Right off the top, I want to say that I am opposed to the kind of surveillance used to catch Burrill, PERIOD. It's a clear violation of civilian privileges under the Fourth Amendment, and whoever was doing that deserves prosecution.
That said, Burrill is yet another example of the double standard much of the Catholic Church subscribes to, regarding the LGBTQ+ community. They rake us over the coals from the pulpit on Sunday, but Saturday night, the phones are out and Grindr engaged to find a hot buddy to fuck. Meanwhile, it's impossible to think that the Church doesn't know about it. Far more likely, they turn a blind eye to it and shrug their collective shoulders.
Anyone counting the reasons why religion is losing adherents can add this one to their list.
I don't understand what this has to do with the 4th. One private company collected his info, then sold it to a second private company who wanted to buy it, and they then published it in the paper of a third private company. No federal, state, or local government entity was involved in any search or seizure here.
Agree. The 4th has to do with government conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. This isn't government; it's private businesses making a buck from selling its users personal data.
Or commenting on a board. Microsoft sells your data. Google sells your data. AT&T sells your data. Touching a computer is a risk of privacy in the modern era. Organizations like the EFF have been sounding an alarm over this for decades. To participate in modern life, you have to give up your privacy. Legislation is the only way to fix this, because people, including me, like the convenience too much to put the necessary pressure on businesses.
Agree. I deplore this practice, but I'm also stuck in it, if I want to hang onto the many useful conveniences of this technology. This is why we need government regulation.
I even used it to write my Rep and (for all the good it will do) Senators. I wrote the first draft and then fed it into Geminii to polish it and improve its persuasiveness.
I am writing to express deep concern about the unchecked sale of personal information collected through smartphones, internet browsing, and even computer softwar. The recent incident involving a priest outed by a private organization using location data from Grindr highlights the chilling reality of our diminished privacy.
While the specifics of this case may be controversial, the underlying issue is clear: our fundamental right to privacy is being eroded. The notion that we willingly “sign away” our personal data through lengthy, incomprehensible terms of service is a fallacy. In reality, we are forced to accept these agreements to participate in modern society.
The claim that this data is solely used for targeted advertising is disingenuous. While advertising has traditionally relied on demographics, the unprecedented level of detail collected today enables far more insidious forms of manipulation. This surveillance-based economy not only undermines consumer sovereignty but also creates significant vulnerabilities.
Beyond privacy concerns, the potential for misuse of this data is alarming. Stalkers, domestic abusers, and even those with malicious intent, such as using violence to solve political differences, can exploit this information to cause harm. While I understand the need for law enforcement to use data under appropriate legal safeguards, the unrestricted sale of personal information to private entities poses a grave threat to public safety and individual liberty.
I urge you to support legislation that protects our privacy by imposing strict limits on the collection, sale, and use of personal data. Such measures are essential to safeguarding our democracy and ensuring a future where technology serves us, rather than controlling us.
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.
He has the "right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...". If he thought this was private and had no reason to believe this data was being sold along with tracking info, I'm no lawyer, but I think he has a case.
The 4th Amendment refers to being secure from GOVERNMENT. It doesn't cover private businesses and their interactions with their customers. It's long past time for the law to catch up with data mining and sales, but that's a matter for legislation, not litigation.
The 4th is a right to be secure etc. *against government action*. It has nothing whatsoever to do with private corporations, who don't have to follow it. Just like your employer can limit your free speech in the office, or tell you you can't carry a gun in the office, they can search your desk without giving a reason. And they can do the same thing for your virtual desk.
He may be able to argue false advertising ("Grindr advertisement says your data is secure, but then they sell it") or contract breach ("Grindr subsection 3.4.5.6 says they don't save information X, but they did"). Or maybe that they violated some other consumer protection law. But it's not a constitutional 4th matter because that's a limitation on government, and Grindr is not government.
If it's public data, then they don't need a warrant to buy it. Just like they don't need a warrant to buy a newspaper from the supermarket. If some bit of information is legally for sale, they can buy it.
