Driving without a drivers license is also illegal (in most countries) but not considered equal to theft, murder or fraud. That's a false equivalence because not all things considered illegal are considered as abhorrent as murder or theft.
Agree with you. But when you burn/destroy in purpose your papers just to hide your real you, I guess that will add a big question mark on you. Also, I read in faz that 40% of the refugee will be deported as they do not have any `issue` in the sens of EU.
I found that very stupid and wrong. You pick some people based on your view of the life and rest can die.
> When you flood two generations with easy college money and
Would that be why they are drowning in higher education debt?
Such failures in logic occur when you try to express a systematic social problem (erosion of labour rights and lack of unionisation in higher education institutions among adjuncts and graduate students) to individualist argumentation ("it's their fault for being exploited").
> Seems like lots of FUD; how do Firefox Hello, Pocket and Geolocation "leak data about you" if you don't explicitly use them? How do DRM and Reader mode leak data at all?
You really don't expect much from your browser at this point any more, do you?
I want a browser that connects only to the website I asked it to display and let me configure how any (ANY) third party connection will be handled.
Not all must be online, just 2. Also, Dropbox isn't open source, nor Box, Google, Microsoft. I don't think that's really a requirement for success in this space.
Only one computer needs to be online for the sync to work. This is a good thing because your files never go to a third party. You don't have to trust Dropbox or anyone else with your data. Plop it on a couple of servers and you're good to go.
> a bad hire in a company where letting people go in general is a non-starter
This is your chance to institute good on-the-job training facilities.
"Bad hire" is a "hire" who requires more training than others (in whatever area they may lack, including human interaction). If you can manage to provide that person with effective training that salvages their status, then you had effectively created a training program that everyone else in the company can now take advantage of.
If you can't, well, it will turn out that the company lacks a vision vis-a-vis training. That is what makes a "bad hire" an "omg unsalvageable bad hire, run for the hills!" (i.e. it's a mark against the company, ot against the hire.)
I used to think this - then I worked with a coworker who just couldn't get it. He'd ask the same question 5-10 times. When the candidate just doesn't care, no amount of training can make up for it.
Sometimes the best training is to fire them, and hope they realize the consequences of not caring.
His situation was akin to you waking up one day and finding, out of nowhere, a letter in the mail telling you to come in for a 6-month jail time.
I assume that would not be a happy and acceptable morning for you, would it?
A geek was making scientific research publicly and digitally accessible. Try to personally connect to that by telling yourself how similar that is to you doing your own hobby i your spare time. Your argument says you'd be happy to have 6 months in jail for doing your own thing. (Taking such a deal requires pleading guilty to a crime.)
> His situation was akin to you waking up one day and finding, out of nowhere, a letter in the mail telling you to come in for a 6-month jail time.
That's a complete misrepresentation. A reasonable person might expect there to be consequences for breaking into a closet while hiding your face from security cameras in order to retrieve a covertly installed laptop you put there to evade a network ban. That is not "out of nowhere". I'd even say it doesn't resemble my hobbies in the least.
> I'm sure being a CEO is a busy job, so I understand.
Why would you understand?
It is a simple feat to respond. At the very least, he could have forwarded your email to someone, CC'd you on it, and said "Hey X, please look into this case for me."
No response to an email is above all disrespectful, regardless of how busy he might be. It also implies that he is giving away his email address as a PR move.
These pieces of information that keep dropping on HN is going to make me move my business away from Stripe too.
Stripe, why would you screw yourself so badly when you could easily have been the only viable option by simply not behaving like PayPal?..
> This article is so poorly written it is embarassing.
I found no glaring grammar mistakes in the article, reading it 12 minutes after your comment.
> "races the question" ... "euphemism"
These typo / words are not in the article.
> it buries what I hope is its main point--that Facebook should be more transparent--at the bottom of the article.
That is called the conclusion, whereas in the body the author is supposed to present substantiating information, which is what s/he did.
> But Facebook is quite transparent about government censorship, even in the United States
1. Did you check the links on India and Turkey? Facebook released "some information" (which is terrifying if you consider what Facebook collects) about 3470+ accounts. Now, if you consider that some of these accounts are organizations and not individuals, they may have actually released the information regarding tens of thousands of people. Do you know what happens to these people once they are identified? Informal governmental blacklisting, for example, is very common in Turkey if you are critical of government discourses. Who are these users? Why was their information released? How much of it was released? What was the government's reason? Was it investigated by Facebook? And above all, why was it released AT ALL, since Facebook is not bound by these countries' laws when it comes to such practices.
