And you seem to believe the restraints will not be broadened in the foreseeable future based on a case that looks similar to this one?
As I have stated elsewhere on this topic, your "rights" in this scenario are based on an interpretation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled time after time every "right" is subject to "reasonable regulation". This happens to explicitly stated rights, as well as "I am free to watch porn in the library" rights.
Watching porn in the library and refusing to move to a more discrete station by demand your rights be viewed as absolute is going to be the exact vehicle used to bring about more regulation and restraint of your rights.
Really? Where is that stated? Oh, it is an interpretation of the First Amendment. Have you seen what the Supreme Court has allowed to happen to other, explicitly stated rights? Pretty much every "right" has been rules as subject to "reasonable regulation".
To your point though, it is the folks that demand their rights be viewed as absolute that usually bring about more regulation.
I really don't understand why any place adults go must be "family friendly".
Maybe one day you will have a family and will understand. Not every place must be family friendly, but on the other hand not every place must be adult oriented. The public library is a place for everyone, including children.
And, to be honest, I don't care "what someone wants to see". You don't have some Constitutional right to not be offended.
Well, sort of. Your rights are not absolute -- they end where the rights of others begin. You know, the old "First Amendment doesn't allow shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" bit.
If you would like to stand by your theory as absolute, I will help you by demonstrating my right to move my punch does not stop where your face begins. I'm sure a few repetitions will cause one of us to change our mind. And don't try to claim some "no Constitutional right to punch" bullshit -- I'll yell "you're an asshole" the entire time so it will clearly be a freedom of speech issue.
They may not yet be able to shut us all the way off and not kill us, but they can put us in hibernate mode. You don't even know you were unconscious!
Cool story bro, but you kind of missed the point. They didn't shut you off, they just removed your awareness.
Maybe a car analogy will help. Your surgery was like working on a car that was idling in neutral. Your anesthesiologist was maintaining your airway and monitoring your vitals. If you were shut off, he wouldn't have been necessary.
There have been surgeries where hypothermia is induced to effectively shut the body down, but such a procedure is far from having fantastic results on a regular basis.
(or those living in countries where universal healthcare is considered a basic right) in could enjoy it.
No problem. Universal healthcare is free for citizens and governments just print money. Free bionic accessories for everyone.
At least the U.S. uses its astonishing debt and money printing abilities for humanitarian causes such as keeping large banks from suffering a dip in their profit margins.
By unlawful you mean by lawful methods you disagree with.
That is absolutely true, but isn't is strange how when the RIAA or other well funded trade group doesn't like something they line a few pockets and get it made illegal, but when the population doesn't like it there is nothing to be done?
First, I realize my post seemed targeted toward you specifically. It is a general rant, no offense intended.
Second, requesting your info be deleted != your info actually being deleted.
The overall point is that is ridiculous for people to believe the crap they put on social media can simply be deleted. It is like shouting your personal details to a room full of people and then asking them to forget what they just heard. The genie cannot be put back into the bottle.
Even worse, there is no good way to keep all of your personal information from being broadcast. Even if you don't post anything on some social media site it doesn't mean your friends will not post something about you.
I am not defending Facebook in any way. The point is "privacy" is different today than it was yesterday, and it will be something else tomorrow. I don't like it, but pretending it is a containable problem won't make it better.
Sometimes I think this is purely out of laziness that they want to infringe upon the freedoms of citizens. If they didn't mind actually going out and doing the job of collecting enough information for just cause to get a warrant, we probably wouldn't have all these attempts at making laws that infringe upon citizens' rights.
I wish your thought was correct and laziness was to blame. Unfortunately it is far from the truth. In many cases there is not enough evidence to get a warrant. By instilling constant, invasive monitoring as the norm, the data provided by the monitoring will become the basis for the warrant.
Your post is in jest and modded funny. Unfortunately it is right on for what the "authorities" would like, except the blog is posted for you by your phone, computer, ISP, neighbor, bank, employer, and cameras covering public places.
but the reality is that the voter fraud that exists is rare. Only a handful of people are prosecuted in any given year.
Your second statement is not proof that voter fraud is rare. It merely supports that only a handful of people are prosecuted.
Speeding tickets are rare in comparison to the number of drivers speeding. Does that mean they were not actually speeding? Or does it show that there are not enough resources to catch each violation.
Your statement could be true because fraud is rare. It could also be that prosecutors do not want to prosecute or are dissuaded from prosecuting more instances. It could be that the system is so weak producing evidence of the fraud is difficult.
Why do electoral commissions, or the local alternative, keep attempting to bring in voting systems that have been proven to be vulnerable? (Conspiracy theories aside).
