5 ms·

They are owned by people though and your wife's underwear drawer is not a person either.

by Trundle 10y ago

toomuchtodo 10y ago
> They are owned by people though That does not mean the corporate entity has personhood and the rights that status conveys.
- Trundle 10y ago
  The data they requested didn't have personhood either yet the discussion went straight to whether the corporation does. Why is that if ownership doesn't encompass property rights?
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    Because ownership rights are not absolute. The IRS can dig through your personal and corporate finances to ensure you're compliant with your required tax liability payments, why would you think the Department of Labor wouldn't be permitted the same? EDIT: > I don't care to discuss what the law is sorry. Why would we discuss theory and not the actual law? The law is all that matters, as that's what will be enforced.
    - Trundle 10y ago
      When you denied corporations having personhood despite them having personhood in the eyes of the law, I assumed you were interested in discussing the concept from an ethics pov rather than a legal one. I'm sure the department of labor knows exactly what it can and can't request and even if it doesn't it, an entity with lawyers on payroll, would definitely have more of an idea on US law than me, a non-American non-lawyer. I don't care to discuss what the law is sorry.
    - Trundle 10y ago
      Because we find discussing theory fun? What does "all that matters" mean? This is a recreational discussion that carries no practical weight.
    - j4kp07 10y ago
      > The IRS can dig through your personal and corporate finances Keyword: Finances And from what I understand, Oracle has turned all of those over. But you and others, are demanding unfettered access to every nook, cranny and file cabinet they possess. You sound like a disgruntled socialist that simply hates bigger and better people/companies succeeding in life. > Why would we discuss theory and not the actual law? Said the person who hasn't read SCOTUS rulings on corporation's right to privacy, due process of law, etc.
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        You don't want to follow federal government contractor regulations, don't take federal dollars. Otherwise, produce the docs you're required to. > You sound like a disgruntled socialist that simply hates bigger and better people/companies succeeding in life. I hate entitled companies who don't think they have to follow the rules. They deserve the boot on their neck.
- j4kp07 10y ago
  SCOTUS disagrees with you "My Friend" and I'm pretty sure they have more experience in these matters.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
Quanttek 10y ago
> and your wife's underwear drawer is not a person either. wtf?? When you invade a person's privacy it's rarely jsut about the personbeing nude. Of course it is almost always about private possessions or data. So this reasoning is complete BS. The thing is that the owner is in one case a person, in the other case a corporation. Just because the corporation is owned by group of people rarely means the private data of the company is the private data of its owners.

They are owned by people though and your wife's underwear drawer is not a person either.

by Trundle 10y ago

They are owned by people though and your wife's underwear drawer is not a person either.

> They are owned by people though That does not mean the corporate entity has personhood and the rights that status conveys.

Trundle 10y ago
The data they requested didn't have personhood either yet the discussion went straight to whether the corporation does. Why is that if ownership doesn't encompass property rights?
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Because ownership rights are not absolute. The IRS can dig through your personal and corporate finances to ensure you're compliant with your required tax liability payments, why would you think the Department of Labor wouldn't be permitted the same? EDIT: > I don't care to discuss what the law is sorry. Why would we discuss theory and not the actual law? The law is all that matters, as that's what will be enforced.
  - Trundle 10y ago
    When you denied corporations having personhood despite them having personhood in the eyes of the law, I assumed you were interested in discussing the concept from an ethics pov rather than a legal one. I'm sure the department of labor knows exactly what it can and can't request and even if it doesn't it, an entity with lawyers on payroll, would definitely have more of an idea on US law than me, a non-American non-lawyer. I don't care to discuss what the law is sorry.
  - Trundle 10y ago
    Because we find discussing theory fun? What does "all that matters" mean? This is a recreational discussion that carries no practical weight.
  - j4kp07 10y ago
    > The IRS can dig through your personal and corporate finances Keyword: Finances And from what I understand, Oracle has turned all of those over. But you and others, are demanding unfettered access to every nook, cranny and file cabinet they possess. You sound like a disgruntled socialist that simply hates bigger and better people/companies succeeding in life. > Why would we discuss theory and not the actual law? Said the person who hasn't read SCOTUS rulings on corporation's right to privacy, due process of law, etc.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      You don't want to follow federal government contractor regulations, don't take federal dollars. Otherwise, produce the docs you're required to. > You sound like a disgruntled socialist that simply hates bigger and better people/companies succeeding in life. I hate entitled companies who don't think they have to follow the rules. They deserve the boot on their neck.
j4kp07 10y ago
SCOTUS disagrees with you "My Friend" and I'm pretty sure they have more experience in these matters.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

Quanttek 10y ago

> and your wife's underwear drawer is not a person either. wtf?? When you invade a person's privacy it's rarely jsut about the personbeing nude. Of course it is almost always about private possessions or data. So this reasoning is complete BS. The thing is that the owner is in one case a person, in the other case a corporation. Just because the corporation is owned by group of people rarely means the private data of the company is the private data of its owners.