Except if they invest a whole $0 in a letsencrypt cert or any service with one.... or have they persuaded the services to allow them to MITM their own citizens?
In practice, are Americans better off for having the US idea of free speech than Western Europeans whose rights generally aren't as well guaranteed?
It's a right that Americans are very proud of, but the edge cases when contrasted to what other countries have in practice seem to all be net negatives.
First of all, I have literally never heard a critique about the negatives of american free speech. Could you help me understand the negatives?
Second, I do think americans are majorly better off than western europeans for free speech. Consider efforts to ban wearing clothing: that is not how you build a healthy, supportive, productive society, though it is perhaps how you let a culture stagnate. Or, perhaps consider this very article: it is not illegal to read something. (Possesion and distribution are another thing entirely.)
Finally, for better or worse, american free speech has plenty of bounds. Critically, those bounds are typically nowhere near politics or morals, except perhaps reflected in hate speech.
Mostly, yes America is better off, although I agree with peteretp's examples that we're seeing the worst side of "freedom to lie" and "money as speech" come to fruition.
But there are all sorts of weird exceptions and the practicality of free speech has different contours. Extremely prudish but pro-violence film ratings, for example. "Ag-gag" laws (which were eventually struck down).
>The free speech worst case scenario is not American but Rwandan:
I agree that was horrendous; however why is it the worst case? The US military also funds and sponsors media, and lies to create war. Why were the Rwandan government's provocations worse than the US's? More people have died in The War on Terror. Both wars were unjust, for power and profit, and targeted specific ethnic groups.
Rwanda's genocide itself does have a particularly evil nature. I'm just trying to show that it is difficult to say which is more evil.
Free speech isn't perfect; it is just better than the alternative.
>the worst side of "freedom to lie"
There are already laws against false accusations and lying. So in theory, if someone slanders a rape-survivor group by saying they have no right to be upset, etc., because they were not raped, the accuser can be held liable for those false accusations, which is a good thing. I support free speech strongly, but I don't think people have the right to deliberately lie about individuals, groups or businesses, without consequences.
> I have literally never heard a critique
> about the negatives of american free
> speech
Off the top of my head, I consider Citizens United, marketing of pharmaceuticals directly to consumers, and unregulated TV news to be negatives.
> I do think americans are etc
It remains legal to read this article in all Western European countries. As to banning clothing, there are plenty of places in the US where you can't cover your face. What are actual examples in practice of how us Euros are worse off?
I gave you examples. :) Europeans who wish to wear a hijab may be abused based on where they are; that simple! It is not illegal to cover your face in public in America, and even if it were, the Hijab covers hair; the burkha might cover a face. This article is not what I would be worried about—rather, the anarchist handbook, for instance, or an explanation of encryption, or how to fool facial recognition in public.
Nonetheless, you are extraordinarily correct about citizens united, though I would more finger the blame there on corporate personhood, not free speech. The protections still make sense for individual; corporations do not make sense of individuals.
My issue is not that they had the vulnerability, but that the vulberability allowed full access to social security numbers and it wasn’t even the “critical” database!
You can take proactive efforts to minimize the risk of breaches; they appeared to store large amounts of unencrypted (or encrypted in aggregate) personally identifiably information together and allowed a single struts vulnerability unfettered access.
For instance, one could not duplicate social security numbers, or could allow you to encrypt your data so you need to provide a key for others to access it. The possibilities are endless.
My design would be a ZeroMQ message bus between the database server and the application server. Social Security numbers shouldn't need to be displayed to the user (as they should already know it) thus all the message bus should be carrying is "it matches" or "it doesn't match" in regards to them.
Frankly you shouldn’t ever look at porn on a work machine, no matter how much they encourage you to think of it as your personal machine. It is only a liability.
Yes, you can. The cookie settings are per-container (and there’s a surprising amount of customization per domain, though I wish it had decent wildcard support, it turns out to not be much of an issue).
I think what parent meant was: if I use one container for webmail, can I set it to remember my webmail cookie, but not any cookies from links I open from my email?
Is there now an option to whitelist specific origins, and block all other cookies by default?
Yea, it definitely continues to be an annoyance. I have some great bluetooth headphones, but if I forget them I can’t exactly pick up a cheap pair. The adapter works well but it’s easy to lose, especially if you want to use it in a car and also have to remember the lightning splitter so you can charge your phone at the same time.
That said, totally worth the improvements in water resistance. I use it in the shower all the time.
> I'm sure you could get by working part time for 15 hours a week if you gave up all of your modern conveniences and lived outdoors in a tent, but it wouldn't be very enjoyable.
It’s interesting you’d say that. I agree on average, but the enjoyment in that lifestyle would be hard to imagine in ours. I don’t think it’s hard to see our perception of pleasurable things is different from frequency.
Frankly I think there are only small, incremental improvements to happiness possible after modern healthcare and plumbing. Which are, granted, still extremely expensive where I live.
Well, I think the obvious way to solve this is simply to make it obvious the translation is occuring with a third party (who may do anything with the data). I think this is still fantastic technology even if it is limited to public conversations.
