How much damage do they cause along the way? How many Kim Davis' are emboldened? How many unknown persons are pushed further out of society? He doesn't have to get elected for any of those things to occur. Simply by being given the attention and people saying "this is ok" is enough to cause problems. Every step down that path makes privacy that much more important (or down the path of 'if you're not with us, you're against us' of the W. Bush era).
Let's also not forget that in the U.S., it is against the law to track someone who is under 13 years old. But only maybe 1 in 1000 trackers really knows or cares about age. So many trackers in the U.S. are violating the law thousands or even millions of times a day.
My own position, and the position EFF has (finally!) adopted is: tracking by opt-in only!
What if users were able to configure age bracket within browser and it went out with the request header of every request?
If widely implemented, everyone knows about it the lawyers might be able to make a stronger case failure to check such a header == negligence. Of course the same theory would not be limited to tracking and may ultimately prove to be counterproductive.
Then people who aren't 13 will start using it because they don't want to be tracked either and then the advertising industry will drop support for it just like they did with the 'Do No Track' header.
Can you forgive a convicted child molester who has supposedly paid their debt to society?
No, because sexuality isn't a choice, and as everyone of us who has a penis knows, when we like something, we will chase it to the ends of the earth and do almost anything to get it.
I don't blame pedos for their predicament, since they can't really help it. But that trait is incompatible with civilised society, and any action against it must be effective for their entire lifetime.
I have a penis, I've liked a lot of "somethings" (apparently women are things in your world?) and I have only chased a couple that actually mattered. Just like privacy, sex crimes are shades of grey. The priest touching the altar boy is very different than the statutory rape charge brought by parents against an 18 year old who goes on to marry the 16 year old he was dating. Either way this is headed way off topic and I'm not interested in that discussion. The point was that privacy is not about forgiveness and personal choice because we can't always forgive and sometimes it isn't a choice.
Privacy is not a fixed thing. There are shades of privacy from something you do alone in a room where no one can hear/see you, to private jokes between friends which can be heard by others but only understood by you and them, to being private in a public space. The last one is the one people have the hardest time understanding - the easiest way for me is an extra in a movie: they're there, you see them, but you're never told who they are, their conversations aren't featured, they are private despite being in a film shown to the public. That state of mind, believing yourself to be part of the background noise of life, allows people to function in their daily lives as private people. So yes, now, like then, people can hear through thin walls but that is just another form of "private in public" and should be respected as private unless it's a matter of law (like a wife being beaten should be reported to the cops but my neighbours poor parenting skills is private despite me hearing it daily).
Ya, that law was never going to work. You need to be able to track 13 year olds to be able to "not" track them otherwise how would you know if they're 13 or not?
This is just a bunch of 3rd and 4th -party hearsay that Trump may have had a book of Hitler's speeches. It in no way supports your assertion that "Donald Trump has more in common with Hitler..." at all.
No, it's a first party witness (Ivana Trump) making a statement to Vanity Fair. Yes, it was re-reported by Business Insider making that particular article a 3rd party but the original statement is true as far as anyone can know.
This, of course, is just more of what I assumed you really meant, which that Trump is a racist and a misogynist, which is simply what the political class (especially on the left, and this guy is very far left) say about Trump. Sure, you can mischaracterize statements from anyone and claim they are racist, it happens all the time, but it's just hyperbole. This guy didn't really even try to demonstrate any commonalities between Trump and Hitler (except, as I pointed out, hair), rather he used Hitler's election to drum up additional hatred for Republicans in his leftist audience. You can find articles doing that all the time. In fact, I can find lots of similar articles using the same rhetoric about Bush W. and even Mitt Romney.
"Laziness is a trait in the blacks.... Black guys counting my money! I hate it" - Trump
"China is killing us. They’ve taken so much of our wealth. They’ve taken our jobs. They’ve taken our business, they’ve taken our manufacturing, [audience member screams out “our land”] Our land? The way they’re going they’ll have that pretty soon.Think about it, we have rebuilt China — somebody said to me “that’s a harsh statement” — it’s the greatest theft in the history of the United States." - Trump
"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." - Trump
Hitler propaganda, bolstered by his "cabal" or not, preyed on such themes as the "lazy" Jews were stealing from "hardworking" German people. The blacks, the Jews, the Bolsheviks were to blame for all of "normal German's" issues. Much like Trump blames the Chinese, the Mexicans, the "Blacks", etc.
