I find this story slightly odd. I'm not trying to suggest it's not true, I have trust in the Guardian not to print falsehoods; but do they really offer abandoned babies to just anyone in America?
Here in the UK, I used to work with a guy many years ago who was trying to adopt. He and his wife had to go through months and months of vetting and paperwork to be allowed to become adopted parents. You basically have to prove that you are fit to be a parent. And yet in this story a court basically says "hey, you wanna adopt this baby you found? Yeah? Here you go."
Sounds like this guy I knew should have moved to America. He and his wife could have just pulled up to an orphanage, said "I'll take that one", and been parents immediately - if this story is anything to go by.
The judge didn’t ask him if he wanted to adopt there and then in that precise second and that was that.
The judge asked if he was interested.
Perhaps the judge asked this knowing that the circumstances showed this was a caring man who had the child’s best interests at heart and had demonstrated through actions - and described through testimony we have not heard - his feelings towards the child when finding him.
They did not just get given the child. There was still a process. They visited the child in care. They filled in paperwork. They were vetted. They were asked if they’d like to look after the child over Christmas - not forever, not straight away. The process took a little time, it just took a lot less time than if the child entered care and they had to find other adoptive parents.
The most important variable to identify in this situation is capacity to love and care for a vulnerable child. Financial stability and good character still need to be there - and it sounds like they were identified before the adoption was completed - but the head start was there.
My understanding is there's a very - superficially weird - sort of logic at play with this though.
Basically if we're going to take a child not presently abandoned or in danger, and place them with someone, we need to know damn well that we're not worsening the situation for the child.
But if you have a child who was already abandoned and in danger, and you start looking after them unprompted, the situation for the child has already improved and almost any other action will worsen it - i.e. it's generally accepted that children being wards of the state is a worse outcome in almost all circumstances compared to a dedicated parent.
A comparable example I suppose would be the question of what's the best strategy for seeking help if you're lost: basically, statistically, it's approach the first person you see and ask for help. Because the occurrence rate of predators in the population is low, so the first person you see is unlikely to be one. But if you stand around for a while looking like you need help, well now you're obviously a target and the chances of someone who approaches you intending ill-intent rises.
I guess, if you really think about it, a lot of the safety checking is to make sure that the person trying to adopt is not a predator who will abuse the child. In this case, someone who was like that would not have called the police and handed the child in, they would have just taken the baby to abuse; so his handing in the child to the authorities automatically ticked the "not a child predator" box. Thanks for helping me to think about this in a different way :-)
> A comparable example I suppose would be the question of what's the best strategy for seeking help if you're lost: basically, statistically, it's approach the first person you see and ask for help.
Ah yes, from the Paul Graham article on security. I bring that one up myself from time to time :-)
> The process actually ended up being surprisingly quick, thanks to a short-lived pilot program that was meant to cut through red tape and quickly place healthy, abandoned infants in permanent homes.
> ... do they really offer abandoned babies to just anyone...?
NO - the 2nd sentence of the article says that the adoptive-father-to-be had "a good job in social care". In the same jurisdiction as the baby was found.
So he's not some nice-guy rando who called 911 - he's a vetted and experienced professional within the same social care system as the judge, who that judge might easily have looked into before "asking if he had any interest".
EDIT: Yeah, in the course of the court hearing where he was testifying about having found the baby, the judge was probably sizing him up, and asking him questions well beyond his "briefly witnessed, called 911" role.
You can search for articles and you will find more info dating from the year 2000.
IIRC, there was a lengthy court “battle” to allow them to adopt, as the parents are a gay couple and that was not as openly accepted at the time. That’s why this story was so big back then and is still relevant today, it was a unique case.
It's changed over the years and depends quite a bit on the state, but generally family court prefers placing wards of the state with birth parents if they're alive and known and legally able to care for a child, and if not, then either kin or "fictive kin," which is any stable adult that already has a pre-existing relationship with the child. If a child is completely abandoned and has no known family, then whoever found them is probably the best thing going all else being equal.
But no, it is not generally that easy anywhere in America. My wife and I tried for six years and it never happened. Texas completely privatized foster care licensing years back, so standards can be pretty arbitrary. Some agencies are thinly-veiled scams requiring you to purchase books or parenting classes from the founder.
