This should be a boon to religious Hindu coders (if there are any). LOL - Based on Brihaspati' proximity to Mangal's orbit (I have no idea what I am saying) you could choose to not release to minimize your bad luck.
I love this - and you actually have a use case. You should shop this around as an app to the big Indian outsourcing firms. All the best!
This is a big story in Indian news today. The current prime minister, Narendra Modi was elected partly because he promised to bring black money that was stashed abroad, back to the country. A Herculean task and one that he hasn't done much about so far.
It interests me how this information can be used against the relevant people. Will it be a mere name-and-shame or can they use a leaked source in a court of law? I don't think so.
People in many countries avoid taxes and in India this is especially egregious since close to 97% of the population does not pay any income taxes. For a population of 1.25 billion with 400m below the poverty line, this is not good.
Patterns are uniquely generated in almost all types of information. What has been missing until the great rise of the World Wide Web is intent to monetize.
Earlier companies sold you products like Microsoft Windows, Coca-Cola and Apple Macintoshes. Advertising paradigms like television advertising, radio, newspapers while really nice, had a "last-mile-connectivity" problem - you never really knew how you got your customer - through TV, radio? I do understand Nielsen and other ratings companies and some TV analytics historically try to ameliorate this, but the internet has been the greatest driving force in the last few years.
Google and Facebook etc. and internet driven content engines have all traded eyeballs for content or products. As a result, the intent to improve advertising for the eyeballs (since presumably the eyeball count has a theoretical upper bound) has become the force du jour.
Hence the ability to identify stuff was there, except for the machine learning part which has grown up from academia tremendously. It is just that now we have the intent to use all this to identify and collect patterns from all sorts of data.
Whether that is good or bad or gray is another matter.
Just a tip, in case you find your way to adding it - while browsing through the India selection, I find that there are movies from different languages - I found Hindi, Malayalam and Tamil movies. My suggestion is that if you find a way to add a language filter, in addition to a country filter, that might help? This might be useful for others as well - for e.g a lot of Spanish speakers might look for movies from South America etc.
This made me well up inside. Being from a country that considers homosexuality to be illegal (India) and having a close friend who left that country as well as his religion (Islam) solely due to being gay, I applaud this man's spirit.
It is not only the government that must accept equality of different ways, but so must society. Religion, culture and political climates are no reason to deny fundamental human freedoms - the right to have consensual sex with the people of your choice being one of them. Amazing that the one thing that we hold up as a pinnacle of political theory - democracy - is the one that keeps many minorities from exercising their rights. I am sure, for example, that a referendum on Article 377 would fail in most small Indian towns. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
I hope that prominent Indians take this up as well (there are at least a couple of Bollywood directors who are rumoured to be gay as well as at least one business tycoon) and come out of the closet.
Tim Cook faces 2 years in jail in Singapore if he has activity even in a private room.
Three days ago, the Court of Appeal has just judged the law was conform to the constitution, because everyone is guaranteed equal rights no matter their sex, race or religion, and this doesn't include sexuality.
Performing a sexual act is a conscious behavior, wilfully chosen by the participants (except in cases of rape, which is not relevant to this discussion). Law is meant to regulate behaviors. It's valid to make sexual acts illegal. It doesn't violate non-discrimination rights because wilful participation by any person is just as illegal as participation by any other person. Laws that say "this is legal for people with this involuntary attribute but illegal for people with a different involuntary attribute" are discriminatory. If they say "sexual activity with a person of the same sex is illegal", it's equally illegal for everyone, regardless of that person's unchangeable, involuntarily physical attributes. Saying some people can do something (like "only white people can engage in sexual activity with a person of the same sex") while others can't is discriminatory. Making something illegal for everyone is not. It's just normal lawmaking.
We may disagree with Singapore and think that most sexual acts shouldn't be illegal. But how can we go around saying law can't regulate behavior? This is one of my big problems with the gay "rights" lobby of today -- they're trying to make it illegal to legislate basically anything. If you disagree with the law, change the law, don't codify sweeping generalizations that set a precedent of "I was born this way and I can't control it" as an excuse for any illegal behavior.