Now if some journalist or third party vendor is selling or releasing illegally acquired data, that's trickier. I am not sure about state laws, but AFAIK federal employees are already forbidden from collecting or retaining that sort of thing. They are supposed to respect the 'source' legality even if some third party vendor does not.
The problem here is not "the police committed a crime in buying it," the problem is "Congress should pass a law preventing Grindr from collecting and selling it."
I disagree. It is the government engaging in a fishing expedition. To use such data as probable cause is a violation of the spirit of the 4th amendment.
That said, you are absolutely correct that we need to solve the problem more generally with legislation. I intend to write a letter to my Congressman, and am debating whether to piss into the wind and write Ted Fucking Cruz.
This comment has to be made over and over, not only about the 4th but also the 1st Amendment, as American citizens (poorly educated as we are) are constantly falling into the error of thinking these Amendments provide protection against non-governmental entities.
Yes. The conservatives are told it means they can be as rude, and ignorant, as they desire, and think we have to listen to it. Which is utter bull shit. No forum has to host hate-speach. Especially when it is against the TOS.
This is correct: the Fourth Amendment applies to government searches.
The same error is often made with regard to the First Amendment, where people (like Elon Musk for instance, and others with similarly limited understanding) complain that First Amendment rights are being violated when non-governmental entities are censoring speech.
Musk is one of a number of public figures who went down the right-wing rabbit hole and emerged as considerably more ignorant and odious versions of themselves...
Too true, but it is directly traceable to David Sacks, who whispers poison in Musk's ear like a common Grima Wormtongue did to King Theodan. remember the twit he made about ending the Ukraine war by just giving Putin everything he wants? He passed it off as his idea, but Sacks Twitted it long before. https://newrepublic.com/article/168125/david-sacks-elon-musk-peter-thiel
Considering that Jesus was more than likely married too. The Catholic Church really needs to focus on the child molesters masquerading as priests rather than the legitimate priests who have a healthy sex drive and having consenting sexual relationships with other adults.
The world needs protection from the Catholic Church. No single organization has brought more pain, suffering, and death into the world over the millennia.
True. I'm speaking more of The Gospels. Jesus was more about love your neighbor, forgive your enemies kinds of things. Even if The Bible might be a work of fiction those are good things. Not curse somebody who doesn't believe as you do. But I do agree with you The Bible is harsh at times.
It's true: if you focus on the New Testament, and pretend the Old Testament doesn't exist, you could easily come to the conclusion that maybe Christianity isn't so bad.
Unfortunately, the Old Testament is inseparable from the religion; so as much as they don't like to admit it, Christians are stuck with a cruel and horrific deity, who approves of genocide, rape, slavery, and incest. And this god is said (in the New Testament) to be the same "yesterday, today, and forever", so there's no way to avoid it.
The Catholic Church will defrock and excommunicate a gay priest who had hookups with grown adults, but will cover up and protect priests who molest kids.
I am all for priests having consenting sexual relationships with other adults. Never with minors or children. Ever. Why the monsters aren't weeded out? It's because they are so desperate to fill the vacancies.
The advertisers are the actual customers of any app out there, including Grindr. The users of the apps are the commodity, and the app’s function is the bait to draw in the user/commodity.
It’s not just apps. It’s your computer, your ISP, your cell phone carrier. People you PAY for services sell your data to make even more profit. It was one thing when it was people providing ‘free’ services. We know nothing is actually free, there’s always a cost somebody has to pay. It’s totally different when you’re actually paying them for them to violate your privacy just because they can.
“Haggard deserved to be outed and ridiculed. Jerry Falwell, Jr. deserved to be outed and ridiculed. I’m not sold on the idea that every gay Catholic priest deserves the same fate. The same could be said of the people who supposedly overwhelmed the app during the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee; there’s a difference between random delegates and elected officials who actually vote on these issues. Not a huge difference but a difference nonetheless.”
So, this becomes a question of degree. Elected officials who vote to harm LGBTQ people are worse than the delegates who put the elected officials into their roles to vote to harm LGBTQ people, and the hypocrisy of being LGBTQ while doing it. Or, a priest in a religion that condemns LGBTQ people who speaks out against LGBTQ people who is also LGBTQ versus a priest in a religion that condemns LGBTQ people who doesn’t speak against LGBTQ people who is also a LGBTQ person. I’m seeing a distinction without a difference here. Their actions still harm LGBTQ people, the hypocrisy is just the tip of the iceberg.
