3 ms·

> "Just because someone doesn't live in one of the five approved liberal cities doesn't mean they're automatically a bigoted jerk." And just because somebody d

> "Just because someone doesn't live in one of the five approved liberal cities doesn't mean they're automatically a bigoted jerk." And just because somebody does live in a liberal city doesn't mean they don't have legitimate reasons to desire privacy.

imgabe 7y ago
Knowledge of your address is not a violation of privacy. I assume you never order take out food or receive mail?
- liability 7y ago
  There is much more here than a mapping of name-to-address, and you know that.
  - imgabe 7y ago
    Yes, there are also bar owners reporting incidents that happened in their bar. Are you going to propose that bar owners are not allowed to write down things that happened to them? Are you going to propose that they are not allowed to tell other people about things they witnessed? How do you reconcile that with free speech? For me the point at which this becomes a problem is where other bars that were not a party to the incident ban people based on unverified information. That is the actual problem and what I would propose restricting
    - liability 7y ago
      The company will be logging every single card that gets scanned. You will be in their database even if you are never written up for any infraction, and that running history of every bar you ever scanned in at will be information that could become public through incompetence or greed. You know this. I know that you know what data brokers are, that companies obsessively log everything by default, and that cyber-security is frequently abysmal. You're not dumb, you're just pretending to be. That's a nasty habit.
      - imgabe 7y ago
        Ok, they will have a partial [1] list of bars I visited. This will allow them to do what specific nefarious acts, exactly? I'm not pretending anything. Maybe I really am dumb or just unimaginative. I don't see what harm is going to come to me from someone having this information or even why anyone would care to look at it. [1] partial because not every bar is going to implement this
        liability 7y ago
        Pretending to lack an imagination isn't really a good use of your time, nor is this conversation a good use of mine. Have a nice day.
    - CPLX 7y ago
      > How do you reconcile that with free speech? I don't have to. Commercial speech isn't by definition free. The bar owner is certainly permitted to tell their friends about something that happened, or write a book about what an asshole customer you are. That doesn't mean every for-profit database of information, no matter how personal or how obtained, is legal. As, of course, you most certainly already know. There aren't any consumer credit reporting agencies, for example, making legal claims that the FCRA is a first amendment violation.
- ryandrake 7y ago
  If you truly believe that, please reply to this comment with your full home address.

imgabe 7y ago

Knowledge of your address is not a violation of privacy. I assume you never order take out food or receive mail?

liability 7y ago
There is much more here than a mapping of name-to-address, and you know that.
- imgabe 7y ago
  Yes, there are also bar owners reporting incidents that happened in their bar. Are you going to propose that bar owners are not allowed to write down things that happened to them? Are you going to propose that they are not allowed to tell other people about things they witnessed? How do you reconcile that with free speech? For me the point at which this becomes a problem is where other bars that were not a party to the incident ban people based on unverified information. That is the actual problem and what I would propose restricting
  - liability 7y ago
    The company will be logging every single card that gets scanned. You will be in their database even if you are never written up for any infraction, and that running history of every bar you ever scanned in at will be information that could become public through incompetence or greed. You know this. I know that you know what data brokers are, that companies obsessively log everything by default, and that cyber-security is frequently abysmal. You're not dumb, you're just pretending to be. That's a nasty habit.
    - imgabe 7y ago
      Ok, they will have a partial [1] list of bars I visited. This will allow them to do what specific nefarious acts, exactly? I'm not pretending anything. Maybe I really am dumb or just unimaginative. I don't see what harm is going to come to me from someone having this information or even why anyone would care to look at it. [1] partial because not every bar is going to implement this
      - liability 7y ago
        Pretending to lack an imagination isn't really a good use of your time, nor is this conversation a good use of mine. Have a nice day.
  - CPLX 7y ago
    > How do you reconcile that with free speech? I don't have to. Commercial speech isn't by definition free. The bar owner is certainly permitted to tell their friends about something that happened, or write a book about what an asshole customer you are. That doesn't mean every for-profit database of information, no matter how personal or how obtained, is legal. As, of course, you most certainly already know. There aren't any consumer credit reporting agencies, for example, making legal claims that the FCRA is a first amendment violation.
ryandrake 7y ago
If you truly believe that, please reply to this comment with your full home address.