People can choose, you know, to not use social networks if it can have real-world, physical consequences.
Yes, indeed they can. This, however, closes the door on them being able to use said social network to ameliorate their situation, or may make it dangerous. Should one encourage a social network that creates such a situation? From where I stand, the answer is a clear no. So I don't.
Please consider: A battered spouse can keep quiet; or they can stand up and speak against an abuser in public, further exposing themselves to risk while the wheels of justice, such as they are, squeak, rattle and slowly begin to turn; or they can do so in a private place, perhaps with some shoulders to lean on. If, however, those shoulders (or the venue itself, which is the potential problem here) expose the battered individual's location and/or identity, this can immediately increase the danger to them.
Likewise, a political dissident can speak against an oppressive regime in safety gleaned from anonymity, or they can speak in a forum where their name and location may be easily obtained by said regime. Or they can simply not speak. Which is better? Why? I would hope the answer is obvious.
This is the basis for my position that ethically speaking, the optimum condition is that a user should be allowed to decide for themselves if they wish to "be themselves" online, or an anonymous/pseudonymous presence. I maintain that forcing someone to ID themselves is not a socially healthy thing to do.
Now what I don't get is the ethical problem, You mean like making your personal info available to some third party that can selfishly or accidentally leak it or abuse it?
No. The ethical issue is that Google and Facebook both insist on obtaining data that can expose a user, against that user's will, to stalkers, ex-spouses, hostile political entities, and other sources of problems. Given that they so insist, my ethics guide me to the conclusion that I should not use those services, as that would encourage/amplify them in their current form. I would hope anyone who actually suffers from such an issue would also see the problem and avoid trying to establish any kind of presence on these exposure-prone systems, but at least I know I am not contributing to it, and that by speaking out against it, I create a counter-pressure, however minor.
Again, you're completely missing the point. You are talking about unauthorized law as implemented by an out of control government. I'm well aware that's the status quo, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about what is actually authorized, or in other words, what the government is allowed to do by its authorizing foundation, which is the constitution.
I am talking about the specific authorizations provided as a condition of our government's authority to act.
The 4th amendment clearly states that a warrant is required for a search. It also states what is required for a warrant. In the process, it does not create or acknowledge any search situation that does not require a warrant. This is the key piece of information you need to understand that the current legislative / judicial behavior is unauthorized.
Referring to judicial decisions and/or legislation that contradicts the 4th amendment in order to define what the 4th amendment means is ludicrous: All legitimate government action must descend from the constitution; when it doesn't, it is, by definition, unauthorized and out of control. The 4th says that only reasonable searches may be performed, and it defines what reasonable means: you need a warrant, and the warrant has to meet certain minimum requirements. End of story. If the government wants to change that (as they obviously do), then the only legitimate path to such change is via article five. Seeing as how that path has not been pursued, then the 4th remains in effect as written. Any search by a government entity without a warrant is unauthorized behavior.
Wrong. I care. My family cares. I know others who care. Certainly we are an educated and principled minority, but we aren't "nobody."
clearly people aren't abandoning Facebook in droves because of their privacy policy.
Yes, clearly. Also, clearly, people actually believe Fox news isn't spinning their content, are largely (or completely) ignorant of the foundational basis for their government, and think US politicians are honorable folks. Despite all this, there are pressures reacting against all these things. And to paraphrase the old saying, if you're not part of the reaction, you're part of the problem.
We live in a world where privacy is pooh-poohed by those who wish to control us in inappropriate ways, and by those who fail to understand the issues underlying this reality. How -- or if -- this particular pendulum swings depends on whether enough of the populace can be made to care. I like to think that is still possible. So I still try to raise awareness.
At least Google doesn't make make your private info public, like FB loves to do.
The fact is, you have no idea what Google(+) will eventually do with your data. Either acting alone, or in concert with the government. The only way to protect your privacy, if that's your goal, is to not give it to entities you have no, or little, control over in the first place. For some people, this is no minor issue -- it can have real-world, physical consequences. For others, it's an ethical problem. For some, it's both.