I don’t have a problem with them being LGBTQ, that is the least of the issue, it’s the support and culpability in the harm these organizations cause to LGBTQ people.
The kkkatlik cabal has pushed celibacy for centuries. IF you arr troubled with same sex desires or pedophilia, the "promise" of holy celibacy provided by imaginary jesus is a godsend to the troubled. To the devout it is very plausible. To the rest of us we know the desires do not stop. Pedos know now the church will shield them from the law.
The big deal is that the church is responsible for people being troubled by their same sex attraction, not 100%, but a good deal of it. And it creates the issue of making it a problem in order to lure in people who don’t understand their attractions. It’s a vicious cycle.
Religious superstition drove me to alcoholism. It drove me to multiple suicide attempts. When I complained it was kkkristers who said it was a shame I survived. I spent decades living in misery, hating myself. All those years because of that go**amned jesus.
While my sympathy for Burrill is greatly muted due to the hypocrisy and his previous member ship in the USCCB, I'm greatly concerned that it was so easy for people to track his activities through legal means.
Imagine if an anti-LGBTQIA+ group used such methods to uncover and harass closeted LGBTQIA+ people just trying to live their lives. Or imagine if states like Texas started using this data to find and prosecute people who seek abortions. It's easy to focus on crowing over what we might feel a case of a conservative priest getting his comeuppance and forget that this technology could be turned against others we whose ruination we may not take such delight int.
Disclaimer: I'm also with you that discovering that a priest is seeking out consensual sex with other men is a bit of a nothing-burger and while muted, my sympathy for Burrill is not non-existant. But my point still stands that this is technology that could be weaponized against people we might be more sympathetic toward too. And now's the time to get concerned about it rather than waiting until a "more sympathetic" victim goes through such hell.
Exactly, this case brings up how powerless US citizens are over their own data and how few choices you have as a US citizen as far as being able to use extremely popular applications but still maintain your privacy from prying fascist creeps whose idea of philanthropy is probably forced sterilizations for some and forced birth for others. As a woman in a very red fucking state this is disturbing. I don't think anyone should be able to purchase the information for this kind of purpose regardless of how much schadenfreude there is to be reaped. It's gross and certainly he's an evil hypocrite but he's not even the biggest asshole in this scenario. Which is troubling.
No one should be able to purchase this kind of data. Even it's so called legitimate use is problematic. WE DON'T NEED BETTER TARGETED ADS. If it was stuff we actually wanted or needed they wouldn't need to advertise all that much. Advertising is about manipulating people into buying things they don't need and can't afford. The better the psychological profile the more efficiently they can manipulate us.
I agree. I hate all of this type of "advertising" and what it's done to the interwebs and society at large is made shit awful and horrible people wealthy.
The technology is already weaponized. Congress really needs to step in and regulate data collection, retention, and sale in the private sector. Maybe just extending medical data rules to position/navigation/timing data is a sufficient first step, I don't know.
I'm torn over the outing itself. On one hand there's a considerable amount of schadenfreude, on the other I do feel like people should be allowed to come out in their own time, on the gripping hand, not having to hide anymore will lift a huge burden off a person.
I joked about Burrill yesterday for breaking his vows, but truly this is about data mining and using Burrill as a prop to tie gay clergy to pedophilia both of which are just wrong. However, I don’t think he has a case against Grindr. I’m sure Grindr’s ToS covers them against this type of lawsuit and as Hemant mentioned, whatever damage to his reputation is offset by the fact he found employment. I wonder how sympathetic a jury will be if this case gets to trial.
How damaged could his rep be... The RCC is desperate for priests. There just are not a lot of 'normal' men gay or not who are really willing to give up sex for life. Priestly celibacy didn't even become a thing until the 11th century. The last married pope was Adrian II. The RCC will accept certain churches' priests including Anglican with a little retraining and they can come with their wives. It is no wonder RCC priests are balking. I suspect that like with the protestants, the gays in the RCC priesthood are either there to pray away the gay or the lifestyle - or both.