I'm not going to convince you but for most people it's plain as day that he uses the language of hate and fear to gain popularity. Win or lose he demonstrates how easily large portions of the population are swayed by the politics of blame and how large that population is.
I don't see how any of those arguments follow from one another. Ultimately it comes down to forgiveness and personal choice, doesn't it? We must all allow the liberties to OTHERS that we expect for ourselves. I don't see how privacy has anything to do with liberty, it simply removes the ability for those opposed to freedom to hide their oppressive tendencies.
Our history as humans is littered with examples. Women hiding behind male names to express their liberty in books. Irish hiding their ancestry to have the liberty to use services. Jews hiding their religion to avoid being rounded up and shipped to concentration camps.
How do you forgive someone for being Black or Muslim? Can you forgive a convicted child molester who has supposedly paid their debt to society?
Those are extreme examples to be sure but small ones happen every day. An alcoholic passed over for promotion despite 3 decades of sobriety, a teacher fired for taking part in a porno while in college, a politician forced to resign over an internet post taken out of context before they were in political life - all of these things are real events that would not have happened had their privacy been respected. The politician used a pseudonym, the teacher a stage name, the alcoholic attended meetings. All actions that had clear intent to remain anonymous and private under "private in public" doctrine (a foreign concept to Americans but well entrenched in other countries). The liberty to change, experiment, and speak all wrapped up in information that was intended to remain private and limited current/future opportunity for these individuals. Others who look at their situations and are influenced not to exercise their liberty for fear of loosing their opportunities leads to a society that is free in nothing but language.
Also, please don't mistake me. Actions have consequences (like the child molester going to jail), that is without question. Private actions, especially private in public actions, (like participating in a demonstration or shopping at certain stores or internet commenting) are very different and need protection.
It's not simply about shame. Less than a century ago the world tore itself apart because a single trait was vilified, hunted, and slaughtered. We like to think that we've moved forward and are past such things but they are never far off. Donald Trump has more in common with Hitler than the founding fathers, yet he's the fore runner in the US Republican nomination. All it takes is a failing economy & desperate people to begin the cycle of hate. It might be gays in the US, Muslims in the EU, the poor in Canada, etc. Maybe it doesn't go to the lengths that Hitler did, maybe it only excludes certain classes of people from being able to attain a reasonable life. Alcoholic/Drug user? Excluded from working. Gay? Excluded from society. Criminal? Excluded from both. The biggest thing in immediate danger with the loss of privacy is opportunity. You must conform publicly in every way to the definition of the ideal or face ridicule, ostracization, or limitation. Privacy is liberty. Liberty to explore your boundaries, interests, and desires. Liberty to fix your mistakes, change your mind, & move forward in life without being restrained by your past choices. Without privacy none of that is possible.
Well, if you like going to those sites, it does become your problem as the more people who block ads, the less revenue they generate, and then their content will start to get worse, and eventually they'll disappear. It's not that I don't generally agree with you, but that point is clearly false.
It's not false. They can change the way they do business. NYT has proven that other models work - people will pay for quality content, others will be happy with ads, and others will use the freenet.
AdBlock has already won. The countermeasures do their job just fine. Many sites that used them did a serious about face when people didn't shutdown their AdBlockers they just went to another website offering the same/similar content. Adblock blockers are also trivial to block/circumvent.
It is solely for my phone... it's the pressure when I kneel down against the outside of the pant leg. With my phone the power button is on the top corner so it seems very easy to trigger in this way. There should be a two button option for problem phones (software) and/or a button that has guards at either end to prevent evenly distributed pressure from pressing the button (hardware).
Many Android phones when you press the power button the screen activates with the "Emergency Call" touchable which means it easily enters calling mode. Since emergency services is the only valid call you can make from that screen those are the "butt dials" getting through.