They don't -- but why ask me? All I said was Google+ provides a different structure -- I didn't say FB didn't require real names, etc. -- they do. Section 4, FB TOS, as per my comment below in these threads.
But I'm stopped by the real name thing. Until that changes, I'm staying with FB.
From section 4, copypasta'd today:
Facebook users provide their real names and information, and we need your help to keep it that way. Here are some commitments you make to us relating to registering and maintaining the security of your account:
You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.
You (and everyone else) should be aware that Facebook is no better on privacy than Google is.
No. Everybody isn't. I'm not; my family is not; Many of my co-workers are not. Facebook's TOS are no better than Google's (in fact, in some ways they are more restrictive); if you doubt this, go read them both and see.
Until (if ever) someone comes up with a social platform that actually respects the user's wishes for privacy, "everyone" won't be on Facebook or anywhere else, for that matter.
The remaining 40% are people who talk to themselves.
No, the remaining 40% are people who don't mind that Google has created a platform that exchanges privacy for profit as a matter of design and policy, but prefer a different structure than Facebook offers.
If Google+ allowed anonymous use then I would be on it, as would a fair number of others I know. As it stands, it's just another attempt at Facebook; the TOS are odious, pretty much following in Facebook's footsteps. Google+ users are most likely talking to each other, if they're talking at all.
Perhaps someday someone will implement a reliable and innovative social platform that allows users to opt-in, or not, to exposing personal information to the company running the show and/or others. That would be something I'd be happy to get behind. Without such a policy, people joining who require privacy put themselves at risk to uncontrolled exposure at the hands of the company running the site, its advertisers, and so forth. This in turn can empower malicious individuals, providing access where it was previously prevented. Problems can range from stalkers to politically- and speech-based harassment and so on.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The latter part of the amendment, talking about warrants, specifically references searches: "describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" -- that's your cue, if you were confused by the commas, that they're still directly referencing searches.
Remember, I'm not talking about current (illegal, unauthorized) practice. I'm talking about what the intent of the amendment was, and therefore, what the bounds of authorization actually are (which is NOT something the courts get to redefine, nor anything else short of a successful article five process.)
There are zero negative consequences for negative use of mod powers *right now*. I mod you down, lets say best case all metamods spot this, nuke me without exception, I can't moderate anymore... but the actual moderation stays anyway, completely known to be a bad thing AND, in fact, because of the way meta works now, not even looked at until far too late to have any effect on the wreckage I've already caused.
This is why you need to be able to say "I don't want that twit fyngyrz to be able to moderate posts I'm looking at", and it's also why you need to see who moderated which posts, and how.
The current system is completely broken. Moderators can -- and do -- run amok. Including those few with unlimited mod points. Comments are as likely to be modded "disagree" as they are "troll", and perfectly good comments get nuked, and never, ever get fixed. I've been browsing./ for *years* at minus one because moderation has so little relationship to the actual quality or content of the posts. Consequently, if they don't fix it, it won't change things for me at all. Still, I wish they *would* fix it, because a moderation system I could trust would be a very worthwhile addition to this site.
To completely fix slashdot's moderation system, downmods need to be removed; upmods need to be attributed; meta moderation needs to be eliminated, and users need to be able to exclude moderators and commenters both from their reading material.
The thing is, traffic stop law was "settled" by people acting in violation of the solemn oaths that give them the right to perform their jobs. If you accept that the judiciary has legitimate article five powers (meaning, they can redefine the 4th amendment as convenient for them), you're specifically saying that the constitution is no more than irrelevant paper.
Because according to the constitution, they are authorized no such thing. Are we a constitutionally limited democratic republic? Or are we a country run at the arbitrary, unlimited whims of 445 "royals"?
IMHO, The biggest mistake ever made in this country was to assume that government members would consider themselves bound by oath; the second biggest was not to provide strict punishment for violating that oath.
What is "reasonable" is defined in the amendment. It is: probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, along with the issuance of a warrant. It isn't "because the courts say so."
