Half of twitter's staff have access to that information so that they can potentially use it. Security dude was security dude and tried to restrict access to that information. Company said no.
There's more to it than that. Engineers can romp around in the production system - generally without leaving a trail that could get them in trouble - while doing a LOT more than just looking at web server log files. For example, he pointed out that half the company (some 4000 people) could send tweets from user accounts AS that user, and leave no trail. Multiply egregious stuff like that times dozens of other examples (like
For a publicly traded company, I'd personally find that concerning as an investor when its supposed to launch people next year
Whew! What a relief that SpaceX is privately owned, then, and NOT publicly traded, right?
Sigh, this country needs to abolish political parties and career politicians. And lobbyists. and...
Which means abolishing the First Amendment. It guarantees that people can assemble into groups as they see fit (like, say, political parties). It guarantees that you can pay someone to speak on your behalf if they're better at it than you, or can do so on behalf of a larger group in order to be more effective (like, say, lobbyists).
If you think freedom of speech and assembly is no good, all you have to do is get a federal supermajority in the legislature to see your point and kill the entire Bill of Rights (it can't be picked apart on amendment at a time), and then get 37 states to ratify that alteration to the Constitution. Should be no problem.
Or
Whatever it is, we have been dealing with this and a host of other issues from them for years.
Absolutely love the boards, and some of the staff is really cool, but the company really is abusive when it comes to this sort of stuff.
That's the whole point of this next gen smart gun. So that won't happen. Again, statistics show that what is most likely to happen is not that someone will be robbed in a way that allows them to use their firearm, but that a family member will accidentally kill themselves or another in the household. That's what this is supposed to prevent, and if it can prevent that while overcoming any response time issues when fighting off an intruder, why wouldn't you want something like that?
No, proponents of this sort of absurd hobbling of a well understood range of mechanical devices with untold millions of examples in use
Your entire thesis (the "most people get killed by their own family's guns!" meme) has been debunked on its rhetorical face value for years. It's a preposterous statistic to deploy, even if you stipulate it as even close to meaningful. The number of such household deaths (the overwhelming majority of which are suicides) is utterly eclipsed by the hundreds of thousands of times a year that family owned firearms are used to stop or prevent violent crime (see the recent, third study in a row out of the FBI, or the one done under Obama by the CDC). Firearms that can be picked up by any member of the household - even with gloves or wet hands or while not being the Magic Ring Bearer - save more lives every year than all murderers take, using any weapon at all, by orders of magnitude. And virtually all non-suicide deaths employing a household gun are deaths involving illegally possessed guns kept by people who are legally barred from purchasing or possessing them, with the murders involved typically including third party criminal activity that enters the household.
Laws requiring everyone to own only badly secured, unreliable "smart" guns won't put a dent in the murderous activity of criminals who can build their own traditional firearms as has been done for centuries, or have access to a vast black market of stolen or illegally purchased guns in the tens of millions.
Don't kid yourself or try to kid anyone else about the viability of this technology outside of some extremely specific use cases. The main interest in them, legislatively, is the ability to chip away at our constitutionally protected right to self defense by making the tools of that defense wildly more expensive or for many, unobtainable. That regressive tax on self defense falls, of course, hardest on those who most need it: it's a tax on poor people and the minorities that are over-represented in that economic class and most often subject to the violent crime that legs gun owners currently prevent tens of thousands of times every week. The politicians who live in gated communities with protection details know all of this, but are sure it won't impact them. After all, their own armed guards will be exempt from any requirement to carry such hobbled firearms. Of course.
They did have guns.
And yet the only person who used a gun at all, and did so to kill an unarmed person who had three armed officers right behind her, was a cop.
during the attempted coup
You don't really understand what a coup is, do you.
I understand that the press has settled on insurrection to describe the event, but I sure wish they would call it for what it really was: an attempted coup d'etat.
So
And if you're somehow right, and it's just that nobody NOTICED the previous "coup" attempts that proceeded in exactly the same way on the floor of congress, why is it that nobody has been charged with participating in an coup attempt? Nobody has been charged with insurrection, either. Strange, huh? It's almost like a handful of wound up rioters made a stink, got busted, and are getting legal treatment that nobody on the left got the entire previous summer when they spent night after night trying to burn down federal buildings, torch federal agents alive, etc. If THAT's not insurrection, then neither is strolling through the barricades that the Capitol Police have just removed and waved you through. Or walking between the rope lines in the Rotunda taking selfies before strolling back out the door again after having a smiling chat and posing for more selfies with even more Capitol Police who held the doors open for them. But people who did exactly that are being held for months on end in squalid conditions, in solitary confinement. Never mind, you're an anonymous coward. You know all of this already, but like to troll.
It's not at all the public square.
In the public square, you see and hear everyone, and everyone has equal ability to be heard.
But that's just not true. If I'm in the public square saying my piece, there's nothing stopping you and ten friends from drowning me out by shouting louder, or standing in a circle round me holding up bigger signs so mine can't be seen. The professional activist types literally give and take classes on how to make the public square unavailable to voices they don't like, and it's motivated by the same sensibilities that do that in professional, academic, and government circles. Operations like Facebook have special accounts and access set up so that government officials can flag speech they don't like on such platforms. Examples of this being used have come out in trial depositions. I have no problem with FB saying, "we don't like this kind of talk." I DO have a problem with someone sitting in the Old Executive Office Building across from the White House being given the keys to a portal that allows them to flag social media content that doesn't toe the line, politically. THAT is a blatant 1A violation, manifested through, yes, a private company. The (more literal) public square, though, is still an arms race, as usual. So of course people need to band together, pool resources, and act in concert to prevent themselves from being silenced by those doing the same. The difference, in our society, is that the people who are literally paid to do that in the public square tend to hew to a particular political/world view.
"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds
