2 ms·
What a vast oversimplification of my post, and also, a strawman. I never made that claim, nor did I insist anywhere that I thought so. However, notice how when
by jgg 13y ago
What a vast oversimplification of my post, and also, a strawman. I never made that claim, nor did I insist anywhere that I thought so. However, notice how when mentioning the debate of "rights" (namely, my right to submit information to a company or service without fear that the business is being quietly extorted to dump said information to the government without speaking about it under threat of prosecution), I said it was a "perceived" right. I used that adjective for a reason. However, your faux-argument is a convenient excuse to ignore my rebuttal to your points.
But to address your point directly, about how I only have rights to my body and property, your statement is meaningless without defining "property." Did you even know what you meant when you wrote that? Would you care to elaborate?
However, if we define a right as something legally-sanctioned, I actually have a lot of rights that aren't strictly body or property related. Further, any government that fails to enforce or violates these rights is in the wrong. Check this out: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights
If you mean in an absolutist, natural sense, nobody has any goddamned rights, because a right is a man-made concept. Which system are we arguing within?
Your attempt at forming a foundation for a creepy, fascist ideology is very illuminating, though.
- AsymetricCom 13y ago>Your attempt at forming a foundation for a creepy, fascist ideology is very illuminating, though. the only "foundation" I'm forming is that you need to be aware of who you trust your data to, that you can't assert rights to data which you willingly handed over to third parties with a licence to use that data. >quietly extorted No business, that I've seen, has ever been "quietly extorted" I would love to see you prove me wrong. a) The cases where there are NDAs to be signed, then the data gathering is constrained to one user. The purpose of such NDAs is obviously needed in such cases. And I'm sure that if the business in question was cooperating with criminals willingly, they'll break their NDA to let their buddies know that The Man is on to them. Even in the case of Lavabit, they've never stated otherwise and are transparently using the event for personal publicity. b) In the cases where metadata is gathered such as business records, the businesses say this in their EULA where they say "we cooperate with government requests for data" along with "we respect your data privacy"
- jgg 13y agoI don't want to play games with you anymore, Mr. Government Troll. The moving goalpost you keep presenting is quite annoying. If you wanted to find the information you request, you could open your mind and do a Google search. But you're here to mitigate and marginalize thought. You don't care about facts or logic. You can cynically muse about the populace at large, but you help foster the stupidity you decry. Have a nice day.