More annoying is the fact that holding the power button, something that seems to happen often in my pocket, brings up the "silent/airplane mode/power off" options without having to enter the pass key. I've missed so many calls because of this damn "feature". It's a combination of bad phone design and bad software design.
This. Even the courts agree - what comes onto my system is my choice. I can block whatever the @$#$ I don't want, i can twist and control the data that is on my system for personal use. Does this harm the sites I visit? Sure, they don't get the ad revenue. That's not my problem that's their problem. Not getting enough ad revenue? Find a different business model.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen. Rates have dropped 60% from the mid-80s of reported drunk driving incidents. A decade or two before that it was a normal thing for the guys to get drunk and go joy riding. It wasn't reported to the cops because they didn't care.
I memorized the locations, names, flags, and capitols of every country when I was 10 years old. I don't know everything about other countries but I picked up information about the languages from a discussion with a pair of PHD linguists we have in the family. I have trouble relating to them so I like to ask them about stuff in their field so at the very least I can learn something. This Christmas I get to learn about Celtic.
So Walloon doesn't get a look in? You were caught out. Admit it. Not sure what this means
Plus you didn't actually read article 13, as it states they will process the data internally, and that it is kept in accordance with Belgian & EU data protection laws.
I did read article 13, nothing in Belgian/EU privacy law would prevent what I'm talking about. It doesn't state that it will process the data internally, just that it's being processed (in accordance with the law - http://www.edrm.net/resources/... ) - they can sell the data to anyone within the EU without informing the customer and outside of the EU if they have permission, which they give themselves with that "unless you give us your explicit consent" -> "explicit authorization to exploit" trick.
Slashdot Mirror
How much damage do they cause along the way? How many Kim Davis' are emboldened? How many unknown persons are pushed further out of society? He doesn't have to get elected for any of those things to occur. Simply by being given the attention and people saying "this is ok" is enough to cause problems. Every step down that path makes privacy that much more important (or down the path of 'if you're not with us, you're against us' of the W. Bush era).
Let's also not forget that in the U.S., it is against the law to track someone who is under 13 years old. But only maybe 1 in 1000 trackers really knows or cares about age. So many trackers in the U.S. are violating the law thousands or even millions of times a day.
My own position, and the position EFF has (finally!) adopted is: tracking by opt-in only!
What if users were able to configure age bracket within browser and it went out with the request header of every request?
If widely implemented, everyone knows about it the lawyers might be able to make a stronger case failure to check such a header == negligence. Of course the same theory would not be limited to tracking and may ultimately prove to be counterproductive.
Then people who aren't 13 will start using it because they don't want to be tracked either and then the advertising industry will drop support for it just like they did with the 'Do No Track' header.
Can you forgive a convicted child molester who has supposedly paid their debt to society?
No, because sexuality isn't a choice, and as everyone of us who has a penis knows, when we like something, we will chase it to the ends of the earth and do almost anything to get it.
I don't blame pedos for their predicament, since they can't really help it. But that trait is incompatible with civilised society, and any action against it must be effective for their entire lifetime.
I have a penis, I've liked a lot of "somethings" (apparently women are things in your world?) and I have only chased a couple that actually mattered. Just like privacy, sex crimes are shades of grey. The priest touching the altar boy is very different than the statutory rape charge brought by parents against an 18 year old who goes on to marry the 16 year old he was dating. Either way this is headed way off topic and I'm not interested in that discussion. The point was that privacy is not about forgiveness and personal choice because we can't always forgive and sometimes it isn't a choice.
Privacy is not a fixed thing. There are shades of privacy from something you do alone in a room where no one can hear/see you, to private jokes between friends which can be heard by others but only understood by you and them, to being private in a public space. The last one is the one people have the hardest time understanding - the easiest way for me is an extra in a movie: they're there, you see them, but you're never told who they are, their conversations aren't featured, they are private despite being in a film shown to the public. That state of mind, believing yourself to be part of the background noise of life, allows people to function in their daily lives as private people. So yes, now, like then, people can hear through thin walls but that is just another form of "private in public" and should be respected as private unless it's a matter of law (like a wife being beaten should be reported to the cops but my neighbours poor parenting skills is private despite me hearing it daily).
What exactly is there to be worried about?
