Your rights and liberties are at stake

Long story short, former tech exec who worked for Mozilla was detained when re-entering the United States (he is a citizen) because he was involved with an organization (Mozilla) that advocates privacy and took measures to try to protect its users from warrantless surveillance. He was detained in customs and interrogated, and (he works for Apple now) it was demanded of him to unlock his work computer so that the FBI could search it

This is truly disgusting and goes to show that forces of a great degree of power are throwing their weight against our civil liberties and rights. This isn’t just the case for Americans.

We need to stand up for our basic human rights against warrantless surveillance, and protect the people that enable us to do so through safe and good technical practices.

He’s now suing for unjust detainment. God I hope he wins. Fucking bullshit.

Thank you Andreas


  • 4
  • 7
    Honestly i'm disgusted when I hear anything about Mozilla. After what they did to dissenter I can't imagine praising them like I once did.

    This does sound a bit like what happened to Avi Yemini when he was entering the US.
  • 6
    @fuck2code I’m not familiar with what you’re referencing. Is this link for that? I’ve always thought Mozilla was a great organization
  • 4
    @FrodoSwaggins also the tr.news link is for an article about a reporter being detained at the us border after comedy central filed complaints about him. They twisted his words on him in an interview and he was coming to sort the situation out but tough luck.
  • 3
    @fuck2code does this relate to Mozilla somehow?
  • 6
    @FrodoSwaggins Mozilla banned dissenter because of muh hate speech. Sorry if I was saying crap, it's just that I'm a bit to passionate about this stuff.
  • 8
    @fuck2code Let's be real. Dissenter regards hate speech as part of free speech, while Mozilla doesn't. Hate speech limits the freedom of minorities affected by it, so it makes sense to not list apps allowing it in your addon store even (or especially) if you are for free speech.

    And that's where you're just completely misrepresenting things. All they did was not list the addon in their store because their review led to the result that its main purpose is making hate speech easier. This is NOT censorship.

    Why is it not censorship? Because the plugin still works. You can still download and install it, just not from Mozilla's official addon store. Just like it's not censorship for me to paint over a graffiti on my house.
  • 3
    @fuck2code Btw I'm not against dissenter or something, I think bigots do have the right to be bigots. But I think it's nice to have safe spaces for minorities where they can spend time without reading slurs about them, and I'm fine with Mozilla choosing all of the addons in their store to offer such safe spaces.
  • 1
    > warrantless surveillance

    What would be an example of warranted surveillance ?

    Isn't the problem that folk don't know who to keep tabs on, so they just cast their net to catch everyone, including the people we would want them to catch ?

    Though I do notice a tendency to go after Joe Blogs who said something nasty about the next doors cat, rather than the serial killer who has been going around knifing people at ATM machines..

    I guess perhaps folk like those don't go around posting video on Facebook about their latest crimes.
  • 4
    @kenogo the supreme court ruled that hate speech is a part of free speech, and an important one at that. Hate speech is a touchy subject since it has such a vague definition, everything can fall under it in some way. Simply voicing my opinion on twitter about something is considered hate speech if it goes against a certain ideology. Dissenter also has plenty of apolitical uses. Remember when toms hardware recommended buying the 2080ti? I also doubt that anyone is being opressed or having their speech restricted just because someone said mean words about a group they are part of. The whole point of free speech is to encourage open discussion, so said people can fight back.
    Even though we may disagree, I appreciate the fact that we are able to discuss this in a polite manner. Even defending gab might make me seem like part of a certain group who did terrible things in the second world war. Also let's be serious, hate speech is only deemed as such when it favors one side
  • 3
    @kenogo writing "punch all the nazis" in your bio is perfectly ok but replacing that with another n word will get you beaten up
  • 2
    @Nanos listening to phone calls of an escaped and wanted murderer that you have a court warrant for.

    Another example is security cameras on private property run by the proprietor. Like an empty warehouse. The only people you’d be spying on then are there to rob it. Obvious use case, It doesn’t have to be a bad thing, it’s just that it often is.

    Using webcams that you don’t own in houses you don’t own to spy on users who haven’t consented to it and aren’t aware of it is different.

    Personally I’m of the opinion it’s usually bad but you can definitely cook up warranted examples.
  • 3

    What about CCTV cameras along the street, is that level of surveillance acceptable ?

    After all, if someone gets mugged, there will be footage..

    What about CCTV cameras that are on peoples property, but are pointing at the street too, shouldn't authorities have access to those, in case they capture a crime like a mugging happening ?

    What about CCTV cameras in your own house, after all, if you get mugged there, you'd want the authorities to gave a copy of the footage wouldn't you ?

    What if you are visiting someone else's house, and get mugged there, wouldn't you want the authorities to have access to that footage to prove you was mugged there and not just making it up ?