Right off the top, I want to say that I am opposed to the kind of surveillance used to catch Burrill, PERIOD. It's a clear violation of civilian privileges under the Fourth Amendment, and whoever was doing that deserves prosecution.
That said, Burrill is yet another example of the double standard much of the Catholic Church subscribes to, regarding the LGBTQ+ community. They rake us over the coals from the pulpit on Sunday, but Saturday night, the phones are out and Grindr engaged to find a hot buddy to fuck. Meanwhile, it's impossible to think that the Church doesn't know about it. Far more likely, they turn a blind eye to it and shrug their collective shoulders.
Anyone counting the reasons why religion is losing adherents can add this one to their list.
Bravo!
I don't understand what this has to do with the 4th. One private company collected his info, then sold it to a second private company who wanted to buy it, and they then published it in the paper of a third private company. No federal, state, or local government entity was involved in any search or seizure here.
Agree. The 4th has to do with government conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. This isn't government; it's private businesses making a buck from selling its users personal data.
Which is a risk we all take by using any app or shopping online.
Or commenting on a board. Microsoft sells your data. Google sells your data. AT&T sells your data. Touching a computer is a risk of privacy in the modern era. Organizations like the EFF have been sounding an alarm over this for decades. To participate in modern life, you have to give up your privacy. Legislation is the only way to fix this, because people, including me, like the convenience too much to put the necessary pressure on businesses.
Agree. I deplore this practice, but I'm also stuck in it, if I want to hang onto the many useful conveniences of this technology. This is why we need government regulation.
I even used it to write my Rep and (for all the good it will do) Senators. I wrote the first draft and then fed it into Geminii to polish it and improve its persuasiveness.
I am writing to express deep concern about the unchecked sale of personal information collected through smartphones, internet browsing, and even computer softwar. The recent incident involving a priest outed by a private organization using location data from Grindr highlights the chilling reality of our diminished privacy.
While the specifics of this case may be controversial, the underlying issue is clear: our fundamental right to privacy is being eroded. The notion that we willingly “sign away” our personal data through lengthy, incomprehensible terms of service is a fallacy. In reality, we are forced to accept these agreements to participate in modern society.
The claim that this data is solely used for targeted advertising is disingenuous. While advertising has traditionally relied on demographics, the unprecedented level of detail collected today enables far more insidious forms of manipulation. This surveillance-based economy not only undermines consumer sovereignty but also creates significant vulnerabilities.
Beyond privacy concerns, the potential for misuse of this data is alarming. Stalkers, domestic abusers, and even those with malicious intent, such as using violence to solve political differences, can exploit this information to cause harm. While I understand the need for law enforcement to use data under appropriate legal safeguards, the unrestricted sale of personal information to private entities poses a grave threat to public safety and individual liberty.
I urge you to support legislation that protects our privacy by imposing strict limits on the collection, sale, and use of personal data. Such measures are essential to safeguarding our democracy and ensuring a future where technology serves us, rather than controlling us.
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.
🎯
He has the "right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...". If he thought this was private and had no reason to believe this data was being sold along with tracking info, I'm no lawyer, but I think he has a case.
The 4th Amendment refers to being secure from GOVERNMENT. It doesn't cover private businesses and their interactions with their customers. It's long past time for the law to catch up with data mining and sales, but that's a matter for legislation, not litigation.
The 4th is a right to be secure etc. *against government action*. It has nothing whatsoever to do with private corporations, who don't have to follow it. Just like your employer can limit your free speech in the office, or tell you you can't carry a gun in the office, they can search your desk without giving a reason. And they can do the same thing for your virtual desk.
He may be able to argue false advertising ("Grindr advertisement says your data is secure, but then they sell it") or contract breach ("Grindr subsection 3.4.5.6 says they don't save information X, but they did"). Or maybe that they violated some other consumer protection law. But it's not a constitutional 4th matter because that's a limitation on government, and Grindr is not government.
The bit about the police buying this data without warrants is a 4th amendment matter.
