"Congress shall make no laws ... "

The first amendment bars the *government* from infringing on your free speech. It has zero standing or bearing on private citizens or corporations.

Which is why people crowing about it on social media or universities are completely oblivious to the fact that these organizations have absolutely zero responsibility to enable your free speech.

The guy saying that he has been accused of "not being a team player" isn't literally quoting his management here. He's summarizing that his immediate supervisors don't like him because he's unwilling to enter in some patronage like relationship with them.

The fact that you gave the benefit of the doubt to some faceless employer here instead of an actual person recounting his experiences is really sad and maybe ought to be reason for you to rethink your biases to jump to the conclusion that this guy is a toxic loner. Sounds like you're projecting hard here from some other experience.

Literally the only thing even remotely pressuring these firms to implement better security is bad PR (and it barely does that), so by not being explicit you are bypassing this

>(5) A core provider is not required to comply with a provision of a regulation >made under subsection (2), with respect to an electronic service, if compliance >with that provision would require the provider to introduce a systemic >vulnerability related to that service or prevent the provider from rectifying >such a vulnerability

The definition to me reads to me as very obviously blocking the government from demanding an encryption backdoor, especially since the Act allows for the company to challenge such an order in court.

>"systemic vulnerability means a vulnerability in the electronic protections of >an electronic service that creates a substantial risk that secure information >could be accessed by a person who does not have any right or authority to do >so. "

So what exactly is the problem with this definition?

Just because there is a gradual spectrum between two states doesn't mean we can't draw distinctions. For example, just because we cannot define the exact, precise color when blue turns into green, it does not mean that blue and green are the same color for any normal person discussing an issue publicly in good faith.

When someone says "X and Y are on a spectrum, X is good and Y is bad", the point is to highlight the differences. Pointing out that the spectrum or continuum might not have a precise boundary has literally zero weight towards the validity of the ultimate conclusion a person is making here and really is just a complete derail done by people who have no substantive points to make.

This is such a common problem with highly technical managers because they can't seem to understand how to change focus or scope and do their jobs better. Instead they fall back on trying to ship features thinking that this is productive and to pat themselves on the back for staying technical.

Besides, most places are dog-free. However, the ADA and other supporting legislation accommodates people with disabilities so this means that sometimes there's a balancing act between you enjoying a dog free experience (99% of the time) and then 1% of the time someone might have a dog with them that can detect low blood sugar for diabetes or stroke. Frankly, even if this is abused, just enabling people to have this accommodation without demanding it or disclosing medical information to strangers is worth it.

Now I'm guessing you're one of these savant medical geniuses with super powers because you can "just tell by looking at em" to determine if they're faking it. With such powers I'd recommend medical school because those powers of diagnoses are being wasted for being a pathetic reactionary who can't stand anyone different than them.

I'd also recommend more docs / tutorials on how to use the platform. Readme is great but when you click Documentation link you're just redirected to the readme which isnt useful and makes it seem like there is actual docs available.

This is how we have a free-market to begin with. You need enforcement and structures in place so people will actually trust any of this crap. Instead, we have the nutjob early 90's cyber libertarians thinking this will all be magically fixed with just magical freedom and the invisible hand fixing everything.

This narrative is incredibly toxic and honestly a very antisocial viewpoint of people as if they are all just stupid sheep who deserve to be exploited.

There's zero reason why its unfair for a person to both object to advertising because of the annoyance (because it is annoying) AND for a person to not want to be digitally surveilled endlessly without their consent.

There just needs to be a blanket-law where your data is considered every-bit as intellectual property as a piece of copyrighted media and for there to be consent established to sell or give your data to a third-party there needs to be an active exchange of payment, credit or services that is opt-in only, not opt-out from an intentionally obfuscated EULA update email.

Require active opt-in and consent along with a clear set of goods/services/payment, and active simple on-demand revocation with strict timelines, and you could have companies actually properly incentivizing users to sell them their own personal data instead of it just being harvested.

Unfortunately too many libertarian nutjobs out here think that the market here will magically fix all issues.

Also, socialist states with advanced economies built airplanes, hydroelectric dams and all kinds of complex things. This is a joke of an argument. Say what you will about the living conditions, fairness, corruption or other issues with socialist states, but to pretend they "didn't build complex things" is ridiculous when you look up the number of scientific achievements made first by the USSR.

There's no such thing as some apolitical, objectively best approach to a technical problem. Instead of arguing about specific merits about specific issues people throw out this big wide handwave about how "idea X is simply technically the wrong choice", as if this is a legit position to have.

Take a philosophy course for god's sake before you engineer us all to death.

I wont pretend that accountability in the physical engineering world is all smiles and rainbows but at least there are actual laws dictating responsibilities, certification and other real consequences for civil engineers. When a Professional Engineer in Canada signs-off (seal) on work they are legally assuming responsibility which means the practitioner could be held accountable in the event of professional misconduct or incompetence regarding the engineering work. There is no reason but corporate greed and corruption why there isn't similar legislation in North America for cybersecurity or software engineering where you have professional bodies certify people to be legally obligated to sign-off on work (and refuse work that isn't up to standards).

But this would require introducing actual legislation which god-forbid how could we do such a thing to the poor market! It would stifle their innovation at leaking everyone's data.

There's no reason we couldn't extend the same existing system of licensure [1] that professional engineers require.

Sure maybe its overkill for someone stringing together a python app, but if you're engineering the handling of any actual personal information then this work ought to be overseen by qualified, licensed and accountable professionals who are backed by actual laws.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regulation_and_li...

> In one case, GPS was used to first construct an inaccurate and accusatory narrative about a partner’s behavior that nitpicked the details [...] and then to show up unannounced to physically confront them.

I mean, this very much does sound like abuse. What are you going on about and what is your issue with the post?

I think lots of people on the spectrum would gladly grow vegetables or kill chickens over having to go to the grocery store. Tolerance levels on activities placing you in highly social situations with overwhelming stimuli can be significantly lower for people on the spectrum.