3 ms·

They talk a lot about "human rights" in this post. At what point does someone's right to personal safety and privacy trump another person's right to host whatev

They talk a lot about "human rights" in this post. At what point does someone's right to personal safety and privacy trump another person's right to host whatever they want on the internet?

colechristensen 4y ago
>At what point does someone's right to personal safety and privacy trump another person's right to host whatever they want on the internet? When it breaks a law and becomes a problem for law enforcement and not corporate PR.
freedomben 4y ago
> At what point does someone's right to personal safety and privacy trump another person's right to host whatever they want on the internet? If you're willing, I'd be interested to hear your own answer to the question you ask. It's an interesting question (though I'm not sure I agree with the premise(s), but I think that's a different conversation). Also interesting would be to hear your answer to the reverse: At what point does someone's right to host whatever they want on the internet trump someone's right to personal safety and privacy?
- didibus 4y ago
  My favorite set of human rights is the UN one: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... The two rights at play would be: > Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers > Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks > Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. In my opinion, it's a relatively clear case, though I reckon sometimes there might be a grey area. Article 19 says you're free to express your opinions and ideas to others through any media. So you should be able to do so on the internet as well. Article 12 says that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. To me, this means your thoughts and ideas you express cannot arbitrarily interfere with others privacy, home, correspondence, or attack their honor or reputation without due cause. This means that doxxing is not acceptable, hacking and revealing private information you obtained without consent isn't acceptable unless you have due cause (whistleblowing for matters of laws being broken). Harassment is not acceptable either, because it's interference with ones right. You'd need a court to establish what right you broke, and this is probably what we're lacking today, since a large percentage of the voting population doesn't actually value all human rights equally, I think the courts have been hesitant to enforce them, and so the right to privacy isn't particularly respected, but the right to express opinions or private information and harassment is strongly defended. Since the courts are failing, people are having to take the case to the public spheres. Finally, Article 1 says that everyone is endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. I included this one because it too clearly rejects harassment and hate. It clearly mandates that people must act in spirit of brotherhood with everyone else. Obviously all behavior that go against that is not supported by the human rights.
cowtools 4y ago
weberer 4y ago
I would say when it breaks a specific law. And if its that serious, get the police and feds involved, not some board members of some hosting company.
- pjc50 4y ago
  In this case, the police are involved, and part of the problem: a KF user got somebody SWATted. The police are amazingly useless at dealing with organized harassment; there have been a couple of cases where people have already been in touch and told them "you will probably receive a hoax call about me", and still got SWATted.
  - Cyberdog 4y ago
    What KF user got someone SWATted? Please name and shame them if you have evidence. KF makes a very convenient scapegoat and there's no reason for someone opposed to them to false flag as them when calling in a SWAT, or for someone to SWAT themselves or just fake a SWATting entirely and blame it on someone at KF or just KF in general. I'm not saying for sure that has happened in Keffals' case, but it can't be proven that something like that didn't happen yet either.
fsociety 4y ago
Only when it makes them more money than claiming to be a “bastion of free speech”.

They talk a lot about "human rights" in this post. At what point does someone's right to personal safety and privacy trump another person's right to host whatever they want on the internet?

colechristensen 4y ago

>At what point does someone's right to personal safety and privacy trump another person's right to host whatever they want on the internet? When it breaks a law and becomes a problem for law enforcement and not corporate PR.

freedomben 4y ago

> At what point does someone's right to personal safety and privacy trump another person's right to host whatever they want on the internet? If you're willing, I'd be interested to hear your own answer to the question you ask. It's an interesting question (though I'm not sure I agree with the premise(s), but I think that's a different conversation). Also interesting would be to hear your answer to the reverse: At what point does someone's right to host whatever they want on the internet trump someone's right to personal safety and privacy?

didibus 4y ago
My favorite set of human rights is the UN one: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... The two rights at play would be: > Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers > Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks > Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. In my opinion, it's a relatively clear case, though I reckon sometimes there might be a grey area. Article 19 says you're free to express your opinions and ideas to others through any media. So you should be able to do so on the internet as well. Article 12 says that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. To me, this means your thoughts and ideas you express cannot arbitrarily interfere with others privacy, home, correspondence, or attack their honor or reputation without due cause. This means that doxxing is not acceptable, hacking and revealing private information you obtained without consent isn't acceptable unless you have due cause (whistleblowing for matters of laws being broken). Harassment is not acceptable either, because it's interference with ones right. You'd need a court to establish what right you broke, and this is probably what we're lacking today, since a large percentage of the voting population doesn't actually value all human rights equally, I think the courts have been hesitant to enforce them, and so the right to privacy isn't particularly respected, but the right to express opinions or private information and harassment is strongly defended. Since the courts are failing, people are having to take the case to the public spheres. Finally, Article 1 says that everyone is endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. I included this one because it too clearly rejects harassment and hate. It clearly mandates that people must act in spirit of brotherhood with everyone else. Obviously all behavior that go against that is not supported by the human rights.

cowtools 4y ago

weberer 4y ago

I would say when it breaks a specific law. And if its that serious, get the police and feds involved, not some board members of some hosting company.

pjc50 4y ago
In this case, the police are involved, and part of the problem: a KF user got somebody SWATted. The police are amazingly useless at dealing with organized harassment; there have been a couple of cases where people have already been in touch and told them "you will probably receive a hoax call about me", and still got SWATted.
- Cyberdog 4y ago
  What KF user got someone SWATted? Please name and shame them if you have evidence. KF makes a very convenient scapegoat and there's no reason for someone opposed to them to false flag as them when calling in a SWAT, or for someone to SWAT themselves or just fake a SWATting entirely and blame it on someone at KF or just KF in general. I'm not saying for sure that has happened in Keffals' case, but it can't be proven that something like that didn't happen yet either.

fsociety 4y ago

Only when it makes them more money than claiming to be a “bastion of free speech”.