What the courts "say" is 100% bullshit. They don't legally have ANY right to define reasonable in this context no matter how much they claim otherwise.
That PC won't fit in a pocket. We've got a Kindle Fire on order. To go with our regular Kindle, iPad, and other widgets. They're huge fun, I expect the Fire will be as well. Some things it does is play Amazon's video and work with their cloud player.
Personally, I'll still prefer my iPad, I think, but the lady of the house uses a lot of Amazon services, so it'll likely be a good fit.
ourtimelines.com has been using the term "timeline" since 2000. And has delivered millions of timelines. Facebook is just a little late to the party here.
Silicon Valley businesses are hardly typical of day to day businesses though are they.
Quite true. Silicon valley businesses have more people who are smarter about computers than most businesses. And they choose Macs. Interesting, eh? Maybe it's that powerful Unix underpinning, and all the amazing dev tools that run under it. Or the desktop tools. Well, of course, both run at once, so maybe it's both, eh? Or maybe it's the lack of a need to worry about virus software. Or the insanely great multiple-monitor support. Or maybe its the fact that a Mac can simultaneously run one or more sand-boxed Windows VMs in windows (or on multiple monitors, or both), and so covers the whole Windows ecosystem as well as the Mac ecosystem. Or maybe it's because smart computer folks consider total cost of ownership instead of just the purchase price, thereby determining the actual cost of owning a computer. Or maybe it's the fact that those claiming that they can put together an "equivalent" machine for the same, or less, money are actually completely full of shit, and Macs are actually a far superior value as compared to Windows PCs, not just over time, but also as an initial purchase.:o)
Nah... on second thought, I'm sure Ma and Pa Kettle's budget purchase of a "Dude, you're stuck with a Dell!" is the better choice. After all, they've brought us "Dancing with the Stars" and "Faux News." How could they be wrong?
Unlike most Christians, I have read the bible, and the character Christ specifically says that the OT remains in force. That puts paid to the entire notion that Christianity has any justification for ignoring anything in the OT. When you do so, you're simply rationalizing.
Fulfil does not mean cancel, and never has; and in any case, the only way you can realistically analyze "fulfil" in Matthew 5:17 is in the context that the OT is still in force. Why? Because the main magical character in the story, Jesus, says so, in his very next sentence:, 5:18. He is explicit: until earth disappears, it's in force. So you haven't got a leg to stand upon.
The Old Testament which has been superseded by the New.
No. It hasn't. Jesus was quite specific about this. The old testament remains 100% in force, according to Jesus. Whom, I presume, as a Christian, you would take as a higher authority than whoever fed you that nonsense. Here's Jesus himself speaking quite specifically on the matter:
Matthew 5:17: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law [he means the OT here] or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law
Since heaven and earth are still here, the old testament remains in force. Unless, of course, you think Jesus was a liar. Do you?
No, they don't. Being homeless is quite distinct from hanging around one location (in fact, hanging around one location leans more towards having a home than not.) If you have no home, that doesn't give you a right to treat some random place owned by some other entity (corporation, municipality, state, or the feds, etc.) as a home.
I'm reminded of the (sane) laws that say you can't pre-emptively hurt or kill someone and the (insane, unconstitutional) laws that say you can't go armed with defense in mind. It's perfectly sane and reasonable for me to say "get off my property." It's not sane or reasonable for me to say "you can't walk by on the sidewalk."
Any law that says you must have a home is a bullshit law right out of the gate.
...and *I* think you didn't understand what the GP post said; what the underlying rationale is for what he said; or what the correct, authorized path is to make changes.
Of course, that just makes you like 99% of the rest of the population. Utterly ignorant of the entire basis for the federal government in the first place.
...and don't forget that being married can raise total income to the point where the married individuals (and sometimes their children) can no longer qualify for medical care, educational benefits, etc. Or how it affects whose bank accounts can be attached for what, particularly in the case of the IRS. Or the cost of divorce, almost inevitable in today's society. Or the cost of many marriage ceremonies/events themselves.
