Yeah, but at least we managed to get that hateful bigot out of the company! That's important, right? </sarcasm>
More seriously, we really do have a problem, but it looks like the users just don't want to be free.
More seriously, we really do have a problem, but it looks like the users just don't want to be free.
The users don't care. I have never been able to convince a layperson why DRM should matter at all to them, have you?.
Unless the world population suddenly decides to become digitally literate enough to understand the web in a programmer's context, these patterns of bad unwritten standards will continue out of convenience for the "soccer mom" end user.
Here are a few cases I recall:
Microsoft screwed a bunch of people with PlaysForSure. Even the brown bar of turd wouldn't play it:
The Zune and PlaysForSure music are both
Certified for Windows Vista, yet the Zune
cannot play PlaysForSure music purchased
from the MSN Music Store[1]
Some hardcore baseball fans have been left
stranded on third base by Major League Baseball
after it decided to change DRM systems. As a
result, game footage purchased under the old
DRM scheme are no longer viewable, leaving fans
with unwatchable footage—and no refunds.[2]
Adobe just became an unwritten standard... again.
Surely there was, at least, some kind of open-source alternative for getting/fetching/caching these keys? Or does it truly rely on blackbox obfuscation?
The client ultimately has to decrypt the data somehow. So the key is there on the client. I take it obfuscation is the only thing standing between the user and that key. Am I correct about that?
Which makes me wonder: How much security does HTML5 DRM really provide? Security through obscurity is a very weak defense, and one that is almost invariable defeated sooner or later. Will this really prove a hindrance to piracy in the long run?
Of course an audit of OpenSSL would do the same.
It Does, because it is illegal(at least in the US) to reverse engineer it.
I don't necessarily disagree. But how, other than through obscurity, does HTML5 DRM inhibit copying, given that the client possesses the decryption key? (Let's assume the would-be attackers aren't dissuaded by any laws that might apply.)
1) Find out the drive name and model number. 2) Find and download a firmware file for that drive. 3) Patch the firmware to turn it either into RPC1 or into auto-restarting RPC2. 4) Flash the file. 5) Carefully never ever use certain software and always cancel out of certain dialog boxes.
All this just because rights-holders want to stop you buying a new DVD from outside your region."
It's the same thing as "Oh I'm sure the government COULD access all my data, but why would they want to?"
Region-locking affects more people than you might think, just not with DVDs anymore. Most of the world using reddit/hackernews/the internet is constantly faced with the frustration of clicking on a youtube link and seeing the copyright notice that says the content is restricted to US-only.
It would be nice if it told me which regions were allowed, so I knew which VPN I should use :P
That's true, but I think it's a cop out.
When Google, Microsoft and Netflix specced, implemented and shipped EME, there was no significant pushback. Of course, as you say, average users don't care - they don't even understand the issue. But tech people didn't care enough either.
Instead, tech people flocked to products made by at least 2 of those 3 responsible for EME. And they kept installing those products for their non-techie relatives and so forth.
The real reason EME was not stopped is that people in the tech industry didn't care. A few of us did, of course, but the majority of us simply didn't. Most tech people agree that DRM is bad, but as a group we did not decrease our usage of Google, Microsoft and Netflix products containing EME.
We could have stopped this. We didn't.
It is possible for someone to be a brilliant technologist and an otherwise awful person. And before someone takes me to task for the words "awful person" - sorry, that's my evaluation of someone who'd rather lose their job than say sorry for the prejudice.
Being vocal/hysterical about something doesn't imply it's a dominant opinion.
Either way, you won. I hope it was worth it.
You personally, the guy typing the letters into this box, what do you think the outcome of such a "negotiation" would be if it were as successful as humanly possible?
At the end of the day, Mozilla's entire mission statement is contrary to Eich's stated beliefs.
Were we talking about peons rather than C-levels, the words would be "bad culture fit".
Where were these beliefs stated, other than a campaign contribution?
Does someone who donates to a presidential campaign envision any other outcome than election of the donate-ee?
Does someone who donates to a political lobbying group envision any other outcome other than fulfillment of the lobbying group's goals?
It's not like he donated to someone who just happened to have an odious belief, he donated to a group who's entire reason for existing is straight-up bigotry.
At best, you infer support--similarly, you might say that by voting for Obama one supports drone strikes on civilians.
This whole thing is screwy enough as it is without putting words in people's mouths to then feign outrage over.
If you don't see the difference between donating to a politician who has an entire constellation of beliefs, and donating to a single purpose lobbying campaign, we've nothing further to discuss.
The responsible thing is to say "Well, that looks odd, but he hasn't said anything else, so let's give him the benefit of a doubt, as he's done well by the people over whom he has direct authority."
That's obviously not what anybody has done.
That's what I'm trying to get through to you.
It's not just the donation.