2. When it comes to the US, they just provide a few more breadcrumbs and nothing more.
Search Warrant: About what??? Against whom???
Subpoena: About what??? Against whom???
Emergency Disclosures: About what??? Against whom??? What was the emergency???
Court Order: Where are the case numbers???
Court Order (Other): Where are the case numbers???
Pen Register/Trap and Trace: Who ordered this? Why? Who authorized their order? Was it legitimate? Who investigated that legitimacy within Facebook? Why was it complied with? Why was it ordered?
Title III: About what??? Where are the case numbers???
Is this what you call sufficient transparency for a (effectively) multinational corporation that handles a incredible amount of Personally Identifying Information?
> From what I can see it is much more transparent (and much more active) than Twitter, which for some reason the article praises.
The criteria of "It's better than competitor X" is not a criteria; it's a comparison.
> It seems only to be castigating Facebook for "censoring" inmates.
That is a specific example where EFF has data and uses that data to refute Facebook's position on data that is obscured by Facebook. Their data comes from "information we have received through public records requests filed in several states."
> It is reasonable for Facebook to have terms of service which disallow third party access to user profiles,
How do you define "3rd party"?
> to suspend profiles of users which violate the ToS,
This requires proof. What is Facebook's process in proving "guilt"?
> and to have a reporting page specific to a class of user which is likely to violate an individual term.
How do you define "likely"? What is the mechanism by which Facebook's definition is not clouded by the same prejudice (and against a umber of groups) that clouds yours against incarcerated people?
> It is also reasonable for Facebook not to report this data as it is essentially private information about the inmates and their use of Facebook.
This is an offtopic non-argument. The linked article does not request that people be individually identified in these reports. Even FOIA has a clause against the release of PII.
> Facebook has more responsibility to protecting its inmate users than it does to reporting that information to the rest of us.
Your argument here is "Facebook is protecting its inmate users by booting them." To quote the article, "Facebook has been suspending the accounts of inmates for at least four years at the behest of prison officials [through] an easy and confidential [i.e. the identity of the official is not released to the public] “Inmate Takedown”..."
If this is a form of protection afforded incarcerated users, than I truly wish it were afforded to all Facebook users... The resulting euphoria would be worth watching.
"Races larger questions" was in the original (which is still in my browser tab). "Euphimism" does not appear, instead the awkward phrase "sanitized term" is used.
The "conclusion" is not a conclusion, but apparently the main point. It's not addressed until the very end. The article reads roughly Support->Vaguely Related Idea->Announcement of Unrelated Item->Argument. It's all over the place.
1. The article is about censorship and you're castigating Facebook for something else entirely.
2. Twitter, specifically, seems to provide much less information. The information you personally are expecting is, in some cases, information that should be protected, or that may be legally protected through court order or statute.
If Facebook must publish this information, the EFF should be both specific in its criteria and consistent in its application of judgment of whether the criteria has been met. This particular article is neither specific nor consistent. It does a poor job of comparing Facebook to other social media. It does a poor job of even mentioning where Facebook gets it right. It uses poor examples of where Facebook gets it wrong.
> The criteria of "It's better than competitor X" is not a criteria, it's a comparison.
But claiming competitor X is good and competitor Y is bad, while providing evidence of the opposite is at best inconsistent.
> how do you define "3rd party"?
This cannot be a serious question. But if you want to play semantic games, how it is defined in the Facebook ToS is what is relevant.
> This requires proof. What is Facebook's process in proving "guilt"?
Does it require proof? It may be entirely at Facebook's discretion, which is also reasonable. In any case, it should not be difficult to prove that a Facebook user account showing changes was not legally changed by an inmate with no official/legal internet access.
Your statement implies there was no proof, which you do not substantiate and the article neither argues nor implies.
> How do you define "likely"?
If you are running a website and frequently get emails about the same violation of your ToS, setting up a reporting form makes a lot of sense. Are you suggesting Facebook did this "just because" or for nefarious reasons?
> This is an offtopic non-argument.
Hardly. The linked article demands nebulously defined and sometimes inconsistent amounts of transparency.
when not having documents == {theft, murder, fraud}