Or maybe I'm just a prude who doesn't know how to put his cell phone camera to good use.
This is probably it... I think many more people have naked pictures of themselves on their phone than you think. Remember too, this wasn't just about emails.
I mean why do they apparently all carry nude pictures of themselves on their phones?
Because they are people too. You might be surprised at the number of people who have naked pictures of themselves on their phones.
If these people wanted the "Paris Hilton effect", they would actually leak the pictures. "ooops I accidentally sent that to the wrong person" not have it in a hidden folder that takes a hacker to find.
If they didn't want these pictures out there then they shouldn't have had them taken. They shouldn't have kept them in an electronic form or on any item connected to the internet. It is their own fault.
You probably believe its the women's fault when she is raped?
If I take a private picture of me or my girlfriend. I expect it to remain private. Period. It might be a different matter if I let someone else (such as a professional photographer) take pictures. But if I take pictures, and leave them on my phone, or personal computer. I have every right to expect them to remain private. Even if I am a public figure.Claiming it is their fault that they let these even exist is moronic. Thats almost like saying "if they don't want to me seen naked, they should never get naked, even in the privacy of their own homes"
But the thing is, they are asking you to give up your privacy SO you can risk getting cancer.
This isn't a case of "keep your privacy, but risk cancer" or "lose your privacy, with no extra risk of getting cancer."
NO, it is a case of "lose your privacy AND take on an extra risk of cancer." But the cool thing is, if this was done correctly we'd both have more privacy AND a lesser risk of getting cancer.
I read somewhere that one of Bin Laden's objectives was to make the US spend 1 millon for each dolar that they spent.
Its interesting. Yet there are ways to cost the US millions of dollars, without spending a dime. Without harming anyone, without doing any destruction.And no form of intrusive security, at the entrance, can stop it.
The privacy danger is patently obvious and verifiable (though sometimes overstated), but it's just not a concern to many.
How is the privacy risk overstated? The government has no right to see search me. They search me, therefore I have no privacy. How is that overstated?
The cost-benefit argument has the problem that the "benefit" can be very difficult to accurately measure and the government may choose not to disclose data about whether the devices are beneficial. (This is, regardless, the argument I prefer.)
There is obviously a benefit, otherwise they wouldn't do it. But it isn't the benefit we expect, or what they tell us. That is, it doesn't make the plane safer.
That's not to say there are no problems with arguments for the scanners. At the very least (the very least), it makes sense to use the microwave scanners over the X-ray backscatter.
I don't see how it makes sense to use ANY machine at all.
you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License).
At one point you have them the right forever, now it is as long as you or your friends haven't deleted it.
NO! They don't own the copyright. YOU own the copyright of your picture of the other image. BUT you give them permission to use it in any way, in perpetuity.
When are people going to quit Facebook/Instagram/whatever en masse as these deliberate and calculated abuses continue?
When something better comes along. The masses don't get this. They don't understand that Facebook owns the content. Or maybe they do, but they don't care.
Take a good picture eating out with friends at an Italian restaurant?
FB's marketing dept. will call the owner selling a FB marketing campaign based on your image.
Later, FB ads with your picture will say 'Smitty loves Tony's Italian restaurant, you will too.'
That isn't legal.
Just because they have the right to use your picture, doesn't mean they have a right to use your image, and name.
If these are used for promotional purposes, it will be pictures with no one in them, or pictures of crowds.
Though the rest of your post was rather insightful, this is wild hyperbole, unless you are playing this game only with a particularly lawless set of individuals.
In other words, pretty much any American Citizen.
There are a LOT of federal laws. I wouldn't take this guy up on it, although it would be interesting to know what laws I am breaking;
Not everyone agrees on where the exact line between reasonable and unreasonable lies, but certainly there are times when most people agree it is unreasonable (in the middle of the night with a bull-horn in a residential neighborhood when everyone is sleeping counts as unreasonable; telling the victims' families that god hates them and their children are in hell during the funeral counts as unreasonable).
Neither of those are unreasonable. "with a bull horn, in the middle of the night" is probably against most cities noise ordinances, and has nothing to do with speech. And saying god hates them is unreasonable? It probably goes against everything the bible says, but now you are talking about religious interpretations.