Only the most basic principles are protected by things like the American Bill of Rights, and the specific behavior must be tested by the courts to see if it conforms to the principles enshrined as fundamental rights.
I think your logic is good, but your application is lacking. Same-sex "sexual activity" is not what has been outlawed in Singapore. There is no law that fits the description you have outlined and it is essentially a straw-man argument.
The law that exists states explicitly that anal and oral sex, only between members of the same sex, is illegal. Both of these acts have been specifically made legal for a heterosexual pair.
The only difference between these two scenarios? The gender of one participant. A woman may receive anal sex from a man, but a man may not. Discrimination based on gender.
> Same sex sexual activity is not what has been outlawed in Singapore
Besides that I generally approve your comment, let's quote the section that was judged by the Court of Appeal 3 days ago as conform to the constitution:
""" Article 377A
Any male person who, in public or in private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.
I think the proponents of same sex marriage would respond that what they are trying to do is not prevent the government from regulating behavior (which, as you say, is the essence of lawmaking), but prevent the government from treating persons in same sex relationships differently from persons in opposite sex relationships. The key question is whether the government can discriminate based on sexual orientation.
In the U.S., the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits a state from denying any person "the equal protection of the laws." This would appear to forbid discrimination based on any characteristic at all. Of course, governments make distinctions based on people's characteristics all the time. These range from the mundane (persons with poor vision can be required to wear corrective lenses while driving) to the highly consequential (American citizens of Japanese ancestry can be interred during a war against Japan).
The history of the Equal Protection Clause, then, is a long and messy process of sorting out what kinds of discrimination are permissible and what aren't. And there has been a lot of movement, especially during last few decades. Consider that during the lifetime of George Takei, the EPC was interpreted to permit the internment of his family (Korematsu v. United States, 1944) and giving him the right (in California) to marry his husband of the same sex (Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013).
The current standard is that that you can discriminate on a basis other than certain "suspect" classifications if the discrimination is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest.
In the recent Windsor case, the Supreme Court concluded that the federal Defense of Marriage Act failed to meet even that minimal standard. Many lower courts have invalidated state same sex marriage bans on the same basis.
You can argue that it is the place of the legislature to decide what classifications it can use in lawmaking, but that raises two problems. First, the clause is part of the Constitution and it must impose some limit on the power of state legislatures, and there needs to be a process for interpreting what that limit is. Second, history has shown that the political process doesn't always protect unpopular minorities (though there are also good arguments that courts are not that much better).
You see, I'm upset when someone uses some law to forbid what seems normal to me, but this would be subjective. And I agree with you for the major trait of your discourse: To each country, their customs and laws, provided it was legally decided by the People. So it's quite on purpose that I kept my comment strictly apolitical... however clearly opinionated:
I didn't say the Singaporean law is stupid or retarded. I'm underlining the huge leap.
It's up to the reader really to forge an opinion. Let's not forget that Singapore is a very developed country, has major exchanges with our other countries of the western world, include trade, research, patents, high-educated migrants both ways and we have influence both ways. And yet, they don't guarantee some citizenship rights (aka: immediate arrestation and 2 years jail time) on the basis of what you would do in a private room between two consenting adults. Up to the reader to make an opinion.
Only the most basic principles are protected by things like the American Bill of Rights
"No troops quartered in your house", "you get a jury trial if it involves more than $X", and "powers not taken by the feds are granted to the states" don't seem like 'basic principles' to me. They seem a bit more complex and somewhat arbitrary.
I recently moved to Denmark for a job and I have met a lot of people here who came from their nations in order to get into Scandinavia.
If you can put up some money, you should get a Green Card which allows you to look for jobs. Beware though that the job market in Scandinavia is quite competitive because of the high wages.
Australia and Canada are giving out visas as well for many workers. Look those up too.
What you're describing, except search, are all "moats". They're all ways in which Google monetizes and generates revenue.
Any threat to their bottomline has to come from people getting access to information in other ways: native mobile applications, Facebook's walled garden, television etc.
To their credit, they saw the mobile juggernaut coming early unlike Microsoft and they dealt with it effectively, ditto for browsers and email. They did not deal with social that effectively. In each case, it was their ability to foresee an information flow paradigm and get on top of it.
The argument here that can be made is that they're no longer that force that can monetize new information flow paradigms and that FB, Amazon, Apple are eating their lunch in some ways and whether they can make money without new sources of income (their new bets have not paid off yet). Whether this argument against them is stupid or thoughtful, the fact remains that this is a point that has been raised - not how good their products are, but how much money they can make, which is something a for-profit business must consider.
Facebook did to Google what Google did to Microsoft, which is to tangentially hit the old guard hard enough that their ability to move into new areas is severely hampered. (Facebook have been quite good at buying up anyone that might do this to them, but it's not clear how long that approach will last).
No one is going to displace Google in search for a long time, but a lot of that moat is going to end up being eroded.
All day I've been wondering when this or something like this would make it to HN.
There's going to be polarization now - left wing or "secular" (believe me that is an overused term here in India) and so called liberals versus an opinionated group of people who believe in the Modi form of government and leadership.
Not only is this not a good topic for HN - it is about as bad as saying "Pro big-government Obama wins" or "Right wing Conservatives take Britain by storm!" or "Abbott defeats the Labour Party!" or "Merkel gains at the expense of leftists!" or any other such article.
Bottom line is: you can not be sure of what Modi or any other politician for that matter will do until he/she does it. Until today, we didn't even know he'd get such a landslide.
As for the technological impact of Modi's win - he loves solar & infrastructure(so go long solar & infra stocks) and it is probable that the internet penetration in India will increase - although whether that is credited to him/his party or not is a matter of debate.
This entire election is about a nationalist Indian party that has defeated a clutch of leftist parties (similar to other nationalist movements in many other nations) and there isn't a leftist versus nationalist debate in the world that deserves attention on HN.
For the record, I supported Modi's party in this election, so I maybe biased. Take with a pinch of salt.
EDIT: removed my comment about this not required on HN as in hindsight it seemed unimportant to me.
I've worked on many urban planning and transport infrastructure projects in India, since 2001, and have seen first-hand how the Congress government have sent the country into a mire in recent years (after what I regarded as a very promising start). Even when they were not actually corrupt, their decision-making processes became so poor that it was impossible to get anything done. I do have high hopes that Modi will change that.
At the same time, nationalism is dangerous in any form. I remember the last BJP government -- I was living in Ahmedabad in the run-up to the riots, and got out a few days beforehand, as it was increasingly clear that Something Bad was about to go down -- and I remember the way that Vajpayee would beat the war drums with Pakistan whenever anything he needed to divert attention from something on the home front. Hopefully Modi has learned that fanning the flames of communal and international tension is not, in fact, to India's benefit.
If Modi can stay focused on cleaning up the government, building infrastructure, and generally making the country a less difficult place to get things done, then India can resume its trajectory towards becoming one of the world's great powers. If, on the other hand, he goes for the cheaper and easier political points that one can score by slagging off Muslims, then I fear that India will tear itself apart, leading to far worse outcomes than Congress could have achieved. On balance, I'm optimistic that he will steer towards the former more than the latter, but I'll be watching carefully.
The sad reality is: there are riots in India with depressing frequency. The riots in Gujarat were not an aberration; such things happen all over the place. That doesn't answer your question; but I'm laying the groundwork.
The Congress Party (which has been ruling India for the vast majority of the time since India became independent) realized, early on, that Modi was a threat and to counter this threat, they made every attempt to tar him with the guilt of 2002. No other Chief Minister of any other state has ever been held to such standards. Bear in mind: this is the same Congress Party whose members went on a rampage in 1984, killing/burning 4000+ Sikhs in Delhi when Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her bodyguards. They even came out and said, basically, "meh, bad things happen". The large number of Sikh deaths was _directly_ a result of their deliberate inaction. I know; I was in Delhi at that time. The Army was not called out for days, just so the bloodletting could continue. For this party to turn around and accuse Modi of orchestrating the 2002 riots is a sick joke.
