No, I'd say there's a lot to fear even if you have nothing to hide. So hide your nothing, and don't depend on others to hide it for you.
I'm feeling like there is a huge discrepancy between the way Americans see freedom and the way Europeans see it. Taking away the rights of others does not make me more free.
The information is mine (posts are copyrighted, surely?)
Copyright is not a fundamental right either. It is an unjust violation of our fundamental rights to free speech and our property rights. The very concept of ownership can only be meaningfully applied to rivalrous goods. You cannot own information, ever.
Congratulations on discovering the placebo effect. Let us know when you can show a statistically significant effect from a properly controlled(blinded, randomized) experiment.
Thank you. This is the only sensible position I've seen on this subject. If you're concerned about what Facebook will do with information concerning you (note: not "your" information), then don't give it to them.
3) So what if it's a mostly robotic factory? This IS the future of manufacturing in all countries - accept it
It is the future, but how is this future compatible with capitalism? When things are so efficient that we only need a small fraction of the population to fill the needs of everyone, how does that economy work? What do the displaced workers do? Not everyone can have a high tech job designing robots.
Robotic factories would be a great idea in an economy that follows the principle "from each according to ability, to each according to need". But under capitalism the benefits from efficiency accrue almost entirely to the capitalist. What is the working class to do?
People naturally forget things unless we write them down. Writing down information to keep it for the future is at least as important as your imaginary right to be forgotten.
Also, there is no fundamental principle that "your" information belongs to you. Information is not something that can be owned. Period. On the other hand, the fundamental principles of free speech and free thought protect our rights to know, record, store, process, and communicate information, however we see fit, no matter what the subject.
I don't see the difference. Once you tell me something, it's not your information anymore, even if it's about you. The things that I know are my information.
There may be a risk of nuclear weapons proliferation if we replace fossil fuels with nuclear. But if we don't, there is a damned certainty that the climate will continue changing faster than it ever has in the history of the human species. We are at the beginning of a global extinction event that has a very good chance of causing our own extinction. Nuclear weapons are barely a minor concern comparatively.
Yes, the same websites that we "others" all use to keep informed. Force that website to "forget" something, and you're taking away my right to be informed.
Because of capitalism. Those who do the real important work never get what they are actually worth, as it would cut into the profits made by executives and investors. The labor market cannot ensure that people get paid what they're worth--by which I mean the value they produce--because there's almost always someone willing to do it for less. We under cut each other fighting for scraps, and those at the top keep the bulk of what we produce. This is how capitalism works.
I have no problem with the carriers not storing records
The police who are talking to congress about the issue do have a problem with that. That's the whole issue under contention here. Whether service providers should be forced to store records so that police can look through them in the future. In your first message you said that police should be able to get records less than one month old. That sounds to me like endorsement of the police's position under discussion here.
If you actually believe that service providers should not be forced to keep records, and should only turn over records after getting a warrant, then you should be completely opposed to what the police are suggesting here.
Evidence you can't see might as well not exist. Especially if the person you have to trust is the one asking for extraordinary powers.
It's quite telling that there hasn't been a successful terrorist attack in the US since 9/11. That means that the government is 100% effective at counter terrorism. When was the last time the government was 100% effective at anything? Does that not raise red flags?
Also, look at the alleged terrorists they have apprehended. Every one of them was given significant help by the government. I don't believe a single one of them would have been a credible threat without being egged on by the government. Yes, they might have had the motive, but when the government provides the means and the opportunity they're at least as guilty as the alleged terrorist.
Deleting messages when there's no evidence that a crime has even been committed, let alone that those messages are relevant to any crime, is not a "stupid barrier".
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'd say there's a lot to fear even if you have nothing to hide. So hide your nothing, and don't depend on others to hide it for you.
I'm feeling like there is a huge discrepancy between the way Americans see freedom and the way Europeans see it. Taking away the rights of others does not make me more free.
The information is mine (posts are copyrighted, surely?)
Copyright is not a fundamental right either. It is an unjust violation of our fundamental rights to free speech and our property rights. The very concept of ownership can only be meaningfully applied to rivalrous goods. You cannot own information, ever.
Then someone else did. So what? If you can't keep your secrets, that's your problem. It's not my job to keep your secrets for you.
Congratulations on discovering the placebo effect. Let us know when you can show a statistically significant effect from a properly controlled(blinded, randomized) experiment.
Thank you. This is the only sensible position I've seen on this subject. If you're concerned about what Facebook will do with information concerning you (note: not "your" information), then don't give it to them.
3) So what if it's a mostly robotic factory? This IS the future of manufacturing in all countries - accept it
It is the future, but how is this future compatible with capitalism? When things are so efficient that we only need a small fraction of the population to fill the needs of everyone, how does that economy work? What do the displaced workers do? Not everyone can have a high tech job designing robots.
Robotic factories would be a great idea in an economy that follows the principle "from each according to ability, to each according to need". But under capitalism the benefits from efficiency accrue almost entirely to the capitalist. What is the working class to do?
People naturally forget things unless we write them down. Writing down information to keep it for the future is at least as important as your imaginary right to be forgotten.
Also, there is no fundamental principle that "your" information belongs to you. Information is not something that can be owned. Period. On the other hand, the fundamental principles of free speech and free thought protect our rights to know, record, store, process, and communicate information, however we see fit, no matter what the subject.
Why bother finding a dog?
I don't see the difference. Once you tell me something, it's not your information anymore, even if it's about you. The things that I know are my information.
all those who do agree with your premise ought to agree with your conclusion. You'll notice they don't, though
Story of my life...
There may be a risk of nuclear weapons proliferation if we replace fossil fuels with nuclear. But if we don't, there is a damned certainty that the climate will continue changing faster than it ever has in the history of the human species. We are at the beginning of a global extinction event that has a very good chance of causing our own extinction. Nuclear weapons are barely a minor concern comparatively.
Yes, the same websites that we "others" all use to keep informed. Force that website to "forget" something, and you're taking away my right to be informed.
Anything any of us could say on the topic would be gossip. I prefer the jokes.
The right to be forgotten is no right at all. What you are talking about is making others forcibly forget.
Why is it unfortunate? Compared to the US federal government, and the interests it serves, Dotcom is an angel.
Because of capitalism. Those who do the real important work never get what they are actually worth, as it would cut into the profits made by executives and investors. The labor market cannot ensure that people get paid what they're worth--by which I mean the value they produce--because there's almost always someone willing to do it for less. We under cut each other fighting for scraps, and those at the top keep the bulk of what we produce. This is how capitalism works.
Their stance is that every copyright or trademark claim is as ridiculous as the satirical claim they make in this article.
I have no problem with the carriers not storing records
The police who are talking to congress about the issue do have a problem with that. That's the whole issue under contention here. Whether service providers should be forced to store records so that police can look through them in the future. In your first message you said that police should be able to get records less than one month old. That sounds to me like endorsement of the police's position under discussion here.
If you actually believe that service providers should not be forced to keep records, and should only turn over records after getting a warrant, then you should be completely opposed to what the police are suggesting here.
Evidence you can't see might as well not exist. Especially if the person you have to trust is the one asking for extraordinary powers.
It's quite telling that there hasn't been a successful terrorist attack in the US since 9/11. That means that the government is 100% effective at counter terrorism. When was the last time the government was 100% effective at anything? Does that not raise red flags?
Also, look at the alleged terrorists they have apprehended. Every one of them was given significant help by the government. I don't believe a single one of them would have been a credible threat without being egged on by the government. Yes, they might have had the motive, but when the government provides the means and the opportunity they're at least as guilty as the alleged terrorist.
You assume that counter terrorism actually does something to stop terrorism. There is no evidence for that assertion.
Which, like he said, would do more to make our country a better place than keeping SMS messages.
That was before 9/11 changed everything.
Deleting messages when there's no evidence that a crime has even been committed, let alone that those messages are relevant to any crime, is not a "stupid barrier".
Somehow, I'm not terribly worried. Terrorism is a lesser threat to any of us than slipping in the shower is.
The government should never have a monopoly on violence, as it will inevitably abuse that monopoly. Free people must always have the option to resist.