Saying it at the funeral? It isn't so much as what as being said, as general disrupting the peace, and why many states including the federal government passed laws to keep people several hundred feet from a funeral.
Secondly, the "speech" they are shouting at childrens funerals is specific.
Why do you put the word "speech" in quotes? You are implying what they are doing/saying is not speech? But then you go on and prove it is. These people don't like homsexuals, and they want it to be illegal. That is a fine stance. I don't like it or care for it, but it is a stance. I am sure you think some things should be illegal that others don't think should be. Is it ok for those people to call your speech "speech" when you say that it should be illegal?
For one thing the WBC pickets last for what, an hour or two? The Occupy Wall Street lasted a bit longer. And for the first few hours they were not out of the way of all eyes and ears.
Here in the US we have a constitution. The first amendment talks about freedom of speech, but what some people forget is that it also says " or the right of the people peaceably to assemble" As long as what they are doing is peaceful, it is legal.
I saw no big outrage while they confined their activities to being ass-hats at military funerals.
Really? What about when hundreds of Texas A&M college students, surrounded the funeral, to keep Westboro out?
There has been big outrage where ever these westboro morons show up.
So its ok to say what you want, as long as it isn't anywhere someone can hear? Sorry it doesn't work that way. And what is "psychic assault?"
Westboro has the right to be idiots. As long as they are peaceful, they also have the right to be morons and protest funerals. YOU have the right to protest them.
I think there's a distinction between 'freedom of speech', and 'freedom to spread hate'.
What is the distinction?
It is OK to hate people. It is even OK to tell other people you hate them.
I HATE what these morons do. And I could even take steps to prevent them (like say, stand in front of them with a larger sign) But I do NOT advocate making what they do illegal. Because then, wouldn't I be saying it is illegal to protest anything?
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe I'm just a prude who doesn't know how to put his cell phone camera to good use.
This is probably it... I think many more people have naked pictures of themselves on their phone than you think. Remember too, this wasn't just about emails.
I mean why do they apparently all carry nude pictures of themselves on their phones?
Because they are people too. You might be surprised at the number of people who have naked pictures of themselves on their phones.
If these people wanted the "Paris Hilton effect", they would actually leak the pictures. "ooops I accidentally sent that to the wrong person" not have it in a hidden folder that takes a hacker to find.
How much did they spend?
How do you know that other hacking gets no attention?
If they didn't want these pictures out there then they shouldn't have had them taken. They shouldn't have kept them in an electronic form or on any item connected to the internet. It is their own fault.
You probably believe its the women's fault when she is raped?
If I take a private picture of me or my girlfriend. I expect it to remain private. Period. It might be a different matter if I let someone else (such as a professional photographer) take pictures. But if I take pictures, and leave them on my phone, or personal computer. I have every right to expect them to remain private. Even if I am a public figure.Claiming it is their fault that they let these even exist is moronic. Thats almost like saying "if they don't want to me seen naked, they should never get naked, even in the privacy of their own homes"
But the thing is, they are asking you to give up your privacy SO you can risk getting cancer.
This isn't a case of "keep your privacy, but risk cancer" or "lose your privacy, with no extra risk of getting cancer."
NO, it is a case of "lose your privacy AND take on an extra risk of cancer." But the cool thing is, if this was done correctly we'd both have more privacy AND a lesser risk of getting cancer.
I read somewhere that one of Bin Laden's objectives was to make the US spend 1 millon for each dolar that they spent.
Its interesting. Yet there are ways to cost the US millions of dollars, without spending a dime. Without harming anyone, without doing any destruction.And no form of intrusive security, at the entrance, can stop it.
The privacy danger is patently obvious and verifiable (though sometimes overstated), but it's just not a concern to many.
How is the privacy risk overstated? The government has no right to see search me. They search me, therefore I have no privacy. How is that overstated?
The cost-benefit argument has the problem that the "benefit" can be very difficult to accurately measure and the government may choose not to disclose data about whether the devices are beneficial. (This is, regardless, the argument I prefer.)
There is obviously a benefit, otherwise they wouldn't do it. But it isn't the benefit we expect, or what they tell us. That is, it doesn't make the plane safer.