Is there a voting system that isn't vulnerable? Having people show up in person to vote has shown ineffective at keeping the dead from casting a ballot.
so please, judge companies by their douchebag behavior, not some marketing slogan
I assume you must have read my post as being pro-Google. It was neither pro-Google or anti-Google. The idea is that Google is only as evil as their customers allow them to be. If one feels Google's policies are unacceptable, they should not use Google's services. If enough users do the same, Google will get the message and change.
I do recognize there is no "one stop shop" that offers everything Google does with a privacy policy that most would find locked down enough to be "good". This is a golden business opportunity for someone. Create !Google that does everything Google does without asking for any information in return.
I hear the naysayers already and I agree such a service is unlikely to to work. Without advertising the service would be fee based, and the reality is that 98%+ of the population is perfectly happy to trade their privacy for free email and hilarious cat videos on Youtube. Yeah, quite a few say that doesn't describe them, but they still use gmail as their primary email and link the Youtube video of their cutest-in-the-world cat on their Facebook page while tweeting what color underwear they are wearing today.
People need to wake up and realize there is no "free" service. Google provides things that cost them substantial dollars to create and maintain but users do not directly pay for. Your information is what you trade for Google's services. No one is forced or coerced into using Google's services. There are alternatives out there that you can pay for and expect lock your privacy down.
It is no different than anything else. There is a restaurant in town I will not go to because their service is pitiful. I refuse to support their model with my dollars. If you don't like Google's practices, you are free to take your private information to another email/search/whatever provider.
Of course most of this is wasted thought, because many of those complaining about Google violating their privacy just updated their location from their phone, posted what they had for breakfast on Facebook, and tweeted details of their morning bowel movement.
Slashdot Mirror
And you seem to believe the restraints will not be broadened in the foreseeable future based on a case that looks similar to this one?
As I have stated elsewhere on this topic, your "rights" in this scenario are based on an interpretation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled time after time every "right" is subject to "reasonable regulation". This happens to explicitly stated rights, as well as "I am free to watch porn in the library" rights.
Watching porn in the library and refusing to move to a more discrete station by demand your rights be viewed as absolute is going to be the exact vehicle used to bring about more regulation and restraint of your rights.
Yes, it's your constitutional right to watch porn
Really? Where is that stated? Oh, it is an interpretation of the First Amendment. Have you seen what the Supreme Court has allowed to happen to other, explicitly stated rights? Pretty much every "right" has been rules as subject to "reasonable regulation".
To your point though, it is the folks that demand their rights be viewed as absolute that usually bring about more regulation.
I really don't understand why any place adults go must be "family friendly".
Maybe one day you will have a family and will understand. Not every place must be family friendly, but on the other hand not every place must be adult oriented. The public library is a place for everyone, including children.
And, to be honest, I don't care "what someone wants to see". You don't have some Constitutional right to not be offended.
Well, sort of. Your rights are not absolute -- they end where the rights of others begin. You know, the old "First Amendment doesn't allow shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" bit.
If you would like to stand by your theory as absolute, I will help you by demonstrating my right to move my punch does not stop where your face begins. I'm sure a few repetitions will cause one of us to change our mind. And don't try to claim some "no Constitutional right to punch" bullshit -- I'll yell "you're an asshole" the entire time so it will clearly be a freedom of speech issue.
He owned a small fleet.
Scientists have classified these plants as Republicans in order to keep the blame for climate change consistent throughout history.
Your post is one of the rare instances something should be modded higher than +5. Well said.
I can hardly believe you folks are still seriously using Farhenheit.
I mean, the power of social norm and all, but really, Farhenheit? What's next, miles? Stones?
You forgot Jackass as a unit of measure. You scored a 10.
there's something exciting about seeing a blunt striking tool result in a consciousness change in human behavior
You got to admit it is pretty cool use of computer science....
I do not because it is not.
They may not yet be able to shut us all the way off and not kill us, but they can put us in hibernate mode. You don't even know you were unconscious!
Cool story bro, but you kind of missed the point. They didn't shut you off, they just removed your awareness.
Maybe a car analogy will help. Your surgery was like working on a car that was idling in neutral. Your anesthesiologist was maintaining your airway and monitoring your vitals. If you were shut off, he wouldn't have been necessary.
There have been surgeries where hypothermia is induced to effectively shut the body down, but such a procedure is far from having fantastic results on a regular basis.
(or those living in countries where universal healthcare is considered a basic right) in could enjoy it.
No problem. Universal healthcare is free for citizens and governments just print money. Free bionic accessories for everyone.
