I totally agree with the point of everything you've said, but I must point out the FCC fined fox for the superbowl nipslip. The state IS involved in SOME of it.
Okay then. Back to your original point. Facebook has levels of privacy that users can choose. They are very granular. That is your expectation right there.
Something being free or not has no bearing on the matter. If they decided to give me a free cellphone (promotional, maybe?), I wouldn't lose my rights.
Common carrier *should* extend to any communication with implied privacy between two parties. Which should include facebook chat, but not facebook wall posts. Unfortunately it doesn't. In no small part due to people like most of the responders to my original post. They don't want to extend the privacy of a phone call to new forms of 2-person communication that are analogous. It's sad how technology erodes peoples' will to be free. Shaking my head...
I don't jibe with the idea that "just because something new is shitty in the way something old wasn't, that it shouldn't be granted the same privacy protections as something old". It was originally legal to intercept telegraph communications as well. It's not moral, correct, or honest.
The same has been said about googleand yahoo: Both search engines who mine data. Therefore, you have no expectation of privacy with your gmail or yahoomail, right? Except oh, the guy who hacked Sarah Palin's email went to jail. Communications between two people don't lose their sense privacy just because of conspiracy theories.
Indeed it does, but not everyone has that luxury. The internet comes along and allows us to connect to people in a myriad of new, cheaper ways. That progress should not come at the expense of the privacy legal protections granted to us for phone calls (and, later, for emails).
1. Yes. I replied to his ridiculous assertion that this situation is like his forum's situation, taking the logic he used and applying it to cellphones. How do I refute someone bringing in a different situation without talking about that different situation again?
It's a perfectly valid extrapolation. A conversation between 2 and only 2 people over a 3rd party medium. One is a phone call, another is facebook chat, another one would be email, another one would be any IM service that goes through a central server.
In facebook chat, no one is there except for person A who invited person B to a facebook chat.
This article is not about your forum. It is about facebook chat. You were the one who introduced an invalid extrapolation.
Please indicate proof to me where an american's phone calls (text messages do not count) have been censored because a phone company listened to what they said and didn't like it.
Of course it's a completely fair analogy. The law doesn't change what the situation is: A conversation between 2 people in a medium that is not thought to be exposed to any other people.
This article is about facebook CHAT. Facebook chat is between 2 people. You are not talking about what this article is talking about, but something completely different. Try again.
By your logic, my cell phone carrier should listen to every word of every spoken conversation I have, censor phone calls they disagree with, and report me to the police for anything criminal they find. After all, I could choose another carrier. They aren't the government.
What you creeping authoritarians don't understand is that when technology changes, it shouldn't result in an erosion by freedom, and hiding behind "constitution only protects us from the government"is douchey.
Most peoples' facebook is locked down to not be publicly viewable, nor is there an expectation that a private chat between two people is "public". That's the same type of logic that made wiretapping of anybody by anybody legal - You're broadcasting your conversation over telephone lines that are public - which is why Congress had to specifically make it illegal.
Anymore and nowadays. Special thanks to Philadelphia (origin of "This car needs cleaned") for slowly spreading the virus of using "anymore" when "nowadays" should be used. It's taking over the country. Ten yrs, you'd never hear a headline like this. It should be "Does grammar even matter nowadays?"
Slashdot Mirror
You still need to come up with a better argument than that.
Your house is available to the government too. It's called a warrant. The obvious solution is to be homeless.
I totally agree with the point of everything you've said, but I must point out the FCC fined fox for the superbowl nipslip. The state IS involved in SOME of it.
Which relevant fact did i ignore?
Okay then. Back to your original point. Facebook has levels of privacy that users can choose. They are very granular. That is your expectation right there.
OMG2! The person who claims to not care what I think keeps responding to what I think!
OMG! Someone trying to make a point dared frame his discussion as such!
So it was relevant when you brought it up, but irrelevant when I refuted it. Hypocritical debate tactic there.
No, they don't. They run it through a realtime keyword analysis. No data is mined.
Common carrier *should* extend to any communication with implied privacy between two parties. Which should include facebook chat, but not facebook wall posts. Unfortunately it doesn't. In no small part due to people like most of the responders to my original post. They don't want to extend the privacy of a phone call to new forms of 2-person communication that are analogous. It's sad how technology erodes peoples' will to be free. Shaking my head...
I don't jibe with the idea that "just because something new is shitty in the way something old wasn't, that it shouldn't be granted the same privacy protections as something old". It was originally legal to intercept telegraph communications as well. It's not moral, correct, or honest.
The same has been said about googleand yahoo: Both search engines who mine data. Therefore, you have no expectation of privacy with your gmail or yahoomail, right? Except oh, the guy who hacked Sarah Palin's email went to jail. Communications between two people don't lose their sense privacy just because of conspiracy theories.
Indeed it does, but not everyone has that luxury. The internet comes along and allows us to connect to people in a myriad of new, cheaper ways. That progress should not come at the expense of the privacy legal protections granted to us for phone calls (and, later, for emails).
... And it's not legal. Nor should i be. Which is why Obama had to grant immunity.
I find it wrong, but not for privacy reasons. :)
2. Exactly. And why is that? Because it's wrong.
In facebook chat, no one is there except for person A who invited person B to a facebook chat.
This article is not about your forum. It is about facebook chat. You were the one who introduced an invalid extrapolation.
Please indicate proof to me where an american's phone calls (text messages do not count) have been censored because a phone company listened to what they said and didn't like it.
Of course it's a completely fair analogy. The law doesn't change what the situation is: A conversation between 2 people in a medium that is not thought to be exposed to any other people.
So by the same logic, my phone company should eavesdrop on my calls and report anything suspicious, right?
This article is about facebook CHAT. Facebook chat is between 2 people. You are not talking about what this article is talking about, but something completely different. Try again.
What you creeping authoritarians don't understand is that when technology changes, it shouldn't result in an erosion by freedom, and hiding behind "constitution only protects us from the government"is douchey.
Most peoples' facebook is locked down to not be publicly viewable, nor is there an expectation that a private chat between two people is "public". That's the same type of logic that made wiretapping of anybody by anybody legal - You're broadcasting your conversation over telephone lines that are public - which is why Congress had to specifically make it illegal.
False dichotomy fallacy is fallacious.
Anymore and nowadays. Special thanks to Philadelphia (origin of "This car needs cleaned") for slowly spreading the virus of using "anymore" when "nowadays" should be used. It's taking over the country. Ten yrs, you'd never hear a headline like this. It should be "Does grammar even matter nowadays?"
so there's nobody at stanford who is taking just 1 class?