I feel adoption is either super easy or super hard. No one claims the system is fair. It can also be the article skipped on these difficulties for a better headline.
> It can also be the article skipped on these difficulties for a better headline.
Thanks for the reply. That is certainly a possibility that I didn't think of. I guess they could possibly have thought that if he was caring enough to take time out of his day to call the police and look after the baby until they arrived that he might potentially make a good parent as well.
Yeah, it's a short article. There are obviously lots of things it doesn't go into. I doubt the judge was like "want this baby? Pick it up from the orphanage, here's your receipt."
I think there is a difference between adoption through the foster system and adoption before the child gets into the foster system. Im not sure about the laws around it, but the judge may have more discretion in the latter case.
My extended family has interacted with this side of the law in my area. From what I can gather, there are two primary goals for everyone involved: get the child to live with their (non-abusive) parent(s) if at all possible, or, failing that, get them into a household that wants them.
Its possible my experience is biased from the fact that it everyone involved was family.
I wonder what kind of vetting process the couple went through in the US as well. The story may over-simplify the process.
In Canada, my family knew a couple who tried to adopt a child in the decades ago because of infertility. The vetting process and the paperwork from the government agency was "audacious". They said the amount of red tape was so much to the point that the fertile couples would not adopt locally.
Back in the day, adopting a child from China and Romania was easier than adopting locally.
I can’t confirm or deny the Guardian story, but I do personally know someone who found a small baby in a bus in Kenya and preceded to adopt and raise her.
Man, in the UK you can’t even get a frigging cat without having several inspections of your home and interviews to confirm that you will be a fit “parent”.
I mean, I’m all for safeguarding in principle - but it evidently doesn’t bloody work.
You don’t, but you pay attention when a kid repeatedly shows up in hospital with mystery injuries, which happened in this case. Nobody paid attention until the kid was dead.
You could also have at home unscheduled social worker visits. Intrusive, sure, but it’s a) something you’d be knowingly opting into through adoption and b) likely mostly focussed on early years.
Taking advice from Paul Graham on why you should not impose a wealth tax is like taking advice from the neighbours cat on why you should allow him to crap on your lawn.
His argument is incredibly disingenuous; the sort of people who will be affected by a wealth tax are the sort of people who find ways of avoiding paying income tax, or indeed any tax at all if possible.
It makes me very angry when these billionaires who build up enormous wealth, partaially by avoiding paying the taxes that fund the infrastructure that help them build their wealth, get upset at people who suggest that maybe they should pay something back to society.
Paul Graham should, maybe, stick to blogging about tech, because when he gets into politics he really shows his true colours... and it ain't pretty.
I know a lot of people like to dump on Firefox, but a number of paywalls, including the Guardian one, completely disappear when you use it. For those that don't, some of them disappear if you use reader mode.
Are you mabe thinking of Solid[1]? This is an interesting idea, and I have looked into it on several occasions recently, but despite it being around for a really long time it appears to be going exactly nowhere, unfortunately.
It seems a bit of a missed opportunity really. If they had more agressively pursued alliances, it could potentially have been a solid (pun only semi intended) foundation for Mastadon and Bluesky.
The name is unfortunate as well, it is really difficult to search for.
I dug around my bookmarks and now I remember what had in mind: IPFS and Beaker, and ZeroNet along with Solid. And it really seems none of that is active enough to gain any interest.
I'm not sure this is quite what you are looking for, though I could be wrong. As far as I can tell they haven't added support for writing Markdown, the added support for importing to and exporting from Markdown.
Even if you only read the headline, you can work out the most likely story from logic. Someone else in this thread already said it: they're not gonna go to jail for you over a small subscription fee, of course they're complying with local laws and then the Swiss people handed it over to where they got the legal assistance request from. It's also not the first time Proton cooperated with a legal request from Swiss authorities, or Signal or other similar companies for that matter. The story tells itself no matter what part of it they decide to stick in the headline
Nothing of that email is new to me, and I didn't read the login-walled part which was like the third paragraph onward or something (I think it said it's free to read once you sign up, so not a paywall, but yeah either way)
I think 404 Media has an ethical obligation to provide Proton Mail’s response outside the article’s paywall. The word “Helped” in the headline is more sensational than stating that Proton “was required by Swiss law to provide...”
