Police training teaches officers to try to elicit evidence of criminal behavior in every interaction with the public.
An officer is always, always, always, trying to find evidence that you have committed a crime any time they are talking to you, observing you, or searching your property. Every interaction with a police officer is an adversarial encounter.
While I disagree with your view that police reliably handle privacy and personal data with "respect and circumspection", it's unfortunate that you're being downvoted for expressing a legitimate opinion.
I suspect it's probably because the exceptions to the rule bump privacy violations to the top of the news by a very vocal and outraged minority. But if you consider the magnitude of personal data the police must have access to on a daily basis that is kept secure and confidential and eventually destroyed compared to the occasional news story we hear about, they're doing a much better job than we give them credit for.
Also - as IT people, I bet the majority of us have access to a huge amount of personal data on a daily basis as well. I would absolutely say the majority of us treat this data with respect and circumspection and that only a tiny few don't.
Please don't mistake me for a police apologist, I'm well aware of their capabilities and actions, especially border police, but the polarising us vs them culture separates us and makes us disempowered victims. If you genuinely, honestly care about data privacy and the privacy of those you communicate with, use encryption.
That's a rather naive view. If you come to their attention and provide a useful, low-friction solution to achieving their metrics then all those statements become invalid.
For what has to be the billionth time: when a company stops you from posting hate speech on their platform, your first amendment rights have not been violated.
It takes some serious cojones to declare your support of the principles of free speech upon which western democracy is built, and then when someone points out your hypocrisy in censoring declare "Im not violating the law!!!!"
No. You're not. You're just (legally) attacking the principles upon which your society is built.
For a random small company - sure. But not for a large infrastructural company that can pretty much silence you if a handful of other large infrastructural companies follow.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
I assume you'll be filing suit against Der Spiegel,Le Monde, and The Economist for failing to publish your articles?
Seriously, I would bet that "impart information and ideas through any media" doesn't mean that you have the right to use others' equipment, venue, and name.
Just because you pay for something, doesn't mean I have to continue to sell it to you.
Now - if the Daily Stormer paid for services, and wasn't refunded their money after their access was pulled, that's one thing.
But if the money was returned to them, and they were told "We won't sell you this service any longer, because you have violated our terms of service" - then the company offering the services are free and clear to do that.
If the DS wants to continue broadcasting their speech, they are welcome to set up their peering services, dns providers, and DDOS prevention and CDN services themselves. And, if someone violates their terms of service, they are just as free to stop providing services to them.
But companies aren't required to give someone a bullhorn to amplify their voice.
Well you can't follow just a bit of the UN charter:
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
That is trivially true. The first amendment forbids the government from suppressing free speech, but the moral principle of a liberty to engage in free expression exists prior to the first amendment in the same way as the right to life is prior to Title 18, U.S. Code Chapter 51.
Even as a moral principle, free speech isn't a blank check to express whatever you want without consequences. The founders of free speech principles even acknowledge this with the harm principle, where someone's free speech liberty can be hindered if the expressions cause harm.
I did not claim that free speech should completely unconstrained, and I don't see how such an inference can be drawn from my point above. My point was simply that the scope of the principle that free speech ought to be protected is not bounded by the limits of the first amendment because it is a moral principle that exists prior to codification in law.
You simply stated that free speech as a moral principle wasn't constrained by the law. I was just reminding you that free speech as a moral principle still has constraints, which are relevant to the discussion of expressions that historically harm others (child pornography, Nazism, etc.)
"Sufficient personal network to apply to work at Built For Me via a personal recommendation rather than just submitting an application through AngelList."
This is the way it works pretty much anywhere. A personal recommendation from a trusted employee or someone they know is worth a lot more than an application submitted from someone unknown.
They're just explicitly stating that although knowing the right people is not a requirement, it will work a lot better in getting you in the door.
My current company, in fact, has grown almost entirely from employee recommendations, and it has worked out well. The fact that you know someone is good from previous experience greatly reduces the chance of getting someone who doesn't work out.