If it's public data, then they don't need a warrant to buy it. Just like they don't need a warrant to buy a newspaper from the supermarket. If some bit of information is legally for sale, they can buy it.
Now if some journalist or third party vendor is selling or releasing illegally acquired data, that's trickier. I am not sure about state laws, but AFAIK federal employees are already forbidden from collecting or retaining that sort of thing. They are supposed to respect the 'source' legality even if some third party vendor does not.
The problem here is not "the police committed a crime in buying it," the problem is "Congress should pass a law preventing Grindr from collecting and selling it."
I disagree. It is the government engaging in a fishing expedition. To use such data as probable cause is a violation of the spirit of the 4th amendment.
That said, you are absolutely correct that we need to solve the problem more generally with legislation. I intend to write a letter to my Congressman, and am debating whether to piss into the wind and write Ted Fucking Cruz.
This comment has to be made over and over, not only about the 4th but also the 1st Amendment, as American citizens (poorly educated as we are) are constantly falling into the error of thinking these Amendments provide protection against non-governmental entities.
Yes. The conservatives are told it means they can be as rude, and ignorant, as they desire, and think we have to listen to it. Which is utter bull shit. No forum has to host hate-speach. Especially when it is against the TOS.
Maybe, but if so, it is one of the numerous things which need fixing in our constitution.
This is correct: the Fourth Amendment applies to government searches.
The same error is often made with regard to the First Amendment, where people (like Elon Musk for instance, and others with similarly limited understanding) complain that First Amendment rights are being violated when non-governmental entities are censoring speech.
And he doesn't seem to know any history either. We have all seen where the BS he touts leads, yet he seems totally clueless.
Musk is one of a number of public figures who went down the right-wing rabbit hole and emerged as considerably more ignorant and odious versions of themselves...
Too true, but it is directly traceable to David Sacks, who whispers poison in Musk's ear like a common Grima Wormtongue did to King Theodan. remember the twit he made about ending the Ukraine war by just giving Putin everything he wants? He passed it off as his idea, but Sacks Twitted it long before. https://newrepublic.com/article/168125/david-sacks-elon-musk-peter-thiel
Well spoken, sir. I think you may have hit upon an excellent product slogan for Grindr: "Find a hot buddy to fuck!"
I did?!? WHERE ARE MY ROYALTIES??? 🤣🤣🤣
I may have an answer 😇
"Far more likely, they turn a blind eye to it and shrug their collective shoulders."
Far more likely, they are busy swiping right. Something about altar boys....
"The group spent over $4,000,000, with a lot of it being used to purchase and analyze the data, pay staff, and hire attorneys."
Fuck feeding the hungry and all that other crap. Got to police priest peckers.
Considering that Jesus was more than likely married too. The Catholic Church really needs to focus on the child molesters masquerading as priests rather than the legitimate priests who have a healthy sex drive and having consenting sexual relationships with other adults.
The world needs protection from the Catholic Church. No single organization has brought more pain, suffering, and death into the world over the millennia.
The world's oldest criminal organization.
🎯
Christianity on paper looks so good. How did reality get Christianity so wrong? It's just another business now.
I'm not sure it looks so great even on paper: many of the pages of the bible contain unspeakable horrors....
True. I'm speaking more of The Gospels. Jesus was more about love your neighbor, forgive your enemies kinds of things. Even if The Bible might be a work of fiction those are good things. Not curse somebody who doesn't believe as you do. But I do agree with you The Bible is harsh at times.
It's true: if you focus on the New Testament, and pretend the Old Testament doesn't exist, you could easily come to the conclusion that maybe Christianity isn't so bad.
Unfortunately, the Old Testament is inseparable from the religion; so as much as they don't like to admit it, Christians are stuck with a cruel and horrific deity, who approves of genocide, rape, slavery, and incest. And this god is said (in the New Testament) to be the same "yesterday, today, and forever", so there's no way to avoid it.
The Catholic Church will defrock and excommunicate a gay priest who had hookups with grown adults, but will cover up and protect priests who molest kids.
Unless children are involved...that's different.
