Slashdot Mirror
The Gradual Erosion of the Right To Privacy
PeteV writes "There is an interesting article on the BBC's website based around research carried out by Dr. Kieron O'Hara of Southampton University. He points out that under British law, an individual's right to privacy is being eroded by the behavior of those who have no qualms about broadcasting every intimate detail of their life online (via social networking sites) because the privacy law is predicated in part upon the concept of a 'reasonable expectation of privacy.' I think his request 'for people to be more aware of the impact on society of what they publish online' is likely to fall on deaf ears, but in effect what he is saying is that the changing habits of the world-wide community of social networkers is likely to have an effect upon English law and how it is interpreted. Given that the significant bulk of social networkers are American, this might mean 'American behavior' could cause changes in the interpretation of English law (which is not to say English people don't also post their intimate details on Facebook)."
You state that the government is going to do something "because nobody's going to stop them."
In the same argument you state "The government's got no right" to do that thing."
If NOBODY is going to stop them, then the government has the right to act because (as you say) nobody is going to oppose the government.
Take some responsibility,PLEASE.
1. country X does something bad
2. the USA is to blame for what country X does because (insert speculative line of reasoning)
the story summary is a classic example of this kind of bullshit
you don't have to like the usa. there is in fact, a smorgasbord of reasons to dislike the USA and its policies for you to choose from
however, if you have to blame initiatives done by other country's governments on the USA, you've left the land of logical coherence and entered the land of tribal chip on your shoulder
have a valid reason to dislike the USA, or be a crackpot. your choice
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
and Bush Sr. probably was not a teetotaler
Good heavens, you're not one of those "alcohol is a drug" types, are you? Seriously, you're right about that: anyone that has a problem with marijuana had better have at least as big a problem with alcohol. The fact that alcohol is the traditionally-accepted form of psychotropic self-abuse in most Western cultures doesn't make it any less of a drug. Other societies have different drugs of choice, drugs that are permissible only because of a history, a tradition, that makes them okay. Some cultures look upon alcohol consumption as being just as big a transgression as America's government currently perceives pot, for that matter.
... well, I think most of us would agree that he was smoking something.
Frankly, I never much cared for Bill Clinton, but I also didn't much care that he had smoked some weed once. Some people were pretty upset about that at the time, as I remember. Nor, for that matter, was George Bush Sr. an alcoholic if he had a glass of wine at dinner.
George Bush, Jr.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.