Depends on what you own or are trying to hide... For most of us it's "Not much" and "Not Much" which gives you the answer you seek.
The thing you will want to hide is the thing you didn't know you should have kept hidden.
Ya, that law was never going to work. You need to be able to track 13 year olds to be able to "not" track them otherwise how would you know if they're 13 or not?
I have a facebook page too - it's not real but I have one.
This is just a bunch of 3rd and 4th -party hearsay that Trump may have had a book of Hitler's speeches. It in no way supports your assertion that "Donald Trump has more in common with Hitler..." at all.
No, it's a first party witness (Ivana Trump) making a statement to Vanity Fair. Yes, it was re-reported by Business Insider making that particular article a 3rd party but the original statement is true as far as anyone can know.
This, of course, is just more of what I assumed you really meant, which that Trump is a racist and a misogynist, which is simply what the political class (especially on the left, and this guy is very far left) say about Trump. Sure, you can mischaracterize statements from anyone and claim they are racist, it happens all the time, but it's just hyperbole. This guy didn't really even try to demonstrate any commonalities between Trump and Hitler (except, as I pointed out, hair), rather he used Hitler's election to drum up additional hatred for Republicans in his leftist audience. You can find articles doing that all the time. In fact, I can find lots of similar articles using the same rhetoric about Bush W. and even Mitt Romney.
"Laziness is a trait in the blacks. ... Black guys counting my money! I hate it" - Trump
"China is killing us. They’ve taken so much of our wealth. They’ve taken our jobs. They’ve taken our business, they’ve taken our manufacturing, [audience member screams out “our land”] Our land? The way they’re going they’ll have that pretty soon.Think about it, we have rebuilt China — somebody said to me “that’s a harsh statement” — it’s the greatest theft in the history of the United States." - Trump
"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." - Trump
Hitler propaganda, bolstered by his "cabal" or not, preyed on such themes as the "lazy" Jews were stealing from "hardworking" German people. The blacks, the Jews, the Bolsheviks were to blame for all of "normal German's" issues. Much like Trump blames the Chinese, the Mexicans, the "Blacks", etc.
I'm not going to convince you but for most people it's plain as day that he uses the language of hate and fear to gain popularity. Win or lose he demonstrates how easily large portions of the population are swayed by the politics of blame and how large that population is.
Riiiiight... http://www.businessinsider.com...
http://www.poynter.org/news/me...
I don't see how any of those arguments follow from one another. Ultimately it comes down to forgiveness and personal choice, doesn't it? We must all allow the liberties to OTHERS that we expect for ourselves. I don't see how privacy has anything to do with liberty, it simply removes the ability for those opposed to freedom to hide their oppressive tendencies.
Our history as humans is littered with examples. Women hiding behind male names to express their liberty in books. Irish hiding their ancestry to have the liberty to use services. Jews hiding their religion to avoid being rounded up and shipped to concentration camps.
How do you forgive someone for being Black or Muslim? Can you forgive a convicted child molester who has supposedly paid their debt to society?
Those are extreme examples to be sure but small ones happen every day. An alcoholic passed over for promotion despite 3 decades of sobriety, a teacher fired for taking part in a porno while in college, a politician forced to resign over an internet post taken out of context before they were in political life - all of these things are real events that would not have happened had their privacy been respected. The politician used a pseudonym, the teacher a stage name, the alcoholic attended meetings. All actions that had clear intent to remain anonymous and private under "private in public" doctrine (a foreign concept to Americans but well entrenched in other countries). The liberty to change, experiment, and speak all wrapped up in information that was intended to remain private and limited current/future opportunity for these individuals. Others who look at their situations and are influenced not to exercise their liberty for fear of loosing their opportunities leads to a society that is free in nothing but language.
Also, please don't mistake me. Actions have consequences (like the child molester going to jail), that is without question. Private actions, especially private in public actions, (like participating in a demonstration or shopping at certain stores or internet commenting) are very different and need protection.
