anang

Aren't those all examples of civil engagement?

What will a community group change?

What's your answer?

I think I answered that question, note I didn't say "comment online" as a solution.

I guess I don't know who else it's directed at. I think it's important to understand the legality of our law enforcement's actions. I don't think that's an especially controversial take.

I can't really follow. You say "I think the annoying part is that it is clearly illegal under most understandings of the Fourth Amendment," but at the same time say "I also think it's a pointless exercise to understand the legality of it."

I get the feeling the question being asked a bit leading, since you've been pretty hostile to me so far. I don't have a great answer, civil engagement and supporting politicians that also think it should be illegal for private companies to create gigantic mass surveillance dragnets?

There is a certain degree of irony in entirely misrepresenting my point by asserting it's somehow "bad faith."

I don't think it's fair to say that trying to understand if something is legal is a "dance in the ivory tower." Isn't a pretty important part in enacting change understand WHAT needs to change?

My point is this: Flock does not provide access to ICE, if using another person's login is a legal loophole around this then it needs to be specifically addressed and closed.

In no way am I justifying mass surveillance by arguing "if it's legal, it's fine."

I don’t think anyone is implying that it not being illegal would make it ok.

It doesn’t seem like any criminal charges being brought in this case. So sure, an argument could be made that this violates the 4th amendment, but under the current application of the law this seems legal. Which means all and ICE agent needs to get access to flock data is a friend with access. Surely trying to understand that isn’t lazy or justifying anything?

A lot of downvotes for this comment but I think it's an interesting question and shouldn't be downvoted.

It's easy to argue (as lot of people have in this thread) that there is a huge moral difference between sharing access to a streaming service and sharing access to a mass surveillance tool.

But was any criminal law broken? Is it just a violation of Flock's ToS and the biggest consequence is the police department losing access for violating the contract?

It's an important question, because if there isn't really any legal consequences for any of the parties involved then it's worth understanding that and, hopefully, addressing!

If we interpret OP's question in good faith, I don't think they are implying that it should be legal, just asking if it is.

If YUM! brands demonstrated a pattern of negligence that led to frequent food safety issues I think absolutely there should be severe consequences.

Nobody is advocating for a one strike you’re out policy, just that at some point there should be more severe consequences than a fine.

What do you mean “what is a labor market?” That we’ve had an open labor market is fairly modern, and even more modern is the idea of broad workers rights. Would you rather work in a factory now, or 150 years ago? Not everything is always getting better and there are ups and downs, but over a long enough time frame we’re clearly always trending towards better.

I guess I thought it was clear that I understand that soldiers still rape and pillage. But it being illegal anywhere is a fairly modern development.

The implication was that we are worse off now because we have to pay for education, my point is that a black person now may have to pay for education but hundreds of years ago it would have been illegal for them to get any education. To be clear, I don’t mean to imply that we’ve solved all the world’s problems and everything is great, just that I think right does win over wrong over a long enough timespan.

I’m not sure what you mean by “only,” it was just an example.

I just want to understand:

Are you saying that a black person born in South Carolina today has a worse life and with less justice than a black person born into slavery a few hundred years ago?

I don’t think slaves got university educations for free.

Black people were bought and sold in the US just a few hundred years ago.

For years one of the perks of being a soldier was raping and pillaging, now that lands you in prison (depending on the country of course).

The world isn’t some utopia where everyone is treated fairly and there are no oligarchs, but I think it’s hard to argue that the amount of justice is unchanged for all of human history.

I would argue the opposite is true. We’ve gone from despotic theocratic regimes controlling essentiallt every living human in the world to democratic self determination being one of the most prevalent political theories on the planet.

The tolerance for slavery, brutal warfare, institutionalized racism and much more is way lower now than it has been in the past.

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

In my experience success in a project isn't about the amount of code that can be produced, it's more about the thoughtfulness behind features and fixes. A lot of the work going into reviewing pull requests is understanding it in the context of the project's broader goals.

This gets a lot harder when there is a giant wall of text that the pull requester doesn't understand and can't really discuss outside of asking AI (and probably getting "The reviewer is right to push back - I was too aggressive in my blah blah blah" as an answer).

A lot of (but maybe not all) pull requests are fundamentally a human to human task, even if there is a lot of technical details involved.