At least the U.S. uses its astonishing debt and money printing abilities for humanitarian causes such as keeping large banks from suffering a dip in their profit margins.
Who knew the Museum of Nonsense was a real place. I expected this to be a story about Congress.
By unlawful you mean by lawful methods you disagree with.
That is absolutely true, but isn't is strange how when the RIAA or other well funded trade group doesn't like something they line a few pockets and get it made illegal, but when the population doesn't like it there is nothing to be done?
A few points:
First, I realize my post seemed targeted toward you specifically. It is a general rant, no offense intended.
Second, requesting your info be deleted != your info actually being deleted.
The overall point is that is ridiculous for people to believe the crap they put on social media can simply be deleted. It is like shouting your personal details to a room full of people and then asking them to forget what they just heard. The genie cannot be put back into the bottle.
Even worse, there is no good way to keep all of your personal information from being broadcast. Even if you don't post anything on some social media site it doesn't mean your friends will not post something about you.
I am not defending Facebook in any way. The point is "privacy" is different today than it was yesterday, and it will be something else tomorrow. I don't like it, but pretending it is a containable problem won't make it better.
It isn't your data. It is their data about you. Read the TOS you agreed to when you made the account.
Scream about it all you want, but you accepted the terms.
Sometimes I think this is purely out of laziness that they want to infringe upon the freedoms of citizens. If they didn't mind actually going out and doing the job of collecting enough information for just cause to get a warrant, we probably wouldn't have all these attempts at making laws that infringe upon citizens' rights.
I wish your thought was correct and laziness was to blame. Unfortunately it is far from the truth. In many cases there is not enough evidence to get a warrant. By instilling constant, invasive monitoring as the norm, the data provided by the monitoring will become the basis for the warrant.
Your post is in jest and modded funny. Unfortunately it is right on for what the "authorities" would like, except the blog is posted for you by your phone, computer, ISP, neighbor, bank, employer, and cameras covering public places.
It is for safety. Just not yours.
but I can understand people being frustrated having to park a block away when there's not just one or two handicap spots going unused.
Imagine the frustration of being handicapped and having to park a block away when some douche is taking up the limited handicapped spaces.
Not sure if sentence!
but the reality is that the voter fraud that exists is rare. Only a handful of people are prosecuted in any given year.
Your second statement is not proof that voter fraud is rare. It merely supports that only a handful of people are prosecuted.
Speeding tickets are rare in comparison to the number of drivers speeding. Does that mean they were not actually speeding? Or does it show that there are not enough resources to catch each violation.
Your statement could be true because fraud is rare. It could also be that prosecutors do not want to prosecute or are dissuaded from prosecuting more instances. It could be that the system is so weak producing evidence of the fraud is difficult.
This would be awesome if there were any candidates worth stuffing the virtual ballot box for :-P
As with most elections this one will turn out to be who is voted against.
Why do electoral commissions, or the local alternative, keep attempting to bring in voting systems that have been proven to be vulnerable? (Conspiracy theories aside).
Is there a voting system that isn't vulnerable? Having people show up in person to vote has shown ineffective at keeping the dead from casting a ballot.
so please, judge companies by their douchebag behavior, not some marketing slogan
I assume you must have read my post as being pro-Google. It was neither pro-Google or anti-Google. The idea is that Google is only as evil as their customers allow them to be. If one feels Google's policies are unacceptable, they should not use Google's services. If enough users do the same, Google will get the message and change.
I do recognize there is no "one stop shop" that offers everything Google does with a privacy policy that most would find locked down enough to be "good". This is a golden business opportunity for someone. Create !Google that does everything Google does without asking for any information in return.
I hear the naysayers already and I agree such a service is unlikely to to work. Without advertising the service would be fee based, and the reality is that 98%+ of the population is perfectly happy to trade their privacy for free email and hilarious cat videos on Youtube. Yeah, quite a few say that doesn't describe them, but they still use gmail as their primary email and link the Youtube video of their cutest-in-the-world cat on their Facebook page while tweeting what color underwear they are wearing today.
People need to wake up and realize there is no "free" service. Google provides things that cost them substantial dollars to create and maintain but users do not directly pay for. Your information is what you trade for Google's services. No one is forced or coerced into using Google's services. There are alternatives out there that you can pay for and expect lock your privacy down.
It is no different than anything else. There is a restaurant in town I will not go to because their service is pitiful. I refuse to support their model with my dollars. If you don't like Google's practices, you are free to take your private information to another email/search/whatever provider.
Of course most of this is wasted thought, because many of those complaining about Google violating their privacy just updated their location from their phone, posted what they had for breakfast on Facebook, and tweeted details of their morning bowel movement.