It is deplorable and a very tragic set of events. I wasn't there, so I had to depend on the media for my consumption of news.
The Supreme Court of India has declared Narendra Modi as legally not guilty of any crimes. From the news it certainly seems the Court has erred, although it is a constitutional body and as a citizen I need to abide by its judgement. There are of course Indian citizens who charge that the media is bought and paid for, just like other countries.
If you're asking why I voted for the BJP, in my city the local BJP leader is very good and the other party leaders are very corrupt.
> Please flag this off the front page - there are other more deserving stories.
I should learn not to upvote comments before I read them to the end. Oh well...
Anyhow, this election result isn't fascinating to me because he is or isn't right-wing/nationalistic/pro-business/whatever, it's interesting because it represents a very strong change of direction in the government. It looks like people were very dissatisfied with the ruling party/coalition, which is similar to what has been happening in some EU countries after the crisis (Hungary, Slovenia, Greece, ... - in some of these countries, like apparently in India, it was the Nationalist parties that gained most). To pull this off in a country with a billion people is even more fascinating. But at least democracy is working in the East, if not in the West (e.g. US).
But at least democracy is working in the East, if not in the West (e.g. US).
This is a little snarky and off-hand for HN. There are threads seemingly daily to discuss how and why the fraction of the electorate represented by HN commenters is not getting its preferred policy outcomes. There's no need to pull threads on other topics into that morass.
I mentioned the US because it has only 2 political parties, which have quite similar political programs and even more similar (in the course of my lifetime) governing styles. It's not much different in Slovenia; same politicians for the past 25 years, with little change possible.
An analysis of news reports suggests that you're mostly right, but there is a huge factor of the personal charisma of this man. Like Obama, he has played on the "hope & change" motto. Can he deliver, we will have to see.
You may downvote if you like, but I still do not see why this should be on the front page of HN!
I am in the position of being torn apart by two very strong feelings. One is the world where information flow due to companies like Google does a real service to humanity: for e.g. wearing devices that can keep us reminded of our meds or monitor sugar levels, to talk just about the possibilities in healthcare.
Then I think of Edward Snowden and I now know that what Google knows, maybe America/Russia/China/WhatHaveYou know. Although at this point I am as normal a citizen as you can find, that can't be taken for granted forever. For e.g. in my nation (India) being gay is illegal and so is marijuana, and so is alcohol (in some states) and so is a lot of stuff. This feeling makes me want to minimize my footprint.
Wish there was a way to combat either the wariness, or to exacerbate the joy. For, I must be assimilated into the Borg, too. :)
More and more I'm thinking that some sort of Digital Bill of Rights is necessary to carry on in this technological-based World. At first I always thought of it as a nice thing, but perhaps a little too abstract or extreme to really do what it needs to do. However now we have some very large and real threats to our personal lives via this medium.
I just feel like it makes a lot of good sense to produce something of the sort. I'm also naive enough to believe that it isn't too late to attempt to establish such a document and have it not contain all sorts of loopholes that would render it useless.
I can understand why the feds want to monitor the Internet and various communications, however there needs to be that pushback, that line drawn where we can hold their overreach accountable. It may not always work, but there needs to be something that us ordinary citizens can lean back on for protection.
I find the existing bill of rights quite adequate. We don't really need anything new, maybe an amendment here and there but in reality most of today's issues are already covered, they're just being utterly violated and nobody seems to realize as the ap has so eloquently demonstrated.
It has always been violated, fortunately we have organizations that take up various fights and do what they can in order to re-establish some sort of order.
Unfortunately while it doesn't always work out, that doesn't mean you scrap the whole idea.
Currently us citizens literally have nothing to combat our Government essentially having their way with the Internet to get at our data. This is an issue to both the individual but also groups/companies.
One approach would be to require that a person/group/company that is aggregating information report the storage and use of the information to the people in the database.
