> After being notified of the password issue, Olsen said Fortify would stop transmitting users’ unencrypted passwords to Facebook. As we went to press, the issue had not yet been addressed.
Oftentimes lost in these discussions (even in the posts here so far), is the fact that what is discussed is often done so under the implicit assumption that these tools are written perfectly. But a key consideration with regard to privacy is precisely that that is rarely the case. Even if you think these tools are hypothetically useful, you have to bake into the equation the relatively high probability that all this information will end up hacked and leaked to the public. Under those conditions I feel that it becomes pretty hard to defend these apps.
The problem is that there are precious little alternatives.
This article focused on Christians as a primary user of these tools. Put yourself in a Christian's shoes for a minute. You, being a Christian, are convinced your impulses and desires lead you to what is often harmful to yourself and those around you, and most importantly dishonoring to a God who you are convinced is honorable and good.
You don't want to just say "no internet", but much content on the internet is so very well tailored to those impulses and desires. You are often presented with content that requires an immediate internal fight, and you know that some of those fights don't turn out the way you want.
Look, when you are committed to fighting, you'll reach for any tool at hand. I'm not going to wait for a tank to magically appear for me when someone throws a punch at me.
Unfortunately even though these churches are using tools with privacy issues, at the end of the day: it's what is available. And, the fact that the whole concern of personal privacy is often times at odds with the bigger fight doesn't help.
I think this makes sense if you are trying to fight this, find this solution, and determine it is right for you. However, it feels like the "tool chooser" in many of these scenarios is different from the "tool user". A world that was geared towards individuals that wanted to fight their own impulses might create an app that just shut down your phone when you looked at questionable material, or charged you (like a "cursing jar" app). These apps instead seem to be "observer-centric", not "observed-centric". As such, it appears that oftentimes this is not the tool someone is reaching for, but the tool that is being handed out, if that makes sense. Clearly there exist other solutions to these "problems" (without getting into arguing whether this should be considered a problem or not). This honestly just feels like a lazy means of enforcement for the "accountability partner". In other words, the problem being solved here doesn't necessarily feel like it's "help me get over this", but rather "make helping me less of a burden on someone who's job is to help me, by letting them just look at an email at the end of the day."
I dealt with suicidal thoughts for many years, largely because my rearing amounted to being shoved in a box and told not to come out.
Also, "Covenant Eyes" sounds like it came straight out of The Handmaid's Tale.
Wait for the kids to grow old enough to choose a religion for themselves, meanwhile you can still teach them values, ethics, and common sense.
You were raised by a lunatic.
If one doesn't start with the premise that Christian beliefs are bogus, then I'd be interested in:
- How could someone realistically use the modern Internet and still avoid content that starts them down unwelcome paths? (A secular analogue might be suicide ideation.)
- How could that guy's accountability partner have better recognized false positives?
- How could that guy's accountability partner been more of a friend and less of a (seeming?) jerk?
- Is an app store provider truly inclusive if they disallow apps that make privacy tradeoffs that appeal to one religion's adherents but not to another's?
This isn't so much about religion (or even morality or ethics) "protection" but rather a discussion about privacy.
> How could someone realistically use the modern Internet and still avoid content that starts them down unwelcome paths?
A simple content filter does a similar job, but without privacy invading surveillance. Even better if it has a way to circumvent it. E.g. the filter could just say "are you sure?" and then let me past. Many apps like that work well for self-accountabiluty. If that's not offering enough accountability then I'd argue the answer to the question is "you don't."
> Is an app store provider truly inclusive if they disallow apps that make privacy tradeoffs that appeal to one religion's adherents but not to another's?
While privacy is extremely important and app stores and device manufacturers are central to upholding it, I think a key here is that whoever willingly runs some kind of spyware app is willingly giving up their privacy. All the app store or device manufacturer should do is make sure that anyone who installs an app that spies on them, is aware that it's spying on them.
For example, an app can't use GPS or Microphone on iOS without the user knowing and that's the way it should be.
I cant't see where religion and inclusiveness comes into this eiher to be honest. I doubt there are religions appealed by privacy violations of the kind that would require (as in this example) always-on secret microphone recording in an app.
Add: And it seems the guy was rushed ("forced") into installing the app and agreeing to the "solution".
But hey, the Catholic church has a tremendous history of accepting whatever abuse from priests while using some deeply rooted desires of their followers to accept that abuse.
That being said, the "priest" in the story is just a simple and abusive cult leader.
So it's fair to say he chose this church, and the accountability partner is something that comes along with that. Of course, there are other instances of coercive behaviour by religious groups where this is not true.