That's not to say there are no problems with arguments for the scanners. At the very least (the very least), it makes sense to use the microwave scanners over the X-ray backscatter.
I don't see how it makes sense to use ANY machine at all.
It isn't about "that kind of 'privacy'". It isn't about keeping your junk private. It is about keeping your papers and effects private.
you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License).
At one point you have them the right forever, now it is as long as you or your friends haven't deleted it.
NO! They don't own the copyright. YOU own the copyright of your picture of the other image. BUT you give them permission to use it in any way, in perpetuity.
When are people going to quit Facebook/Instagram/whatever en masse as these deliberate and calculated abuses continue?
When something better comes along. The masses don't get this. They don't understand that Facebook owns the content. Or maybe they do, but they don't care.
Dave was going for his mother's funeral, whoops, lawsuit.
Why is that a lawsuit? Why does it matter why he was going?
Coming soon:
Take a good picture eating out with friends at an Italian restaurant? FB's marketing dept. will call the owner selling a FB marketing campaign based on your image. Later, FB ads with your picture will say 'Smitty loves Tony's Italian restaurant, you will too.'
That isn't legal.
Just because they have the right to use your picture, doesn't mean they have a right to use your image, and name.
If these are used for promotional purposes, it will be pictures with no one in them, or pictures of crowds.
Enhance
Yep... Its not like the human body needs liquids to stay alive.
Though the rest of your post was rather insightful, this is wild hyperbole, unless you are playing this game only with a particularly lawless set of individuals.
In other words, pretty much any American Citizen. There are a LOT of federal laws. I wouldn't take this guy up on it, although it would be interesting to know what laws I am breaking;
Making noise in a residential neighborhood at 3am is illegal, and has nothing to do with speech.
Not everyone agrees on where the exact line between reasonable and unreasonable lies, but certainly there are times when most people agree it is unreasonable (in the middle of the night with a bull-horn in a residential neighborhood when everyone is sleeping counts as unreasonable; telling the victims' families that god hates them and their children are in hell during the funeral counts as unreasonable).
Neither of those are unreasonable. "with a bull horn, in the middle of the night" is probably against most cities noise ordinances, and has nothing to do with speech. And saying god hates them is unreasonable? It probably goes against everything the bible says, but now you are talking about religious interpretations.
Saying it at the funeral? It isn't so much as what as being said, as general disrupting the peace, and why many states including the federal government passed laws to keep people several hundred feet from a funeral.
Secondly, the "speech" they are shouting at childrens funerals is specific.
Why do you put the word "speech" in quotes? You are implying what they are doing/saying is not speech? But then you go on and prove it is. These people don't like homsexuals, and they want it to be illegal. That is a fine stance. I don't like it or care for it, but it is a stance. I am sure you think some things should be illegal that others don't think should be. Is it ok for those people to call your speech "speech" when you say that it should be illegal?
Burning a cross on ANYONE's lawn (that isn't your own) is trespassing and arson, and possibly vandalism. It is not speech.
For one thing the WBC pickets last for what, an hour or two? The Occupy Wall Street lasted a bit longer. And for the first few hours they were not out of the way of all eyes and ears.
Here in the US we have a constitution. The first amendment talks about freedom of speech, but what some people forget is that it also says " or the right of the people peaceably to assemble" As long as what they are doing is peaceful, it is legal.
I saw no big outrage while they confined their activities to being ass-hats at military funerals.
Really? What about when hundreds of Texas A&M college students, surrounded the funeral, to keep Westboro out?
There has been big outrage where ever these westboro morons show up.
So its ok to say what you want, as long as it isn't anywhere someone can hear? Sorry it doesn't work that way. And what is "psychic assault?"
Westboro has the right to be idiots. As long as they are peaceful, they also have the right to be morons and protest funerals. YOU have the right to protest them.
I think there's a distinction between 'freedom of speech', and 'freedom to spread hate'.
What is the distinction?
It is OK to hate people. It is even OK to tell other people you hate them.
I HATE what these morons do. And I could even take steps to prevent them (like say, stand in front of them with a larger sign) But I do NOT advocate making what they do illegal. Because then, wouldn't I be saying it is illegal to protest anything?