What are you screaming? Does it include specific plans to kill people? If so, then that's illegal. But if you're just generally spreading hate without any specific intentions of violence, then it's ok even if people die.
If people are killed, then only those who actually did the killing are responsible. Spreading hate is perfectly acceptable. It makes you a jerk and an asshole, but not a criminal.
a few hundred angry men that have been known to get violent at the slightest provocation for example.
That is their problem. How can I take responsibility for the immaturity and stupidity of other people?
You don't have to actually do the killing. Making specific plans to do it is enough. Bin Laden didn't personally lead the planes into the twin towers, but he made specific concrete plans to do so.
The keywords are specific, imminent, and concrete plans.
But what if people do burn the jews? Do the screamers keep their right to scream when it's nearly certain to result in deaths, even if they themselves are not likely to do the killing?
Define "nearly certain". Give me an example. If I scream "Let's kill everyone with long hair!", is it "nearly certain" that it'll happen? How is that different from saying "Let's kill all the jews!"?
If there is no true imminent danger of any jews actually being burnt, then yes I support it. I won't join them of course, but I support their right to say it.
If on the other hand it sounded like a real plan - something like "Tomorrow at 6:00 am, we gather here and burn this neighborhood of jews to the ground!", then that is punishable because it is tied to a specific actionable plan to do damage.
But if I walk around saying "I will KILL all brown eyed people on the planet!", that just makes me a loony, not a criminal.
The problem is we're not being told the true source of this "free speech". If these guys were open about their purchases and their massive spending money I have no issues if they spend ten times as much.
But making that free speech appear to come from credible bodies is what I have a problem with.
It's all about the word "knows". This implies a human being to "know" something. If it's all done by a machine without any human intervention, then it's really just a storage system. There's no question of "knowing" anything.
Google doesn't "know" anything. The computers store data. As long as I have the assurance that no human being is getting personal contextual information out of it, there should be no problems.
And that's where trust comes in. I trust Google not to do that until they give me reasons to believe otherwise.
I did in fact answer you question by saying: "I don't view it as something that they need to make a big deal over." If something's not a big deal they don't need to ask people about it. They don't ask your permission regarding their server software or internal permissions, or what file system to use, or what structure to store your data in. For me, them storing my searches falls on the same line.
As for handing it over to the government, two things. One, every IT company will have to do this if forced. Not just Google. Second, Google fights the government far more than any other IT company when it comes to handing over data. Moreover, they release transparency reports half yearly on just this thing. If anything, your faith in Google should be strengthened because of this cause no other company goes to such lengths.
I don't view it as something that they need to make a big deal over. As long as they keep it to themselves and assure me that only computers (not humans) read it I have no problems. Seems like a reasonable practice.
The few people who don't like it can simply turn it off.
If the drug dealer wants me to continue doing business with him, then yes. As far as sales go drug dealers have a powerful incentive to be honest in their dealings. Otherwise no one would buy drugs from them anymore.
Besides, false analogy because I can move away from Google if I want. Drugs can be more...sticky.
"Google gets a free pass from you no matter what they do."
I already described the situation in which I won't give them a free pass. And that's if I feel they've betrayed my trust. So far, they haven't.
Google gets my trust because it allows me to export data from their services - like Google Docs. Because they give me free stuff that I don't have to pay for. If the consequences are that I get more targeted ads instead of untargeted ones...oh the horror! I like them because I have an inexpensive Nexus 4 instead of an overpriced iOS product. I love them because of the cheap and fast Internet they're rolling out in Kansas. Need I go on?
I can say with 100% confidence that my life is better due to Google. And I don't have to pay a thing. I've never been inconvenienced. For that, I love them. I know they don't sell my data to anyone because they'd be fools to do so. And I know they have the utmost incentive to not let it leak out to anyone else.
The day I find myself inconvenienced by Google is the day I lose my trust in them. But till that happens, they get the benefit of the doubt.
Switching from Google is a choice. You won't be forced into it. But changing your ISP provider might be necessary. You can take Google with you wherever you go and whatever you do. From a pure practical point of view, linking your email ID to your telco is a ghastly proposition.
Google's business model is based on trust. If customers lose their trust, Google suffers. They have a huge incentive to remain trustworthy. So yes, I currently trust Google more than any other business on earth.
As far as trusting the telcos go...I have nothing to say to that.
Not everyone with a Windows PC has had their identities stolen and bank accounts empties. Oh any by the way, "security" is just a convenient excuse for censoring apps. Look at the big stories of Apple censorship - they have nothing to do with security and everything to do with Apple enforcing their own morals.
In a cafe, people are forced to read what's on the bulletin board - it's in their face. For an app, you have to choose to download it and watch it. Ergo false analogy since your soccer moms will then have to explicitly download the porn. After which they can't complain.
What Apple is saying is...well I don't know what they're saying other than "We don't want to give you the choice to explicitly watch porn if you choose".
Not every aspect of a corporation is regulated. Nor should it be. The government does not regulate whether or not companies provide coffee to their employees for example.
Some things are regulated. Others are not. There's no blanket rule.
That's not an argument since you need to show why your example is analagous to this one. To take your example at face value, you can justify any kind of government intervention in absolutely anything.
Google only indexes public sources. So the information was already out in the open and Google made use of it. It's not Google's fault that the info was public is it?
Umm...as a customer, I allow them to collect my data. I'm not forced to use Facebook, or Google, or Amazon. They're not a public service. If I don't want my data to be collected, I either give them false info or stop using their services.
This is ridiculous. As a customer I willingly hand over my personal information to Google. Why the hell should the government get involved here?
Slashdot Mirror
What are you screaming? Does it include specific plans to kill people? If so, then that's illegal. But if you're just generally spreading hate without any specific intentions of violence, then it's ok even if people die.
If people are killed, then only those who actually did the killing are responsible. Spreading hate is perfectly acceptable. It makes you a jerk and an asshole, but not a criminal.
a few hundred angry men that have been known to get violent at the slightest provocation for example.
That is their problem. How can I take responsibility for the immaturity and stupidity of other people?
You don't have to actually do the killing. Making specific plans to do it is enough. Bin Laden didn't personally lead the planes into the twin towers, but he made specific concrete plans to do so.
The keywords are specific, imminent, and concrete plans.
But what if people do burn the jews? Do the screamers keep their right to scream when it's nearly certain to result in deaths, even if they themselves are not likely to do the killing?
Define "nearly certain". Give me an example. If I scream "Let's kill everyone with long hair!", is it "nearly certain" that it'll happen? How is that different from saying "Let's kill all the jews!"?
If there is no true imminent danger of any jews actually being burnt, then yes I support it. I won't join them of course, but I support their right to say it.
If on the other hand it sounded like a real plan - something like "Tomorrow at 6:00 am, we gather here and burn this neighborhood of jews to the ground!", then that is punishable because it is tied to a specific actionable plan to do damage.
But if I walk around saying "I will KILL all brown eyed people on the planet!", that just makes me a loony, not a criminal.
I don't care who they're funded by. But I should know who they're funded by. This is about disclosure.
The problem is we're not being told the true source of this "free speech". If these guys were open about their purchases and their massive spending money I have no issues if they spend ten times as much.
But making that free speech appear to come from credible bodies is what I have a problem with.
It's "A Tale of Two Cities" all over again!
It's all about the word "knows". This implies a human being to "know" something. If it's all done by a machine without any human intervention, then it's really just a storage system. There's no question of "knowing" anything.
Google doesn't "know" anything. The computers store data. As long as I have the assurance that no human being is getting personal contextual information out of it, there should be no problems.
And that's where trust comes in. I trust Google not to do that until they give me reasons to believe otherwise.
I'm pretty sure Facebook has more of your private data than Google.
I did in fact answer you question by saying: "I don't view it as something that they need to make a big deal over." If something's not a big deal they don't need to ask people about it. They don't ask your permission regarding their server software or internal permissions, or what file system to use, or what structure to store your data in. For me, them storing my searches falls on the same line.