The best possible arrangement is two separate pieces of property, one owned by each person, no marriage, so you both have independent addresses, independent security, and immunity from the abuse the government and society will dish out to married persons as a consequence of the actions/positions of just one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, indeed they can. This, however, closes the door on them being able to use said social network to ameliorate their situation, or may make it dangerous. Should one encourage a social network that creates such a situation? From where I stand, the answer is a clear no. So I don't.
Please consider: A battered spouse can keep quiet; or they can stand up and speak against an abuser in public, further exposing themselves to risk while the wheels of justice, such as they are, squeak, rattle and slowly begin to turn; or they can do so in a private place, perhaps with some shoulders to lean on. If, however, those shoulders (or the venue itself, which is the potential problem here) expose the battered individual's location and/or identity, this can immediately increase the danger to them.
Likewise, a political dissident can speak against an oppressive regime in safety gleaned from anonymity, or they can speak in a forum where their name and location may be easily obtained by said regime. Or they can simply not speak. Which is better? Why? I would hope the answer is obvious.
This is the basis for my position that ethically speaking, the optimum condition is that a user should be allowed to decide for themselves if they wish to "be themselves" online, or an anonymous/pseudonymous presence. I maintain that forcing someone to ID themselves is not a socially healthy thing to do.
No. The ethical issue is that Google and Facebook both insist on obtaining data that can expose a user, against that user's will, to stalkers, ex-spouses, hostile political entities, and other sources of problems. Given that they so insist, my ethics guide me to the conclusion that I should not use those services, as that would encourage/amplify them in their current form. I would hope anyone who actually suffers from such an issue would also see the problem and avoid trying to establish any kind of presence on these exposure-prone systems, but at least I know I am not contributing to it, and that by speaking out against it, I create a counter-pressure, however minor.
Again, you're completely missing the point. You are talking about unauthorized law as implemented by an out of control government. I'm well aware that's the status quo, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about what is actually authorized, or in other words, what the government is allowed to do by its authorizing foundation, which is the constitution.
I am talking about the specific authorizations provided as a condition of our government's authority to act.
The 4th amendment clearly states that a warrant is required for a search. It also states what is required for a warrant. In the process, it does not create or acknowledge any search situation that does not require a warrant. This is the key piece of information you need to understand that the current legislative / judicial behavior is unauthorized.
Referring to judicial decisions and/or legislation that contradicts the 4th amendment in order to define what the 4th amendment means is ludicrous: All legitimate government action must descend from the constitution; when it doesn't, it is, by definition, unauthorized and out of control. The 4th says that only reasonable searches may be performed, and it defines what reasonable means: you need a warrant, and the warrant has to meet certain minimum requirements. End of story. If the government wants to change that (as they obviously do), then the only legitimate path to such change is via article five. Seeing as how that path has not been pursued, then the 4th remains in effect as written. Any search by a government entity without a warrant is unauthorized behavior.
Wrong. I care. My family cares. I know others who care. Certainly we are an educated and principled minority, but we aren't "nobody."
Yes, clearly. Also, clearly, people actually believe Fox news isn't spinning their content, are largely (or completely) ignorant of the foundational basis for their government, and think US politicians are honorable folks. Despite all this, there are pressures reacting against all these things. And to paraphrase the old saying, if you're not part of the reaction, you're part of the problem.
We live in a world where privacy is pooh-poohed by those who wish to control us in inappropriate ways, and by those who fail to understand the issues underlying this reality. How -- or if -- this particular pendulum swings depends on whether enough of the populace can be made to care. I like to think that is still possible. So I still try to raise awareness.
The fact is, you have no idea what Google(+) will eventually do with your data. Either acting alone, or in concert with the government. The only way to protect your privacy, if that's your goal, is to not give it to entities you have no, or little, control over in the first place. For some people, this is no minor issue -- it can have real-world, physical consequences. For others, it's an ethical problem. For some, it's both.
They don't -- but why ask me? All I said was Google+ provides a different structure -- I didn't say FB didn't require real names, etc. -- they do. Section 4, FB TOS, as per my comment below in these threads.
