Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
^
The difference with corporations is that you are often playing in their backyard. If you're making an account on a businesses website, then I can see loose reasons for why they have it, it's transiting through their space.
However, what would be ethical is if they treated things like that the way the military treats "PII"(Personally Identifiable Information). There is a whole suite of rules on how you're supposed to handle other peoples information. Regulations on how to properly secure it when it is unattended, not to have it in plain view, not to throw documents with PII on them in the trash, et cetera. That's essentially what we need, PII regulations of a sort like that for commercial businesses, information protection standards that they are legally forced to uphold, and new legal infrastructure to keep commercial businesses from just handing it all to the government without a warrant.
I agree. A comprehensive information security and privacy law.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Something like, or better than, Data Protection Act 1998
?
This being Europe, there is also a regulator: In the UK it is the Information Commissioner's Office
.
edited 11th Jun '13 7:36:55 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On^
The "Consent" part is the problem here.
Lets put it this way, it needs to be stone-cold illegal for companies to sell or share your information without individual consent. You should be able to consent to them using your information within the company, but not selling it or sharing it with other companies/government.
So that's why the auto ticked ones are now only for "would you like to revive our spam emails", though really, who reads the teams and conditions? I did it once when updating my iPad's IOS and discovered that you're not allowed to use it to run a nuclear reactor. But that's it.
edited 11th Jun '13 8:54:45 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThought I might post this xkcd comic
, just to add some daily humor to the thread.
It was already posted in another thread
, which has been paralleling this one for a few pages. /shrug
I don't really have much else to add that Fighteer didn't already say. If you want to pass a comprehensive information-age privacy law that forbids the sort of thing that the NSA (and Google, and Apple, and Microsoft, et all) are doing, then that's fine. I'd probably even support it. But as-is, the NSA hasn't done anything illegal, and I don't think they're doing anything wrong in the moral sense either. Certainly the system as it is now has potential for abuse, which is a concern, but I dislike the slippery slope argument implied there.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.I find the slippery slope argument applied all over the damn place when it comes to political issues (everything from broad-base data collection -> wiretapping -> Big Brother -> 1984, to gay marriage -> polygamy -> bestiality, to ammunition clip size regulations -> government takes away everyone's guns -> totalitarianism -> Stalinist dictatorship).
Is there a better way of assessing what exactly are:
- the probabilities of such slippery slopes actually happening in real life
- the reasons why such slippery slopes don't happen in real life
I think that #2, the reason, is often not "because there are people like us holding the line fighting against it", but activists who oppose a certain issue generally like to think it is, because it gives them a cause to fight for.
edited 11th Jun '13 11:24:47 AM by GlennMagusHarvey
In the end, it comes down to votes and the fact that the people whom we elect to govern are, in aggregate, not terrible monsters bent on controlling everyone. That, of course, doesn't mean that they always make good decisions, or have good influences.
Protests over controversial actions rarely carry enough weight to get major policy change, because they are transient by their very nature.
edited 11th Jun '13 11:25:29 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I know, right? Incomprehensible.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Well, there's also the adage that stupid and/or apathetic people cause far more harm, in aggregate, than malicious people. Maybe Congress would actually function more efficiently with cackling villains at the helm; at least then maybe we could get The Trains Run on Time.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Or total idiots, like Michelle Bachmann.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"For that matter, speaking of following the rules and doing things by the book, I would have thought that if the NSA authorities were actually interested in that (rather than furthering their own orwellian interests), they could at least get warrants for carrying out their espionage. You could argue that having Congress and/or some court tell them the warrantless data collection is okay means they're still technically following the rules, but I would say that's tantamount to changing the rules to suit them. Snowden did not have that ability. It's not only an asymmetrical scenario, it's one where the badguys have the advantage.
Speaker John Boehner Defends NSA Snooping Programs, Blasts ‘Traitor’ Edward Snowden
David Axelrod On Edward Snowden: ‘He’s A Whistleblower Who Then Blew The Country’
Paul Ryan: NSA surveillance program 'creepy'
George Orwell’s 1984 Experiences Huge Sales Spike Following NSA Revelations
edited 11th Jun '13 1:45:20 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016That doesn't mean that you have to like what they're doing, but the appropriate response is "we need to make this against the rules", not "they're bad and terrible people for breaking rules that don't exist but I think should".
Representative Ted Poe (R-Texas) says NSA spying shows 'government spooks are drunk on power'
Did Poe vote for PATRIOT or any of the other bills authorizing extraordinary government powers? If so, he's a hypocrite.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"He wasn't in Congress for PATRIOT
, but yeah he voted in favour of the extension of it.
Right. So fuck him and his opinions. (For the record, I would apply the same standard to any Democrat who voted for PATRIOT.)
edited 11th Jun '13 2:37:20 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Here's the thing: courts and lawmakers have for a long time maintained distinctions between physical intrusion and electronic intrusion, between your possessions and information about you, between things you own that are held by you and things you own that are held by others. Whether these distinctions are valid is a philosophical and legal conundrum that we likely won't solve in an obscure forum thread.
And again, it's somewhat hypocritical that we won't hold governments and businesses to the same standards, or at least compatible standards. The same people who rush to their bunkers in Montana at the first sign that Big Brother has access to their emails are often only too happy to defend the right of corporations to store your entire life history in their marketing databases, and vice versa.
Frankly, we live in an age of information. There is no getting around that: no stuffing the genie back in the bottle, no closing Pandora's box. The question is: do you own the information about you, or do the people who collect it own it? Right now, individuals are losing that battle. Making the conversation about NSA surveillance is a deliberate distraction tactic. It's a shiny, dangly toy designed to stir up outrage for political gain.
If we're really serious about information privacy, what we should be pushing for is a universal, consumer-friendly information privacy law. The reason we aren't is that lawmakers don't want to, because it would jeopardize the ability of their sugar daddy corporate interests to make vast sums of money from your data.
The NSA thing is only scary because we have a reflexive fear of dark-suited, sunglass-wearing men dragging people from their homes at night. Do you know how many people get affected by identity theft each year? It's thousands of times more than the number of political prisoners taken by the U.S. government.
edited 11th Jun '13 7:30:23 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"