You could have some arbitrary cutoffs, like don't worry about information on less than 1000 people or stored less than 3 months (or whatever numbers you want to pick out of the air, the point is that the threshold for reporting might not be 0).
What I think this might do in many cases is make storing the information more expensive than any value derived from it. It also gives people a chance to learn that the water company is sharing their usage with the police (or whatever).
I've been thinking of this for a while my self. Would it be wrong to assume that git hub would be a suitable platform to start something like this? A lot of thought needs to be put into it by a lot of people and I don't think it necessarily needs any support from any particular government or organization. It needs to be a straight forward document that outlines the rights of people in the digital age, and if it does this in a well written, understandable way, it will gain support from the right people and something will come of it.
It could serve as a good spot to start, a document like this if it is going to be collaborated on will require versioning at the least to keep track of changes made.
However, something like this should probably start on something that is much more approachable by your average citizen.
Folks that visit Hacker News and work in tech have a decent understanding of the issues, however the masses are still on the outside looking in with regards to comprehension. The platform to deliver this message really needs to be insanely user friendly.
It is odd - there was uproar around the Russian propaganda laws regarding Homosexual relationships running up to the winter olympics (and rightly so! I am not suggesting otherwise). Yet, I (who, perhaps arrogantly, consider myself fairly well informed) had absolutely no idea that homosexuality is illegal in India. This is wtf-worthy.
"On October 21, 1999, a series of Russian ballistic missile strikes on central Grozny killed at least 137 people, mostly civilians, and injured hundreds. The missiles hit the city's main marketplace, a maternity hospital and a mosque."
And other points listed on that page, which has never really been discussed in western media.
But I guess Wikipedia, HRW et al are in on Obama's homosexual conspiracy? :-)
India got quite a lot of criticism in the press for this at the time, and rightly so, but it dropped out of the news after a month or two because there was nothing new happening. Expect more press attention when there's news. (I doubt the Russian laws would've gotten so much attention if the Russian government didn't continually do things that drew attention to them.)
Sadly that is not true. The right-wing party, that will most likely win the upcoming elections, will never approve an amendment to change this through parliament. The judge that reverted the supreme court decision if fully aware of this and it was a political decision on his side.
The law was made by the British govt in line with the victorian era ethos (remember Alan Turing?). Many of the british laws were carried over when India became independent in 1947.
When this law came up for review in the supreme court this year, it ruled that since the law criminalizes actions, not persons, it is not discriminatory and hence, not unconstitutional. As you can imagine, this was a very controversial judgment. But as things stand now, the supreme court has passed the ball back to the parliament to repeal/amend the law.
I am not sure when exactly the original law was amended in Britain.
I dunno if you're from/in the US, but this kind of view is a lot closer to. home than you'd think. Go back ten years and a dozen or two states had similar laws, and needed to be forced by the Supreme Court to invalidate them (go back a bit further and the number jumps).
> I mean seriously, what rational, feeling human being thinks:
Christian, esp the various puritan sub-sects. Oral sex being socially acceptable is relatively new. 40yrs or less. As a kid in 70's I'd get in trouble for saying "suck". My parents considered it an obscene word as bad as "fuck".
It was accepted in India for some time and then suddenly the apex court reversed the ruling saying "unnatural sex" (same gender sex) is prohibited by the constitution. This was odd as our apex court doesn't really take such steps. Then it dawned upon me that it was merely interpreting the constitution. That part of the constitution is a legacy law from the time of the British occupation. Unfortunately we have not yet changed it. I don't see it being changed in the near future either, because the party that is supposed to gain majority in this general election is a "conservative" party basing most of their policy off religion.
> why is it that this is rarely mentioned in western news media
It is mentioned in Western media. Also in India you are not prosecuted for being a gay or homosexual unless you bring to the out in the open (I am not defending the culture). Which means you can't usually do girl-girl/guy-guy making out in the public. Hell, you can't even do girl-guy making out in the open. This is covered by some "indecency laws". So, basically it's like there's no witch-hunt on for gays and lesbians even though you declare that you are a homosexual.