For readers who do not want to pay to read the article, the headline leaves incomplete context and creates a misleading impression of the story. That damages Proton’s reputation, and the missing context is only available if someone pays for the article, reaches out to Proton, or searches forums for substantive information.
The problem is that you are not dealing with rational people here, you are dealing with extreme religous fanatics. They are either not afraid of dying and becoming martyrs, or they are afraid but dare not show it.
That's certainly how their own propaganda portrays them, however if you see the amount of corruption in that effective kleptostate, you'd understand they care much about life
This is "Our blessed homeland" type of mischaracterisation [1]. Their wanting to continue their state against and oversized enemy is irrational and religious fanaticism, our wanting to continue our state against an oversized for is noble and martyrsome.
I'm not saying either view is right, but reducing the Iranian government to irrational religious fanatics is intellectually uncurious and unempathetic.
You are possibly misunderstanding me. Firstly, I am not saying anything against the Iranian people in general. As far as I understand things, the majority of Iranians are moderate and tolerant, and have a strong desire to have a more liberal approach to the world. The current Iranian government, however, is under the rule of insane fundamentalists (with the emphasis on mental) who think nothing of machine gunning down protesters in the street. Even the majority of Iranian people don't want to be ruled by them. This is fact, not "blessed homeland" mischaracterisation.
I'm British, and whilst I don't think my government is perfect (their stance on digital privacy is insane) they are not murdering people, and we can vote them out at the next election if we want to.
If you are on the mobile app, click on the burger menu and select "Feeds". You will then have a page that has tabs at the top. "All" will be selected by default, but if you select "Friends" you will see only posts from your friends. If you have completely caught up it will be empty and will say that you have caught up and seen everything your friends have posted. There are still ads, but you don't get all the reels, and crap posted by people you don't know.
The major problem is that no one trusts government not to abuse it and use it to track everything people do. There will be some proportion of people who trust the current government, but will be paranoid that a future government will abuse it, and there will be a proportion of people that don't trust the current government to not abuse it.
You might be able to get more trust by the government assigning a third party to audit the systems to make sure they are working as advertised, and not being abused, but you would still get people being paranoid that either the third party could be corrupted to pretend that things are okay, or that a future government would just fire them and have the system changed to track everyone anyway.
No matter what you do, you will never convince a subset of people that a system that can potentially be used to track everyone won't be abused in that way. Unfortunately, those people are most likely correct. This is why we can't have nice things :(
For the record, I thing it would be great to be able to have a trusted government issued digital ID for some purposes. I especially think it would be great to have an officially issued digital ID that could be used to sign electronic documents. My partner and I moved home recently, and it was not easy signing and exchanging legal documents electronically.
> You might be able to get more trust by the government assigning a third party to audit the systems to make sure they are working as advertised, and not being abused, but you would still get people being paranoid that either the third party could be corrupted to pretend that things are okay, or that a future government would just fire them and have the system changed to track everyone anyway.
The scheme is one step ahead of you, Auditors are required [1]. Government's role in the scheme is limited to operating the API in front of its departments which are read only and scattered (eg no central database), funding the auditors and trust registry (a Digital Verification Service public key store), and legislating. The verification work will all be done by private sector digital verification services - whichever is associated with the wallet app you've chosen. There were 227 of them last year already working for various services - we all benefit from the sector being brought under a formal regulatory framework.
The tracking you fear doesn't seem to be possible beyond what is already tracked when you open a bank account etc, but this is entirely outside the scope of the wallet's operation. It's been designed specifically to make the kind of abuse you fear impossible, at least in its current format, where government is out of the loop except as a passive reference, and the DV services are legally prevented from retaining any data without your consent. Of course that could alter in future, but as it stands the framework doesn't allow for what everyone fears it does.
Here in the UK, I used to work with a guy many years ago who was trying to adopt. He and his wife had to go through months and months of vetting and paperwork to be allowed to become adopted parents. You basically have to prove that you are fit to be a parent. And yet in this story a court basically says "hey, you wanna adopt this baby you found? Yeah? Here you go."
Sounds like this guy I knew should have moved to America. He and his wife could have just pulled up to an orphanage, said "I'll take that one", and been parents immediately - if this story is anything to go by.