As for handing it over to the government, two things. One, every IT company will have to do this if forced. Not just Google. Second, Google fights the government far more than any other IT company when it comes to handing over data. Moreover, they release transparency reports half yearly on just this thing. If anything, your faith in Google should be strengthened because of this cause no other company goes to such lengths.
I don't view it as something that they need to make a big deal over. As long as they keep it to themselves and assure me that only computers (not humans) read it I have no problems. Seems like a reasonable practice.
The few people who don't like it can simply turn it off.
If the drug dealer wants me to continue doing business with him, then yes. As far as sales go drug dealers have a powerful incentive to be honest in their dealings. Otherwise no one would buy drugs from them anymore.
Besides, false analogy because I can move away from Google if I want. Drugs can be more...sticky.
"Google gets a free pass from you no matter what they do."
I already described the situation in which I won't give them a free pass. And that's if I feel they've betrayed my trust. So far, they haven't.
Google gets my trust because it allows me to export data from their services - like Google Docs. Because they give me free stuff that I don't have to pay for. If the consequences are that I get more targeted ads instead of untargeted ones...oh the horror! I like them because I have an inexpensive Nexus 4 instead of an overpriced iOS product. I love them because of the cheap and fast Internet they're rolling out in Kansas. Need I go on?
I can say with 100% confidence that my life is better due to Google. And I don't have to pay a thing. I've never been inconvenienced. For that, I love them. I know they don't sell my data to anyone because they'd be fools to do so. And I know they have the utmost incentive to not let it leak out to anyone else.
The day I find myself inconvenienced by Google is the day I lose my trust in them. But till that happens, they get the benefit of the doubt.
Switching from Google is a choice. You won't be forced into it. But changing your ISP provider might be necessary. You can take Google with you wherever you go and whatever you do. From a pure practical point of view, linking your email ID to your telco is a ghastly proposition.
Google's business model is based on trust. If customers lose their trust, Google suffers. They have a huge incentive to remain trustworthy. So yes, I currently trust Google more than any other business on earth.
As far as trusting the telcos go...I have nothing to say to that.
I understand if you're paranoid. Makes sense. But your paranoia doesn't include your ISP? I mean seriously...you trust AT&T more than Google?
And what happens when you change your Internet service? Or move out of the country?
Waaaaiiit. You trust your ISP more than Google? Seriously?
And when you change your service provider? What then?
Because I like free email?
Kinda obvious no?
Wow - "deserve"?
Good thing you're not a god.
Not everyone with a Windows PC has had their identities stolen and bank accounts empties. Oh any by the way, "security" is just a convenient excuse for censoring apps. Look at the big stories of Apple censorship - they have nothing to do with security and everything to do with Apple enforcing their own morals.
Security my ass.
What is there to be ashamed of? Porn is just another legal, honest business.
Which makes Apple's ham handed policies even worse for not being implemented in a standardized way.
In a cafe, people are forced to read what's on the bulletin board - it's in their face. For an app, you have to choose to download it and watch it. Ergo false analogy since your soccer moms will then have to explicitly download the porn. After which they can't complain.
What Apple is saying is...well I don't know what they're saying other than "We don't want to give you the choice to explicitly watch porn if you choose".
Not every aspect of a corporation is regulated. Nor should it be. The government does not regulate whether or not companies provide coffee to their employees for example.
Some things are regulated. Others are not. There's no blanket rule.
That's not an argument since you need to show why your example is analagous to this one. To take your example at face value, you can justify any kind of government intervention in absolutely anything.
Google only indexes public sources. So the information was already out in the open and Google made use of it. It's not Google's fault that the info was public is it?
Umm...as a customer, I allow them to collect my data. I'm not forced to use Facebook, or Google, or Amazon. They're not a public service. If I don't want my data to be collected, I either give them false info or stop using their services.
This is ridiculous. As a customer I willingly hand over my personal information to Google. Why the hell should the government get involved here?