I am all for priests having consenting sexual relationships with other adults. Never with minors or children. Ever. Why the monsters aren't weeded out? It's because they are so desperate to fill the vacancies.
Yet they protect those that molest children.
"If the allegations about Burrill were true, the hypocrisy would be astonishing."
Personally, I would be whatever is the opposite of astonished.
This is my astonished face. : l
Resigned? Annoyed? Over it?
Unsurprised. (It's hard to find a one-word solution...🤔)
Bored?
I mean, it's kind of a shitty thing to work for an anti-gay organization while you're looking for hookups on Grindr.
It's even fucking worse that a bunch of rich fuckwads can legally conduct mass surveillance on private citizens.
Everyone's an asshole here and they all deserve to be scorned.
Yep. No good guys in this one.
The app respected your privacy, padre. It’s the users who aren’t obligated to keep quiet.
Also, maybe don’t be a loud public homophobic shit.
It wasn't the users. It was the advertisers.
The advertisers are the actual customers of any app out there, including Grindr. The users of the apps are the commodity, and the app’s function is the bait to draw in the user/commodity.
It’s not just apps. It’s your computer, your ISP, your cell phone carrier. People you PAY for services sell your data to make even more profit. It was one thing when it was people providing ‘free’ services. We know nothing is actually free, there’s always a cost somebody has to pay. It’s totally different when you’re actually paying them for them to violate your privacy just because they can.
“Haggard deserved to be outed and ridiculed. Jerry Falwell, Jr. deserved to be outed and ridiculed. I’m not sold on the idea that every gay Catholic priest deserves the same fate. The same could be said of the people who supposedly overwhelmed the app during the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee; there’s a difference between random delegates and elected officials who actually vote on these issues. Not a huge difference but a difference nonetheless.”
So, this becomes a question of degree. Elected officials who vote to harm LGBTQ people are worse than the delegates who put the elected officials into their roles to vote to harm LGBTQ people, and the hypocrisy of being LGBTQ while doing it. Or, a priest in a religion that condemns LGBTQ people who speaks out against LGBTQ people who is also LGBTQ versus a priest in a religion that condemns LGBTQ people who doesn’t speak against LGBTQ people who is also a LGBTQ person. I’m seeing a distinction without a difference here. Their actions still harm LGBTQ people, the hypocrisy is just the tip of the iceberg.
I don’t have a problem with them being LGBTQ, that is the least of the issue, it’s the support and culpability in the harm these organizations cause to LGBTQ people.
The kkkatlik cabal has pushed celibacy for centuries. IF you arr troubled with same sex desires or pedophilia, the "promise" of holy celibacy provided by imaginary jesus is a godsend to the troubled. To the devout it is very plausible. To the rest of us we know the desires do not stop. Pedos know now the church will shield them from the law.
The big deal is that the church is responsible for people being troubled by their same sex attraction, not 100%, but a good deal of it. And it creates the issue of making it a problem in order to lure in people who don’t understand their attractions. It’s a vicious cycle.
Religious superstition drove me to alcoholism. It drove me to multiple suicide attempts. When I complained it was kkkristers who said it was a shame I survived. I spent decades living in misery, hating myself. All those years because of that go**amned jesus.
https://youtu.be/y72wWZS0Vy4?si=bKc6e3_vLgz1sKx_
WHY?
https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/452583944_10161836615646565_2107969706838873116_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=127cfc&_nc_ohc=hbMqFdPQNDkQ7kNvgGv_QBT&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&gid=ASkpYSCZomi7w4jV7U35MzB&oh=00_AYA1P6ox3gNe94z8Ynw1t4jE3Fk5gqTl7rS-t4Zxp1JGjg&oe=66AD96F5
AMMOSEXUAL GQP: "If those kids' bulletproof backpacks didn't protect 'em, then God must have wanted them dead. It was God's Will!"
https://images.app.goo.gl/7Zq2aAjkwotBmBnS7
Followed by: Oh God they actually exist.
I remember owning a bag that was knife proof way back in school.
The neighbour’s cats found it a perfect substitute for their scratching post…
"And they believe homosexuality is a problem that needs to be dealt with."
KKKristerism and its multitude of hatreds are the probolem that needs to be dealt with.