BTW, that's a cite from:
http://www.facebook.com/terms.php
From section 4, copypasta'd today:
Facebook users provide their real names and information, and we need your help to keep it that way. Here are some commitments you make to us relating to registering and maintaining the security of your account:
You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.
You (and everyone else) should be aware that Facebook is no better on privacy than Google is.
No. Everybody isn't. I'm not; my family is not; Many of my co-workers are not. Facebook's TOS are no better than Google's (in fact, in some ways they are more restrictive); if you doubt this, go read them both and see.
Until (if ever) someone comes up with a social platform that actually respects the user's wishes for privacy, "everyone" won't be on Facebook or anywhere else, for that matter.
No, the remaining 40% are people who don't mind that Google has created a platform that exchanges privacy for profit as a matter of design and policy, but prefer a different structure than Facebook offers.
If Google+ allowed anonymous use then I would be on it, as would a fair number of others I know. As it stands, it's just another attempt at Facebook; the TOS are odious, pretty much following in Facebook's footsteps. Google+ users are most likely talking to each other, if they're talking at all.
Perhaps someday someone will implement a reliable and innovative social platform that allows users to opt-in, or not, to exposing personal information to the company running the show and/or others. That would be something I'd be happy to get behind. Without such a policy, people joining who require privacy put themselves at risk to uncontrolled exposure at the hands of the company running the site, its advertisers, and so forth. This in turn can empower malicious individuals, providing access where it was previously prevented. Problems can range from stalkers to politically- and speech-based harassment and so on.
You're reading it wrong. Look:
The latter part of the amendment, talking about warrants, specifically references searches: "describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" -- that's your cue, if you were confused by the commas, that they're still directly referencing searches.
Remember, I'm not talking about current (illegal, unauthorized) practice. I'm talking about what the intent of the amendment was, and therefore, what the bounds of authorization actually are (which is NOT something the courts get to redefine, nor anything else short of a successful article five process.)
Privacy in mod-up/downs is important to enable unlimited degrees of misbehavior by mods.
FTFY.
There are zero negative consequences for negative use of mod powers *right now*. I mod you down, lets say best case all metamods spot this, nuke me without exception, I can't moderate anymore... but the actual moderation stays anyway, completely known to be a bad thing AND, in fact, because of the way meta works now, not even looked at until far too late to have any effect on the wreckage I've already caused.
This is why you need to be able to say "I don't want that twit fyngyrz to be able to moderate posts I'm looking at", and it's also why you need to see who moderated which posts, and how.
The current system is completely broken. Moderators can -- and do -- run amok. Including those few with unlimited mod points. Comments are as likely to be modded "disagree" as they are "troll", and perfectly good comments get nuked, and never, ever get fixed. I've been browsing ./ for *years* at minus one because moderation has so little relationship to the actual quality or content of the posts. Consequently, if they don't fix it, it won't change things for me at all. Still, I wish they *would* fix it, because a moderation system I could trust would be a very worthwhile addition to this site.
To completely fix slashdot's moderation system, downmods need to be removed; upmods need to be attributed; meta moderation needs to be eliminated, and users need to be able to exclude moderators and commenters both from their reading material.
No, even if we live forever, we're likely going to do it by eating food and so forth. Nothing about breaking the laws of thermodynamics implied.
Even if we're transmuted [somehow] into digital copies of ourselves, the hardware we run on will require energy to flip its flops and swing its gates.
As they say, you can't win the game, and you can't quit. But you *might* be able to keep playing. :)
The thing is, traffic stop law was "settled" by people acting in violation of the solemn oaths that give them the right to perform their jobs. If you accept that the judiciary has legitimate article five powers (meaning, they can redefine the 4th amendment as convenient for them), you're specifically saying that the constitution is no more than irrelevant paper.
Because according to the constitution, they are authorized no such thing. Are we a constitutionally limited democratic republic? Or are we a country run at the arbitrary, unlimited whims of 445 "royals"?