I don't think there is a non-bogus version of this especially if you are a Christian. An 'accountability partner' sounds like something Scientology or the CCP assigns to you but not a Christian
So if you're looking for the genuinely Christian solution: Have a relaxed attitude towards modern vices, you don't need to partake in them, just close the browser window. Little bit more faith in Christ, maybe switch the denomination, and less of whatever this is
"Brit says she was asked to install the app by her parents after she was caught looking at pornography and that her mother and her pastor were both her designated accountability partners. “I remember I had to sit down and have a conversation with him [her pastor] after I Wikipedia’d an article about atheism,” she says. “I was a kid, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have some kind of right to read what I want to read.””
There are only two choices on the shelf: Pleasing God, or pleasing self.
The bottom line is that you have to create a strong break that prevents inattentive browsing or "doom scrolling." I think the lowest impact version of that would look like something where you write out exactly what you're opening your browser for (and then stick to that.) A more severe implementation would be getting rid of your smart phone and only having browsing on a PC in a common space.
Alternatively, you might get mileage out of a system that broke you out of bad patterns early rather than trying to keep you out initially. For example, an AHK script that throws a pop up every 10/20/30 minutes to ask what you're working on.
There's more complexity than just "unwelcome path", and you would have to choose your method to match your particular problem.
These days outside of hackernews and Discord I don't use much social media any more. Social media leads to people being constantly angry and judgemental, as well as leading to other ungodly attitudes, and I find that I am a much worse person when I use those sites. There is no one path to keeping yourself from going down dark roads...it's as personal as the individual using the computer. As the Bible says in Philippians 2:12, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Find what works for you as a Christian, and use it.
I get where you're coming from, and as long as no one is compelling the "victim" I think they should be free to make their own mistakes.
That said, it's very well proven that you cannot change your sexual orientation and anyone claiming you can is a fraudster whether they dress as a priest or medical professional or an "accountability partner" or anything else. That very much is a bogus belief.
0. https://reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/reports/com.covenan...
1. https://reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/reports/com.whatsap...
> "“It’s really not about pornography,” says Brit, a former user of Accountable2You who asked to only be identified by her first name, due to privacy concerns. “It’s about making you conform to what your pastor wants.”
> "In the quest to curb behavior churches deem immoral..."
Full transparency: Christian male here. The article seems to be addressing multiple topics - on the surface, the concerns around information leaking with "Covenant Eyes" and other programs. But also (based on this quote) an undercurrent: is pornography consumption actually unhealthy?
This adds confusion to a very clear topic.
Pornography comes from "porneia," a Greek word. In ancient Greek "porneia" was understood in the culture as "to buy." A porne or prostitute was often a slave, and often abused. Writings of Horace and Herodas show the cultural attitude of porneia was about treating people as things - to buy, to use, to abuse. In other words, very much accepted culturally. Based on this historical evidence, I conclude that, had WIRED existed in ancient Greece, an expert who studies "the spread of disinformation of sexual health" would have likely said the same thing about porneia consumers as they apparently do now: "there likely isn't something wrong with the owner." Imbibe in some porneia? Don't feel bad, there's nothing wrong with you.
A counterpoint is the letter to Galatians, which despite their failings I'm sure people in the churches mentioned in the article would know of. That letter, starting with the foundations of how God views people and the freedom Christ purchased, draws the conclusion that people should treat other people as people, not things. In fact, this is one of the points of the 19th verse, which says porneia (lit from Greek) is something Christians should realize isn't fitting for Christians. It is, in fact, unhealthy. If my Pastor wants me to "conform" to this (ref second and third quotes above), sign me up!
You may disagree that the letter to Galatians has authority or relevance to you personally, but it's impossible to disagree with the letter's outlook towards people - people as people, not things. In fact, that letter's outlook was radical, based on the cultural norms of that time.
If we don't disagree with the undercurrent espoused in this article - that porneia consumption is actually okay - then what foundation is left for saying it's wrong to treat people as things?
The reprehensible exploitation of sex workers does not make sex work inherently bad. I have friends who do sex work on the side. They sell their own porn. They explicitly want to be sexualized and, yes, objectified, and they'll tell you as much. Are they being exploited, and by whom?
Yes, let's avoid slippery slopes, please make things clear. What defines "bad" or "good" here? How much money porneia makes for those profiteering from it? How much pleasure the consumers get? What the health expert of the day prescribes? All I can gather so far is that you have better reasons to say porneia production isn't bad because your friends willingly do it.
I'm glad you mentioned the producers of porneia, because my comment was focused on the consumers, and I keep forgetting about the harm that comes to people who profit from the industry.
Good and evil are very straightforward, you don't need any book to learn it: just do as little harm as possible, and help when you can. That's it.
The other kind of good and evil, the one encoded in government laws, should not be involved with religion. Religion is notorious for being biased towards its members, it's not a trustworthy source of justice.
