? Come on. That's not a conversation, that's an insult.
If you (et alia) actually believe it's an important issue, then you would actually be selective about when the subject is broached, so that actual intelligent conversations between willing and engaged participants could actually happen. Injecting "awareness" at every opportunity just debases the whole topic and turns into a sick game of making appearances and gestures. Nobody wants to talk about the supposedly important subject because everybody's tired of getting yelled at by the deafly intolerant and inflexible blowhards that keep bringing it up.
The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements is a 1951 social psychology book by American writer Eric Hoffer that discusses the psychological causes of fanaticism.
The book analyzes and attempts to explain the motives of the various types of personalities that give rise to mass movements; why and how mass movements start, progress and end; and the similarities between them, whether religious, political, radical or reactionary. Hoffer argues that even when their stated goals or values differ mass movements are interchangeable, that adherents will often flip from one movement to another, and that the motivations for mass movements are interchangeable. Thus, religious, nationalist and social movements, whether radical or reactionary, tend to attract the same type of followers, behave in the same way and use the same tactics and rhetorical tools. As examples, the book often refers to Communism, Fascism, National Socialism, Christianity, Protestantism, and Islam.
Change up your metaphor. Sometimes it's best to think of your "stuff" as a stack to go through sequentially, sometimes a library to collect and browse, sometimes transactions to be budgeted on some kind of ledger of your time and attention, etc.
When you find a metaphor that works for you, the "rules" become rather intuitive. Lately I think of my information consumption habit as something of a diet: Eat when you are hungry. Stop eating when you are full. Stock only enough food for your anticipated needs. Favor nutritious foods. When possible, share meals with friends and family.
Glad to see The Intercept is still bringing those hard-hitting revelatory leaks instead of merely capitalizing on public idolization with hagiographic exclusives.
My view of this part of the Constitution is that the person and their device are protected and law enforcement is wrong.
You seem to not sharing the Constitution's distinction between warrantless and warranted searches. The complaint being fielded by some in law enforcement is that recent changes in encryption mechanisms in iOS and Android will render many warranted searches useless.
In the US, major carriers Verizon and Sprint have operated CDMA-based networks whose devices did not use SIM cards. I think it was the iPhone 4 that Apple once shipped 3 different versions of in the US: AT&T (GSM), Verizon (one set of CDMA bands), and Sprint (another set of CDMA bands).
Apple's new campus is powered by the outrage and impatience of people that won't download VLC or ffplay to watch their two-hour commercials before they're available on YouTube.
What happens when they blame strong cryptography for the next gut-wrenching tragedy involving innocent kids and a bombing / school shooting / kidnapping / pedophile?
Pedophiles (or more specifically: child pornographers) routinely use strong cryptography and effectively nobody cares.
They are going straight into "think of the children mode" ... apparently "what about the terrorists?" isn't as effective anymore.
"They" in this case is the chief of a metro police department, whose forensic and surveillance resources are more often spent on pedophiles and drug dealers than terrorism. What else would they say?
If the article's authors wanted a "what about the terrorists?" quote they would have gone to a counter-terrorism official, just like they rang someone at the DEA for a "but drug organizations!" quote.
You're reading a paint-by-numbers article about government impotence and corporate supremacy like it's finely crafted pro-government propaganda.
Let's hope the public will see through their manipulative talking points.
You (and most HN commenters) didn't. Why should they? e.g.:
a) "Beyond lobbying the companies, there is little law enforcement can do without congressional action."
b) "A half-dozen police and federal officials interviewed said that Apple, in particular, was taking an aggressive posture on the issue."
When you take away the outrage-kindling, the gist of the article is that the stodgy old Washington government is incompetent and hip California tech companies are glorious. Not exactly a controversial opinion among the commentariat.
For what it's worth -- and here I have to wonder how much it's worth to criticize someone's point of view based on a photograph of them -- that's a dress uniform.
if you already know that you definitely won't be okay
This "okayness" is something people determine by looking at their community and peer group, not by looking at statistics. It's the same effect that causes the middle class to buy houses and cars that it can't really afford.