IMHO, The biggest mistake ever made in this country was to assume that government members would consider themselves bound by oath; the second biggest was not to provide strict punishment for violating that oath.
What is "reasonable" is defined in the amendment. It is: probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, along with the issuance of a warrant. It isn't "because the courts say so."
What the courts "say" is 100% bullshit. They don't legally have ANY right to define reasonable in this context no matter how much they claim otherwise.
Yeah, the thing is, a vacuum that leaps and bounds misses spots, see?
Back to the drawing board for you...
That PC won't fit in a pocket. We've got a Kindle Fire on order. To go with our regular Kindle, iPad, and other widgets. They're huge fun, I expect the Fire will be as well. Some things it does is play Amazon's video and work with their cloud player.
Personally, I'll still prefer my iPad, I think, but the lady of the house uses a lot of Amazon services, so it'll likely be a good fit.
ourtimelines.com has been using the term "timeline" since 2000. And has delivered millions of timelines. Facebook is just a little late to the party here.
Quite true. Silicon valley businesses have more people who are smarter about computers than most businesses. And they choose Macs. Interesting, eh? Maybe it's that powerful Unix underpinning, and all the amazing dev tools that run under it. Or the desktop tools. Well, of course, both run at once, so maybe it's both, eh? Or maybe it's the lack of a need to worry about virus software. Or the insanely great multiple-monitor support. Or maybe its the fact that a Mac can simultaneously run one or more sand-boxed Windows VMs in windows (or on multiple monitors, or both), and so covers the whole Windows ecosystem as well as the Mac ecosystem. Or maybe it's because smart computer folks consider total cost of ownership instead of just the purchase price, thereby determining the actual cost of owning a computer. Or maybe it's the fact that those claiming that they can put together an "equivalent" machine for the same, or less, money are actually completely full of shit, and Macs are actually a far superior value as compared to Windows PCs, not just over time, but also as an initial purchase. :o)
Nah... on second thought, I'm sure Ma and Pa Kettle's budget purchase of a "Dude, you're stuck with a Dell!" is the better choice. After all, they've brought us "Dancing with the Stars" and "Faux News." How could they be wrong?
Unlike most Christians, I have read the bible, and the character Christ specifically says that the OT remains in force. That puts paid to the entire notion that Christianity has any justification for ignoring anything in the OT. When you do so, you're simply rationalizing.
Fulfil does not mean cancel, and never has; and in any case, the only way you can realistically analyze "fulfil" in Matthew 5:17 is in the context that the OT is still in force. Why? Because the main magical character in the story, Jesus, says so, in his very next sentence:, 5:18. He is explicit: until earth disappears, it's in force. So you haven't got a leg to stand upon.
No. It hasn't. Jesus was quite specific about this. The old testament remains 100% in force, according to Jesus. Whom, I presume, as a Christian, you would take as a higher authority than whoever fed you that nonsense. Here's Jesus himself speaking quite specifically on the matter:
Matthew 5:17: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law [he means the OT here] or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law
Since heaven and earth are still here, the old testament remains in force. Unless, of course, you think Jesus was a liar. Do you?
No, they don't. Being homeless is quite distinct from hanging around one location (in fact, hanging around one location leans more towards having a home than not.) If you have no home, that doesn't give you a right to treat some random place owned by some other entity (corporation, municipality, state, or the feds, etc.) as a home.
I'm reminded of the (sane) laws that say you can't pre-emptively hurt or kill someone and the (insane, unconstitutional) laws that say you can't go armed with defense in mind. It's perfectly sane and reasonable for me to say "get off my property." It's not sane or reasonable for me to say "you can't walk by on the sidewalk."
Any law that says you must have a home is a bullshit law right out of the gate.
Of course, that just makes you like 99% of the rest of the population. Utterly ignorant of the entire basis for the federal government in the first place.
The best possible arrangement is two separate pieces of property, one owned by each person, no marriage, so you both have independent addresses, independent security, and immunity from the abuse the government and society will dish out to married persons as a consequence of the actions/positions of just one of them.