It's not just the fact that he'd rather quit a CEO position rather than answer a direct question about it. (Which is pretty damning all by itself - but.)
It's not just the fact that he still hasn't addressed it.
It's all of those things taken together, that paint him in a very poor light. Every defense you can possibly come up with makes no sense in light of one of those three facts.
And on a more personal note, my charity for Mr. Eich ran out when he took a shot at me and a few million others and didn't even have the fortitude to own it or apologize for it. There it hangs in the air like the scent of rotting meat, unaddressed, maybe people hope it'll go away if it's ignored long enough. People have been killed, driven to suicide, and otherwise treated as second class citizens thanks to the lies of the organization he chose to directly support. (You should look at the ads sponsored by the Prop 8 people - they're really something else!)
My charity stops well short of that point.
Perhaps it's not rational to place someone in the same mental bucket as Cathy and Robertson and Phelps, especially since Eich actually had a positive impact on the world via JS and Mozilla, unlike a fast food magnate, a megachurch preacher, and a hate speech spewer.
Perhaps actions speak louder than words.
...Perhaps an apology would be a good start.
Why should he be expected to justify his political and/or religious beliefs to anyone?
Why should he be expected to do that AFTER he resigned?
Ridiculous.
Because it's not his beliefs that people are upset at him for, it's his actions.
Because this goes well beyond Mozilla.
Solidarity used to mean that you look at the bigger picture and don't torpedo groups who are on the same side as you over personal feelings. For 16 years Eich fulfilled his own and his employees' contracts. For 16 years he was completely in line with Mozilla's inclusivity policy. For 16 years he fought for one of the most important social causes and he had that taken away from him because he felt that in supporting the personal beliefs of others he deserved personal beliefs of his own. Not only that, those of us who care about what he fought for had him taken away from us and I am yet to hear one good reason why.
We like to think of politics as a simple matter of supporters and opponents for the cause at hand. But in practice it seems people can be prompted by all sorts of things -- being irked by some aspect of the other campaign, a tangential issue (such as it coming from the people rather than parties), a friend or relative being involved in the campaign -- there are potentially rather a lot of reasons why someone can be prompted into donating to a campaign they might not even vote for.
I absolutely guarantee, had he said something like:
"That was 6 years ago, I did it for $rational_sounding_reason, I don't hate gay people, I'm donating to $LGBT_charity as a token of good will"
..then this entire issue would have been discarded in minutes.
Believe me, I don't want to believe that the guy who wrote JavaScript simultaneously holds backwards beliefs like this. That alone is hard to reconcile, given how inclusive the tech community generally is. But every time I approach this issue, I can't arrive at any other sensible conclusion. The confluence of:
* The donation
* His refusal to repudiate the donation 6 years later
* His refusal to directly address the issue
..does not lend itself well to any other explanation.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/
Their mission statement is to create an open internet.
To suggest that the people that made him leave cared about a culture fit at a company the didn't work at is ludicrous.
"Mozilla-based activities should be inclusive and should support such diversity."
Okay. If Eich was still there, this must logically be followed with:
"..Nevermind that one C-level guy over there who took positive action to deny some of you rights, this absolutely will not impact anything in any way and we as a company still hold these views of diversity and openness."
Having someone with his beliefs at such a high position makes the entire "diversity" thing ring rather hollow. No matter what you think of the whole situation, I think you can see the dissonance that would cause.
My experience with human beings is that precisely nobody can silo their beliefs like that.
So we need to stop discrimination before it happens? How do you feel about implementing some pre-crime measures nation-wide? As soon as he started advocating some anti-gay hiring policies, or rejecting pull requests from transvestites, then the consequences would've made sense to me.
Though that's an idealist view, in reality letting him stay would've been interpreted as an endorsment by all the people making a huge fuss about it, in my ideal world no one would've cared to begin with.
Instead of adding to their CPG you should've actually read the parts that don't agree with your view
> Some Mozillians may identify with activities or organizations that do not support the same inclusion and diversity standards as Mozilla
Diversity and inclusion should mean including people who don't agree with diversity and inclusion.
In reality letting him stay would've been interpreted as an endorsement by all the people making a huge fuss about it
Those people "making a huge fuss about it" were denied equal rights for an additional six years thanks, in part, to Eich. Are you suggesting they should have just shut up? Where do you draw the line?
Diversity and inclusion should mean including people who don't agree with diversity and inclusion.
We're going to have to disagree on that. Rights are rights - I don't see how tolerating someone who thinks gays are inferior is one whit different than tolerating someone who thinks blacks or women are inferior.
At "anger doesn't justify actions that hurt others". I'm not sure what your point is, getting him fired didn't help... A guy was denied the first amendment and mozilla lost a talented engineer, a net loss.
