The people of Iceland are intelligent, as evidenced by their jailing of bankers and election of the Pirate Party, so would not hand him over. If small-minded people cared 1% as much about holding their own government accountable as they did whistleblowers, imagine how much better society would be?
I don't think there's anything personal or political about corrupt people getting punished for their crimes instead of being bailed out without taking any individual responsibility.
See, I do believe from what I have read that the icelandic banker's convictions were mostly a political move to keep the very small (and thus very easily rally-able) Icelandic population happy after their savings (which always do carry a risk - that's why you get interest) were lost in the icesave collapse.
Just like them essentially declaring bankrupcy and not paying their debts afterwards was.
And I do not think criminal cases should be influenced about what result is politically preferable.
I don't understand. There were 15 people jailed who took part in illegal activities. But the vast majority of Icelandic bankers did not take part in illegal activities. They just did a really really bad job. Therefore they weren't jailed.
Unless you think that Iceland only had 15 bankers?
The prisons would be overflowing. Not a bad pitch for the reintroduction of private prisons! :)
When a system of government becomes so corrupt as to allow actual criminals to run for the highest office, there is something severely wrong.
The hoi polloi, unwashed masses, etc are becoming politically conscious, but it's too late. We've all traded our freedom and privacy for fleeting digital experiences that ultimately have no meaning. We all chose this path collectively when we chose not to speak up for what is good and just. But hey, it's all relative anyway, right?
In the end, the 21st century will be marked by nihilism and cynicism.
This is horrible logic and ignores important opt-in/opt-out dynamics which are critical to our conception of privacy. By enabling "self-destruct," (or "disappear") the sender merely forces the recipient to "opt-in" and take affirmative action in order to archive the message (i.e. Screenshot). This is how telephone conversations generally work -- no recording unless one party takes action to tape it. Despite this ability to tape, we certainly still consider telephone to be more "secure" due to this archival distinction. Very often it is the advice of lawyers to avoid putting something in writing, and communicate it in person or over the phone instead. Disappearing messages brings us closer to this desirable ephermerality.
Is there a way from preventing certain contacts from knowing I'm on Signal? Like, it is embarrassing that Jason from college knows I'm on Signal. I know you guys will disagree and say it is not embarrassing, but it seems that a privacy-focused app would respect this notion. Obviously being a member of certain apps (grindr) can be seen as negative. I think I should be able to Whitelist my contacts.
This is a feature I would like not only in Signal, but also in platforms like Telegram and Wire. There are several valid reasons not to announce one's presence on a messaging platform to everyone who somehow has your phone number or address.
Telegram allows using a username to mask sharing the phone number with new contacts, but its initial setup is based on the phone number and it insists on notifying everyone who has your number that you've joined the platform. Messaging platforms would be much better if they considered such things as privacy issues and provided more control in the user's hands, with sensible defaults and good initial setup instructions.
I don't disagree with your general point, but I'm curious, why would having a privacy-focused app be embarassing? I'm curious what kind of attitude you have for it, or what you expect some of your contacts to think of it.
Because it makes me look like a drug dealer. Which is to say it is easy for me to guess why most the people in my contacts who use Signal, use Signal. Some are journalists. Some are tech researchers. The guys with bad jobs who aren't good at computers make me wonder...
Sounds like the image we should move away from, so it gets better for everyone. While I don't disagree with your previous point, I think part of the reason for OWS to do this might be to nudge people like you towards this being mainstream, instead of okay, so why is this guy using this?
Many of my contacts use Signal because some computery person that wants to talk to them kept telling them to use it. They're not techy themselves, but it's not suspicious at all in my opinion.
