Privacy, Government, Surveillance, and You.

If one of Twitter's rules is not to post hate speech, then they're justified in closing accounts which participate in that.

Isn't this off the topic of gov't surveillance, though?

It's not just about the government, since we've talked about companies like Google or FB.

edited 24th Jul '14 7:13:33 AM by Quag15

I'm pretty sure posting outright illegal threats and hate speech on a public social media site is one of those things few of us would have qualms about being used to track someone down.

There's a difference between clandestinely storing and mining so much private data that you effectively have no privacy at all and law enforcement becomes arbitrary because you can conceivably nail anyone at anytime, and addressing publicly-posted death threats.

edited 24th Jul '14 7:41:41 PM by Pykrete

Net neutrality is dead – welcome to the age of digital discrimination.

... OK, I finished reading through the article, and while I can see that this will have quite some negative consequences for a lot of people, I can't seem to get what such negatives would hit the average net user like myself.

Russia offers multi-million bounty for Tor hacks

Facebook has some company: dating site OkCupid also ran experiments on users.

http://www.therakyatpost.com/news/2014/08/01/dr-mahathir-calls-internet-censorship/

Mahatir calls for net censoring. The article link above justifies his reason why he call for it now.

“The Internet has played a major role in undermining public morality. Our children are not safe from the kind of filth that the print and electronic media promotes.

“Today any child can access pornography of the worse kind. Children are no longer safe from sexual assault. So are young girls and boys as the Internet arouses the kind of base feelings that we curbed before,”

One of these is not like the rest.

Has anyone ever been identified as Internetsexual?

And, well, it's insanely hypocritical of him to advocate censorship after complaining about Yet Another Anti-Jewish Post of his getting "censored". Modernization or not, he has had his fair share of negative effects on Malaysia and Malaysian society.

True that, yo.

PS - According to my old man, he knows Mahatir. Though I'm taking it with a grain of salt.

(reads article) (smh)

edited 2nd Aug '14 6:29:00 AM by speedyboris

Mahathir is not to be trusted for his words. Me being a Malaysian, I would know. Not going off on an Ad Hominem here, but his speech and stance are inconsistent at best.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-02/malaysias-mahatir-calls-for-net-censorship/5643526

Some of the critics aren't taking Mahatir's "suggestion" very well, except for some control of gaining access to porn.

edited 3rd Aug '14 12:41:12 AM by Ominae

http://m.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/internet-censorship-youve-already-won-dr-mahathir

A follow-up on Mahatir's call for censorship.

A child pornographer was caught by Google during a Gmail scanning session. One question that's been brought up by this news is whether this is invasion of privacy or simply protection of children.

I commented on this when it showed up on SourceFed. Regardless of whether Google is morally obligated to refrain from snooping on its users' email, it does, and so conducting blatantly illegal activities with your personal GMail account is mind-bogglingly stupid.

On the privacy question, while a case could be made that service providers ought not to have the right to read their users' content, they currently do have that right, which is clearly spelled out in their terms of use in most cases. So, again, the moral debate is moot in the current legal environment.

I believe that providers have both a right and a moral obligation to monitor the traffic of their users for obviously illegal activities.

edited 6th Aug '14 3:46:40 PM by Fighteer

• Wikipedia swears to fight 'censorship' of 'right to be forgotten' ruling
  • Wikipedia reveals Google 'forgotten' search links

So much for "Right to be Forgotten" being used by normal people, looks like it's mainly shady folks trying to cover their tracks.

Ah come on. For every one 'shady person' there probably 20 people wanting their holiday bikini pics gone. Seems to me Google is just being childish about having to respect the law.

Good to have my suspicions about gmail confirmed frankly. For all their promises of privacy they are snooping.

edited 6th Aug '14 3:54:28 PM by joeyjojo

You can get pictures of yourself taken down without having to evoke the "Right to be forgotten" which is specifically for information that you don't have the legal right to get taken down via other means.

And Google don't get to be selective with their enforcement, not if they don't want to pay of tones in legal fees when a crook decides to sue them and wins.

Honestly when it comes to these hiding programs and so on I've got serious doubts that good and honest people are the majority. Or even a recognizable number in their demographic.

Regardless even if no one but criminals request to be expunged, that's still their right under European law. You're right Google can't be selective. It really doesn't matter why you want to be forgotten you have that right.

See now I disagree with the idea that one should be able to control information about ones action, short of their being extenuating circumstances (such as being a minor at the time) I don't see why a person should be allowed to censor information about their past.

Well the EU does. So you have to to talk them buddy

Remember we aren't it talking about police and court records and the like. They are still there. Google doesn't give reliable accounts of one's actions. It only shows what been written about you online.