> Rights are rights - I don't see how tolerating someone who thinks gays are inferior is one whit different than tolerating someone who thinks blacks or women are inferior.
Provided they do not act on those beliefs, I agree, people should not be persecuted based on some beliefs ingrained in them from childhood. Looks like I'm more tolerant than you are.
Provided they do not act on those beliefs,
But he did act on them. Eich didn't get people mad at him because he thought gay people were icky, he got people mad at him because he took action to strip away their rights.
And kindly can the personal attacks.
Can you please point out where he said gays are inferior?
This is basically a variant of the argument that is used by religious business owners who don't want to serve gay people... "you are infringing on our right to practice our religion!" they say.
The point being, you have rights, but you don't have the right to infringe on other people's rights.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/part...
> You personally, the guy typing the letters into this box, what do you think the outcome of such a "negotiation" would be if it were as successful as humanly possible?
I think it would have been adults acting like adults and accepting you don't have to agree with somebody in order to work with them. Eich already demonstrated he was willing and able to do just that.
From 1998 when Eich co-founded Mozilla to 2005, after seven years as the chief technologist and member of the board, how did he misuse his power? From 2005 to 2014 while Eich was Mozilla's CTO, was Mozilla hostile to the LGBT community? How many discrimination lawsuits did Mozilla have to settle because of him?
Eich spent 16 years at or near the top of the Mozilla, yet there's no pattern of discrimination, not only is there no pattern I've been unable to find any evidence whatsoever that he was unable to set personal differences aside. Worse yet for your case is that Eich helped build a very inclusive company where LGBT persons have always been, from what I can tell, quite welcome.
[0] - https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ [1] - https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/
The question is actually "Is it appropriate for someone who takes active steps to treat some people as undeserving of basic rights[1] to take the ultimate leadership role in a diversity focused company?"
That answer is no.
Going back to your "negotiation" statement - he was given that option! The pichforks didn't truly come out until the number of his non-answers on the issue. Someone saying "we support diversity" doesn't sound right when that can be instantly rebutted with "Then why is your company run by someone who donated against LGBTs?"
It looks bad for Mozilla, and there's no good answer for that question - really!
Eich had three valid options from that point on:
* He could repudiate the donation and this would have evaporated overnight. Those views were apparently important enough to him to prevent such an option.
* He could not do so and stay, and Mozilla would suffer due to the volume of people who stated they would not work for or with someone who did what he did.
Two things to keep in mind: People are/were angry at Eich for his actions, not his thoughts. His thoughts are not conclusively knowable, his actions are.
Also remember that Prop 8 passed, and it took another 6 years for equal marriage rights to clear in California as a result - were I living in California during that time, I'd have felt pretty scandalized too, moreso if I were actually working for Mozilla at the time.
* He could not do so and move on. This was the chosen option.
[1]: http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-...
First, it's not a "diversity focused company" it's a company focused on building a Free and Open internet. Being socially inclusive in their internal culture is secondary. Moreover Eich's definition of inclusivity was perfectly in line with Mozilla's which is that not only are sexual orientations protected but so are religious views as long as the person interacts constructively with the community. He had his personal religious views and by all accounts he didn't let them prevent him from interacting constructively with the Mozilla community.
> "...and Mozilla would suffer due to the volume of people who stated they would not work for or with someone who did what he did."
It was less than 10 employees who asked him to step down, none of them were his direct reports, how many threatened to leave?
There's absolutely no reason that he should be forced to apologize for his donation. I don't agree with the donation but I'm an American and I think it's extremely dangerous to go down the road of persecuting others for taking part in political campaigns, etc.
I agree with you that Eich's actions are to a large extent known, so I again challenge you to provide me with a single shred of evidence that in his 16 years at Mozilla Eich treated even one member of the LGBT community unfairly from his position of power.
But again, we're not worried about Eich's impact on Mozilla, which was, as you say, positive. I don't think he did abuse his power or hurt anybody by his actions at Mozilla - at least not from the 90's to 08 which is when the first inkling of his views became public.
More importantly, Mozilla does not exist in a vacuum - and in my mind, accepting this without protest equates to putting the success of a single company over the rights of untold numbers of people.
Let me try this another way. Put yourself in the shoes of an LGBT working there. Your boss appears to be a nice guy, very professional, a technical genius. He's up for promotion to C-E-frickin-O!
..and then you find out via the outrage machine that he's donating to groups whose /one and only/ reason for existing is to marginalize you.
Imagine how that would hit you.
What do you think that will do to your working relationship with that person?
Would you be proud to say you work at Mozilla after he becomes basically the guy running it? "Mozilla now run by a bigot" - and worse, that wouldn't even be an exaggeration!
Your boss apparently isn't such a nice guy after all.
Does it make at least little more sense now?