Now when someone says this country has a lot lot bigger issues to fix before fixing issues of homosexuality, please don't pounce on him/her because that's true (IMO).
I find myself also questioning this often. It leads to me regularly switching between iOS and Android, Google services and Apple services. Ideally I would like privacy but I think as we go forward keeping privacy would leave you in the same kind of position someone like RMS is in by sticking to his Free Software philosophy so strongly.
I'm always surprised at the number of friends and family I see who have their Facebook set to public - especially considering what they post. When I tell them they don't care. I think the majority of people want some semblance of privacy but they are willing to give up a lot for the efficiency these new products, that require us to give up privacy, provide.
> It leads to me regularly switching between iOS and Android
Is this only because of the app permissions model? AFAIK, other than that, Android per se isn't any less privacy-oriented than iOS. iOS apps also much more commonly retrieve various user data and marginally more often send data around unencrypted.
It's because I find Android works best when using Google's services and as I'm not paying for those (and they are using my info to sell ads) I trust Apple more to protect my data (it's in their interest).
Ah OK so you were considering android and Google services together. I assumed they were easily extricable but I've never used android without Google so I suppose that assumption may be incorrect.
That being said, I don't really understand the assumption that Apple would be a good steward of personal data. As someone else alluded to on this thread, it came out _years_ ago that Apple was collecting fine grained location logs and storing them in a fully readable (unencrypted) file on each ios device (and I believe on any computer that the phone was synced to). I can't think of any behavior in Android that's even close to as egregious as that, for me.
What about your ISP? What about your network provide? Do you trust them?
And if it's in Apple's interest to protect your data, it's in Google's interest all the more to protect your data - because they do make money of some of it. Also, they have a very public declaration of what they do with the data, how they are stored and how long. With Apple, I have no fucking idea.
Also, when it comes to security, Apple has no stellar record - their's have been slow and callow approach to security (and security by obscurity).
I feel the only reason your secrets may not be in jeopardy with Apple is because they don't know as many... If you really want your secrets to be safe you wouldn't use any closed source code at all and would take security precautions to secure the code you do use. Unfortunately we live in a time when closed-source software is the norm and too many people think having a secure, open, communications infrastructure is too complicated and don't quite understand the reasoning behind it (thankfully that attitude seems to be changing a little), but I hope one day we'll look back on this time and wonder what we were thinking by allowing digital goods to be closed source.
With 3D printers, neural implants, augmented reality, food and organ printers, and the age of automation, what the future holds is a digital realm that's going to be very scary for people who understand it, especially if the infrastructure is completely owned by corporations and un-trustable governments and even a small amount of the source is closed. I mean look around the room and think of all the things that could be augmented or replaced with 3D printed components.. Why have a physical laptop in front of you when you can augment the key board, 25 screens, and everything else? Not only that, but you can do it for nothing if you know how to code it.
We can already print organs and I don't think it will be too long until we can print good tasting food, but what if you execute some code on your food printer that prints a steak with anthrax in it? I think in the next 50 years all this is going to be fairly common place in the developed world and I really hope I have confidence in the system that we have in place at that time.
>Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation.
>When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Public facing code shouldn't be closed source. Sure, if you want to run something on your own and for your self, you don't have to share that with anyone, but when you put something out into the wild that can't be conclusively shown to not be malicious it should be treated like malware.
Edit: and also, what do you think the government should do for the people when it comes to digital rights? Or do you believe corporations know what's best? I for one don't believe in either.
> I take issue with the idea that adding more restrictions improves freedom.
Yes, but that isn't an idea the OP posted, it's an idea that you posted. A discussion of software license types doesn't automatically lead to either a preference for one kind of license over another, or the idea of governmental involvement. Those were things you made up on your own.
> If you want to download possible malware that is your choice.
Both closed and open-source code are susceptible to malware. The issues of licensing and malware are orthogonal. Closed-source code should in principle prevent malware, but it's quite obvious that it doesn't. Open-source, by being visible and readable, should reveal any vulnerabilities and prevent malware, but that doesn't work either, primarily because the more interesting vulnerabilities aren't obvious to someone reading the code.