While my sympathy for Burrill is greatly muted due to the hypocrisy and his previous member ship in the USCCB, I'm greatly concerned that it was so easy for people to track his activities through legal means.
Imagine if an anti-LGBTQIA+ group used such methods to uncover and harass closeted LGBTQIA+ people just trying to live their lives. Or imagine if states like Texas started using this data to find and prosecute people who seek abortions. It's easy to focus on crowing over what we might feel a case of a conservative priest getting his comeuppance and forget that this technology could be turned against others we whose ruination we may not take such delight int.
Disclaimer: I'm also with you that discovering that a priest is seeking out consensual sex with other men is a bit of a nothing-burger and while muted, my sympathy for Burrill is not non-existant. But my point still stands that this is technology that could be weaponized against people we might be more sympathetic toward too. And now's the time to get concerned about it rather than waiting until a "more sympathetic" victim goes through such hell.
Exactly, this case brings up how powerless US citizens are over their own data and how few choices you have as a US citizen as far as being able to use extremely popular applications but still maintain your privacy from prying fascist creeps whose idea of philanthropy is probably forced sterilizations for some and forced birth for others. As a woman in a very red fucking state this is disturbing. I don't think anyone should be able to purchase the information for this kind of purpose regardless of how much schadenfreude there is to be reaped. It's gross and certainly he's an evil hypocrite but he's not even the biggest asshole in this scenario. Which is troubling.
No one should be able to purchase this kind of data. Even it's so called legitimate use is problematic. WE DON'T NEED BETTER TARGETED ADS. If it was stuff we actually wanted or needed they wouldn't need to advertise all that much. Advertising is about manipulating people into buying things they don't need and can't afford. The better the psychological profile the more efficiently they can manipulate us.
I agree. I hate all of this type of "advertising" and what it's done to the interwebs and society at large is made shit awful and horrible people wealthy.
get an ad-blocker if you haven't already. Night and Day difference
I did and I LOVE it!!!
I'm thinking it's time to write our Congressmen. If you have a not totally batshit Republican you may even get zir to care.
The technology is already weaponized. Congress really needs to step in and regulate data collection, retention, and sale in the private sector. Maybe just extending medical data rules to position/navigation/timing data is a sufficient first step, I don't know.
ADULT sex is icky dirty. Raping innocent kids is pure and holy. THAT is the creed here.
It's hard to muster any sympathy for a hypocritical bigot who's helped to make life miserable for others.
I'm more alarmed with HOW he was outed.
I'm torn over the outing itself. On one hand there's a considerable amount of schadenfreude, on the other I do feel like people should be allowed to come out in their own time, on the gripping hand, not having to hide anymore will lift a huge burden off a person.
Extra points for the “Mote in God’s Eye” reference!
“Had BURRILL known that GRINDR intended to make his data available for sale, he would not have used GRINDR’s services,” the lawsuit says. yeah right
Guess he's going to have to go back to the analog methods of finding dates: taking off his collar and finding a nice bar.
Question for the crowd who frequent such places: would taking off the collar even matter? Would leaving it on maybe get him *more* action?
"Burrill was just the tip..."
I joked about Burrill yesterday for breaking his vows, but truly this is about data mining and using Burrill as a prop to tie gay clergy to pedophilia both of which are just wrong. However, I don’t think he has a case against Grindr. I’m sure Grindr’s ToS covers them against this type of lawsuit and as Hemant mentioned, whatever damage to his reputation is offset by the fact he found employment. I wonder how sympathetic a jury will be if this case gets to trial.
How damaged could his rep be... The RCC is desperate for priests. There just are not a lot of 'normal' men gay or not who are really willing to give up sex for life. Priestly celibacy didn't even become a thing until the 11th century. The last married pope was Adrian II. The RCC will accept certain churches' priests including Anglican with a little retraining and they can come with their wives. It is no wonder RCC priests are balking. I suspect that like with the protestants, the gays in the RCC priesthood are either there to pray away the gay or the lifestyle - or both.
“Just imagine if Catholics with money, power, and tech savvy spent this much energy going after actual predators.” THIS.