This role playing exercise aside. I really, truly, do not understand how you (the collective HN readers "you") can on one hand be upset at the community for expressing their displeasure at Mozilla (and sure, there were idiots that took it too far, but the consensus was loud and clear), and on the other hand, be perfectly okay with Eich reaching into his own wallet to help marginalize people (and having looked at the website again, linking Mozilla's name to it!![1]).
This view is fundamentally alien to me - I'm a geek, but at the end of the day, the people are more important than the computers. I cannot see the justice in placing Mozilla's well being over millions of people's basic rights.
Imagine you were a staunch socialist, and your boss is friendly, supportive, and competent. Then, she gets promoted to CEO. And you find out the CEO of your company donated massive bucks at a fundraising dinner for, say, Mitt Romney. What do you think your working relationship?
Hint: you shouldn't be a single-issue person. If they've done well by you and others, even if you disagree with them or function differently than them politically, you should treat them with courtesy and kindness.
I think your example sucks, because as previously mentioned above, a person is not an issue. Donating to a guy and donating to a cause are two different things
you initially wanted to paint Eich as this evil bigot
With that, I am not participating further in this conversation. Either I am not communicating clearly, or you have some other reason for choosing to ignore things I've already covered. Either way, this is no longer constructive and we're both wasting our time.
I've worked with people who endured things like metal holding their bones together because the people who managed them couldn't be bothered to look out for their safety. So do I care that somebody might have their feelings hurt by their CEO's social views? Not really, not when there's zero evidence he created a hostile or unfair workplace.
> and then you find out via the outrage machine that he's donating to groups whose /one and only/ reason for existing is to marginalize you.
This is just ridiculous, it's like you never took the time to understand why people supported Prop 8. They were afraid their churches would be forced to marry same-sex couples and when they expressed that fear they were called bigots so they sought legal protections. I'm not religious and I don't go around apologizing for them very often, but I think calling them bigots it's going too far.
> ....The pichforks didn't truly come out until the number of his non-answers on the issue. Someone saying "we support diversity" doesn't sound right when that can be instantly rebutted with "Then why is your company run by someone who donated against LGBTs?"
> It looks bad for Mozilla, and there's no good answer for that question - really!
I think this accidentally hits the nail right on the head. Eich had to go because people couldn't handle the complexity of the situation and so they chose a simplified version where everybody involved was either good or evil. The reality was Prop 8 wasn't so great, but that's a lot of baby to throw out with a very small amount of bathwater.
So for you the best course of action would be to hypocritically pretend to be sorry in order to appease the clamour of the crows? And as he didn't, as he stayed true to his positions not flipping like a coward because he was pressured to do so, he deserves what he got?
But I'm sure you know this already. If you still don't give a damn, it's because you firmly believe that anyone that doesn't share your values on such a (fashionable) issue as gay marriage is a horrible person who deserves to be scorched clean off the company he founded.
The only reason why it was acceptable in the case of Eich is that he was in a position to represent the views of the company.
If he was a mid level engineer working on Spidermonkey and got fired over a political contribution it would have been completely ridiculous.
Can you give me some data to support your claim? Or do you abide by the motto "The louder I speak the righter I am?"
(There's also the minor issue of running an org with policies directly against your own. While not technically a blocking issue, one must wonder about a person's commitment to something when they are actively against it in their personal life.)
What bothers me more is the way everyone perpetuates the lie that he was fired. Nobody forced him out. The Mozilla board were completely tone-deaf to the outrage it caused. He voluntarily resigned because he realized the harm he was causing the company; but if he wanted to, he could have stuck around anyway.
But if some fantasy narrative exists where the board gave him a secret ultimatum, then I take back what I said about respecting him for not being a liar.
You don't get to hold a witch-hunt and then shrug your shoulders when the witch you were hunting fled town.
But Eich did not have to resign. The board never even so much as asked him to step down. He chose to step down because he realized how toxic he was to his company's reputation as CEO.
The owner of Chik-Fil-A has taken a lot of flack too for his hateful views, but he sticks around anyway. And as a result, I don't eat there. Eich could have done the same if he wanted, and I would have just not used Firefox at all anymore. And now if you don't want to use Firefox because he chose to resign, then don't. That's your right. If you want to complain about others who protested his promotion, do so. That's your right. But don't claim he was fired when he clearly wasn't. Mozilla's own press release states very clearly that it was voluntary.
The tech community tends to be more progressive than fast food consumers, so the pushback was a bit louder. But Eich had plenty of bigots on his side of this, too. After all, roughly 45% of the country still believes gay people are not deserving of equal treatment under the law.
I don't know what you want, some kind of world where people are forced to be tolerant of intolerance?
Regardless of which side you are on, or which side the public was clamoring for, it's basic free speech going on here. People can say whatever they want. And Eich could have done whatever he wanted in response.