He was arguing that closed source software should be disallowed. Who else but the government is going to make such rules? Yes I brought freedom into it. I agree that both open and closed will have malware, so what is the point of banning closed software if not "freedom"?
> He was arguing that closed source software should be disallowed.
He did not make this argument. He argued that closed source has serious drawbacks -- he never suggested that it should be "disallowed". Find the word or an equivalent word -- but you must find it in his posts, not yours.
If I complain about women, am I saying they should be disallowed? Only to someone who invents positions for other people, then proceeds to object to the positions he has invented.
> Who else but the government is going to make such rules?
Is Apple under government mandate to have a closed-source system? Is Red Hat under government mandate to have an open-source system? Neither is true. The government is not involved at all, in any way, period.
> Yes I brought freedom into it.
Yes, you did, after inventing arguments no one made, using claims about society that aren't part of reality.
> ... so what is the point of banning closed software if not "freedom"?
You fabricated this entire argument out of whole cloth. No one advocated "banning closed software", no one brought up government, no one brought up freedom. These are all parts of your private fantasy.
I'm scared by the idea that I could one day have a neural implant with closed source code running on some insecure network all because the people of this time were too dumb to realize how software could affect them.
Perhaps we should have laws that guarantee some form of open-ness but allow closed source code to exist on some sort of semi-to-fully-anonymous fully-encrypted secondary communications network?
> I'm scared by the idea that I could one day have a neural implant with closed source code running on some insecure network all because the people of this time were too dumb to realize how software could affect them.
It's a reasonable concern. People have already been injured and killed by software errors, both open and closed, so this is definitely on the table as a reasonable issue.
> Perhaps we should have laws that guarantee some form of open-ness but allow closed source code to exist on some sort of semi-to-fully-anonymous fully-encrypted secondary communications network?
My view is that we should let people sort this out without government involvement. Right now there are open-source companies and closed-source companies, and people get to vote with their feet. If closed-source causes problems or is more expensive or whatever, people can choose the alternative. Same with open-source.
There are any number of cases where government involvement turned out to be counterproductive, and I think this might be one of them. Remember that government can't just bust in and start issuing orders, they have to be invited by the voters. And sometimes, if things go wrong, they get voted out again.
Freedom of speech -- clearly a government issue. Open-source versus closed-source software -- sorry, how this is a government issue doesn't immediately occur to me.
> Yes, let's have the government mandate what license your code should have! Facepalm.
Hey -- even when people freely choose which license code should have, there are still better and worse choices. There's no essential role for government, and the OP didn't suggest that.
Also, according to my favorite theory of modern society, governments find out what people are going to do anyway, order them to do it, then try to take credit for the result. So (if this theory has any substance) governmental involvement is more illusory than real.
I just notice that Apple often finds themselves in court, suing someone (usually a company) for trying to steal one of their (corporate) secrets. And Google is often in court, defending themselves against someone (or a group) suing them for trying to steal their (personal) secrets.
It might all be more balanced in reality, it's just an impression from online articles.
>I'm always surprised at the number of friends and family I see who have their Facebook set to public - especially considering what they post.
I think that's actually smart. In reality the privacy setting on Facebook has no real effect on privacy, because companies and the NSA will still get your information. You might as well treat everything you post on Facebook as public.
> I'm always surprised at the number of friends and family I see who have their Facebook set to public - especially considering what they post.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they are set to public by default... in fact, IIRC they even reset everyone to public when they released that "feature" a couple of years ago.
> When I tell them they don't care. I think the majority of people want some semblance of privacy but they are willing to give up a lot for the efficiency these new products, that require us to give up privacy, provide.
Sure, and smokers are willing to risk a slow painful death to forgo the pain of quitting. Humans are short-term thinkers.
Don't forget that even if you believe you can trust the entity collecting the information, can you trust all the persons that have access to it? Is it inconceivable to believe that people who work for the Chinese government have never sold top secret data to US officials or even corporations? Why couldn't an NSA employee do the same thing? What if the NSA's servers weren't as secure as they thought they were?