It's not simply about shame. Less than a century ago the world tore itself apart because a single trait was vilified, hunted, and slaughtered. We like to think that we've moved forward and are past such things but they are never far off. Donald Trump has more in common with Hitler than the founding fathers, yet he's the fore runner in the US Republican nomination. All it takes is a failing economy & desperate people to begin the cycle of hate. It might be gays in the US, Muslims in the EU, the poor in Canada, etc. Maybe it doesn't go to the lengths that Hitler did, maybe it only excludes certain classes of people from being able to attain a reasonable life. Alcoholic/Drug user? Excluded from working. Gay? Excluded from society. Criminal? Excluded from both. The biggest thing in immediate danger with the loss of privacy is opportunity. You must conform publicly in every way to the definition of the ideal or face ridicule, ostracization, or limitation. Privacy is liberty. Liberty to explore your boundaries, interests, and desires. Liberty to fix your mistakes, change your mind, & move forward in life without being restrained by your past choices. Without privacy none of that is possible.
Either way the men with the white coats are coming after you... or maybe the men with the funny glasses with an extra band on one side.
Those who don't learn from history...
Well, if you like going to those sites, it does become your problem as the more people who block ads, the less revenue they generate, and then their content will start to get worse, and eventually they'll disappear. It's not that I don't generally agree with you, but that point is clearly false.
It's not false. They can change the way they do business. NYT has proven that other models work - people will pay for quality content, others will be happy with ads, and others will use the freenet.
Except that I do keep it in my front pocket and it still "butt dials".
They just need to change the button from a press to a slide or something like that... simple to access but not simple to accidentally press.
AdBlock has already won. The countermeasures do their job just fine. Many sites that used them did a serious about face when people didn't shutdown their AdBlockers they just went to another website offering the same/similar content. Adblock blockers are also trivial to block/circumvent.
You could, maybe, stop wearing those ridiculously uncomfortable skinny jeans and actually leave "room" for your phone, in a FRONT pocket?
I've never worn skinny jeans in my life and always put it in my front pocket and unintentional calls/commands happen a LOT.
It happens most often in khakis - ie: standard business wear. Also in relaxed fit jeans.
Sorry, not going to start carrying a murse.
It is solely for my phone... it's the pressure when I kneel down against the outside of the pant leg. With my phone the power button is on the top corner so it seems very easy to trigger in this way. There should be a two button option for problem phones (software) and/or a button that has guards at either end to prevent evenly distributed pressure from pressing the button (hardware).
Many Android phones when you press the power button the screen activates with the "Emergency Call" touchable which means it easily enters calling mode. Since emergency services is the only valid call you can make from that screen those are the "butt dials" getting through.
More annoying is the fact that holding the power button, something that seems to happen often in my pocket, brings up the "silent/airplane mode/power off" options without having to enter the pass key. I've missed so many calls because of this damn "feature". It's a combination of bad phone design and bad software design.
This. Even the courts agree - what comes onto my system is my choice. I can block whatever the @$#$ I don't want, i can twist and control the data that is on my system for personal use. Does this harm the sites I visit? Sure, they don't get the ad revenue. That's not my problem that's their problem. Not getting enough ad revenue? Find a different business model.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen. Rates have dropped 60% from the mid-80s of reported drunk driving incidents. A decade or two before that it was a normal thing for the guys to get drunk and go joy riding. It wasn't reported to the cops because they didn't care.
Oh and by the way: https://imgur.com/88CgIY5
I memorized the locations, names, flags, and capitols of every country when I was 10 years old. I don't know everything about other countries but I picked up information about the languages from a discussion with a pair of PHD linguists we have in the family. I have trouble relating to them so I like to ask them about stuff in their field so at the very least I can learn something. This Christmas I get to learn about Celtic.
So Walloon doesn't get a look in? You were caught out. Admit it.
Not sure what this means
Plus you didn't actually read article 13, as it states they will process the data internally, and that it is kept in accordance with Belgian & EU data protection laws.
I did read article 13, nothing in Belgian/EU privacy law would prevent what I'm talking about. It doesn't state that it will process the data internally, just that it's being processed (in accordance with the law - http://www.edrm.net/resources/... ) - they can sell the data to anyone within the EU without informing the customer and outside of the EU if they have permission, which they give themselves with that "unless you give us your explicit consent" -> "explicit authorization to exploit" trick.