    I think its really difficult to know where to draw the line when you think about it.

    One the one hand you want to protect peoples privacy to dust in the nude, but on the other, you don't want your building demolished by terrorists..
  • 3
    @fuck2code It's almost as if there's a pretty big difference between nazis and the 'other n word' people that you think about
  • 2
    @Nanos no that level of surveillance is not acceptable. If it’s something that people are forced to accept to live their lives it’s not acceptable.

    But if I own a warehouse that I store my shit in and want to buy cameras and put them up there’s not a god damn thing you better have to say about it. This is very different that the government putting them there

    I think I made this clear before
  • 1
    @inaba oh i totally agree, i have a problem with nazis but not people of color. Thing is, legally, they are both the same, inciting violence.
  • 3
  • 2
    @fuck2code Well, hate speech actually is illegal in many other countries. And yes, I do think minorities can be oppressed with hate speech. Not in the way black slaves were oppressed in the 19th century, or jews were oppressed in Nazi Germany.

    What I'm talking about is that if a (perceived) majority group starts turning against you and treating you like shit, even if it's "only" verbal insults, it indeed becomes very hard to fight back. You may have the theoretical right to voice your opinion against them, but this will continuously just be met with more degradation. In the end, you might end up avoiding expressing your opinion out of fear.

    About the "punch all the nazis" thing. Well don't you think there's a significant difference between the statements? One resents people who have a (I think we can agree on that) very disgusting set of opinions that goes against human rights. The other resents people for the color of their skin. I'm also glad we can discuss this without insults :)
  • 3
    @fuck2code I mean if you remove all form of nuance then having sex with another person and having sex with a car is the same thing as well.

    Punching someone for hating people for being born and punching someone for being born are, imo, two completely different things
  • 3
    Technically, the "punch all the nazis" phrase is hate speech too regardless of what we think of that group of people.
  • 3
    @jimmy213 you’d be surprised how many snowflakes in America can’t wrap their head around that concept. Sure, we all (mostly) understand that Nazis did horrible things, but before you know it the sentence is “punch all Republicans for being republicans” and then you’d think that would be obvious, but not to snowflakes.
  • 1
    @FrodoSwaggins clarifying above statement: “would be obvious that is hate speech”
  • 0

    > no that level of surveillance is not acceptable.

    Where should the line be ?

    Is that a yes for CCTV in the streets ?

    FX [ Ponders wearing bodycam with off site backup when next outside in case anything happens and he requires evidence.. ]
  • 0
    I'm reminded of this TV series:



    Would we be happy if aliens took over because we valued our privacy more than our societies security ?
  • 1
    @Nanos there’s only so many ways I can say no to CCTV on the streets. I said no literally and explained why

    When the surveillance is beyond the control of those being surveyed it’s not acceptable.

    If I want to set up my own personally owned cameras in my house I can do that and that’s fine. It’s my house. The streets are public. If the street outside my house has cameras on it that I don’t run then I can’t leave my own house without being videoed. I think there’s a tremendous amount of room in between these two things and it’s hard to determine the ordering function but it should be fairly obvious how these two compare and that the line is strictly within that interval.
  • 1

    Thanks for explaining, it wasn't clear to me at first !

    What about folk who wander around with CCTV cameras on them ?

    I'm also reminded about vehicles there too..
  • 1
    @Nanos very not ok with that either. Even our smartphones are a surveillance network. Even if you assume that the manufacturer doesn’t snoop on the camera feed, which is not a bet I would take, people willingly put pictures on Instagram and Facebook where they run their machine learning bullshit on it and bam, comprehensive and deadly surveillance network.
  • 0

    Cameras on vehicles are useful if there is an accident.

    I'm reminded about:


    > Police with body cameras receive

    > 93% fewer complaints – study

    I wonder if that is because they behave better, or because people don't want to complain knowing they aren't going to look good in the video footage..

    You'd think by that logic, having CCTV in schools would make children behave better..

    And people on the street behaving better. (I'm not sure it makes any difference to street behaviour does it ?)

    So, if we replace CCTV with Stasi style informers, would that be acceptable ?

    Related link:

  • 0
    I'm thinking, imagine a situation where a crime hasn't happened yet, and a bunch of folk are sitting around a table at a pub talking about robbing a shop at gunpoint and being prepared to shoot someone if anyone tries to stop them.

    At what point would surveillance be an acceptable method to catch them before the crime happens ?

    I'm guessing, not a bugged table in a pub. :-)

    Or should surveillance only occur after a crime has been committed ?

    After all, what if the people are sitting around the table talking about taking over the government, and its just all talk..
  • 3
    @Nanos I’m of the opinion that it’s not worth trading freedom for security.
  • 1

    FX [ Nods in agreement. ]
Your Job Suck?
Get a Better Job
Add Comment