4 ms·

>But honestly? If your really worried about privacy, the easiest thing to do is to not use the Internet. Real talk. Maybe not "not use the Internet" but people

>But honestly? If your really worried about privacy, the easiest thing to do is to not use the Internet. Real talk. Maybe not "not use the Internet" but people would do well to be more judicious about their internet use.

williamcotton 11y ago
People have never liked the idea of being liable for their own actions. What is strange is that people on this forum now thank that rich and powerful corporations shouldn't be liable for their actions either. It's pretty clear that Apple should be liable to their customer's privacy. What seems to be forgotten is that Apple is also liable to the government's right to search and seizure. We made the government agree to the 4th amendment to define not only our own individual rights but how they are balanced against the public good. The judicial system has interpreted the constitution to state that these 4th amendment rights only cover what is contained within a person's private properties. This is very important: There is no legal concept of an "authored work" that is non-public in nature. As soon as information that is attributed to you leaves your private property is is considered published. We've structured our entire economy, legal, and political order on this concept. We have public marketplaces. We have public credit and criminal reports. We have public notices of lien. We have public courts that enforce private wrongs of all sorts. We have public records for land titles. We have public roads and public parks and anything that happens out there is considered freely published to the world. We have a public copyright regime that gives us financial entitlements to those published works. There is no legal notion of "authored work that is private and non-public in nature" that leaves your physical property. Imagine what would happen to the above public infrastructure if this was the case. You can't because that's almost as fantastical as saying "imagine that we didn't have money and just bartered with bags of salt". Clearly we have a need for some limited concepts of "authored work that is private and non-public in nature", or as I've been calling them, "privished works". Clearly this privished work is going to need to adhere to the existing notions of the constitution and we will need statutes that clearly outline the liabilities to both private citizens as well as public governments. As I see it, Apple would need to be liable to both the government as well as to individuals. They would not be allowed to sell privished works to 3rd party marketers. They would not be allowed to let anyone other than the author decide who is authorized to read privished works. They would have to make sure the government could read privished works with a search warrant. The deeper issue on this forum is that current software developers do not want to be liable for anyone else's privacy either. They just want to keep being able to make their apps without really being held responsible for their actions.

williamcotton 11y ago

People have never liked the idea of being liable for their own actions. What is strange is that people on this forum now thank that rich and powerful corporations shouldn't be liable for their actions either. It's pretty clear that Apple should be liable to their customer's privacy. What seems to be forgotten is that Apple is also liable to the government's right to search and seizure. We made the government agree to the 4th amendment to define not only our own individual rights but how they are balanced against the public good. The judicial system has interpreted the constitution to state that these 4th amendment rights only cover what is contained within a person's private properties. This is very important: There is no legal concept of an "authored work" that is non-public in nature. As soon as information that is attributed to you leaves your private property is is considered published. We've structured our entire economy, legal, and political order on this concept. We have public marketplaces. We have public credit and criminal reports. We have public notices of lien. We have public courts that enforce private wrongs of all sorts. We have public records for land titles. We have public roads and public parks and anything that happens out there is considered freely published to the world. We have a public copyright regime that gives us financial entitlements to those published works. There is no legal notion of "authored work that is private and non-public in nature" that leaves your physical property. Imagine what would happen to the above public infrastructure if this was the case. You can't because that's almost as fantastical as saying "imagine that we didn't have money and just bartered with bags of salt". Clearly we have a need for some limited concepts of "authored work that is private and non-public in nature", or as I've been calling them, "privished works". Clearly this privished work is going to need to adhere to the existing notions of the constitution and we will need statutes that clearly outline the liabilities to both private citizens as well as public governments. As I see it, Apple would need to be liable to both the government as well as to individuals. They would not be allowed to sell privished works to 3rd party marketers. They would not be allowed to let anyone other than the author decide who is authorized to read privished works. They would have to make sure the government could read privished works with a search warrant. The deeper issue on this forum is that current software developers do not want to be liable for anyone else's privacy either. They just want to keep being able to make their apps without really being held responsible for their actions.