The internet is a public medium. If you think you can expect privacy, you're kidding yourself.
Acta signed!!!!
- Thread starter DutchJazzer
- Start date
The internet is a public medium. If you think you can expect privacy, you're kidding yourself.
DutchJazzer
Banned
prove it.
whats my DOB
whats my REAL NAME
whats my occupation
whats my martial status
whats my weight
whats my lenght(and my ***** lenght)
what are my allergies
what is my favorite color
whats my favorite nba team
I think intellectual property rights are a fundamental component of individual rights. I think IP rights are vastly more important than my "right" to privacy when using a medium of communication that belongs to someone else.
DutchJazzer
Banned
DutchJazzer
Banned
what makes you think internet is OWNED by someone? pph wiat ameirca htinks it owns internet thats why it wants an offswitch for the internet
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
It is not an issue of privacy. It is an issue of government overstepping their bounds, again, and sidestepping due process and the constitution. The issue really is no different than the patriot act. A means of warrantless surveillance. How many here were fans of the patriot act? Care to extend it to anything you do online whether you fit a profile or not? It is not a great stretch to imagine this being broadened to include any activity they view as subversive, or that the government can be lobbied for. 1984 may not have been far off, just it is taking longer.
So something man made is not owned? Who built it? Who did they give it to?
You're saying the internet is not owned, in part or in full?
Why would I care to find your personal data, or need to to prove my point?
Proof: information is transmitted from publically available server to publically available server.
See, that was easy. Unless you're in a secure network, what you are doing is public.
DutchJazzer
Banned
wow atleast someone sees the issue thought no one would. getting neg rep for this thread
.I guess nobody knows anything about this for a reason.
Used to be, the air was all we needed as the medium of communication. . . . just enough to get a pulse of compression/rarification waves from a voice apparatus in a throat to an eardrum. Nobody thought they owned it until recently.
Now we have corporate/fascist interests and the whole UN schema of world "managers" thinking they own the air, the land, the water, all living things, all chemicals, all technology including radio broadcast technologies. . . . and those little backstreet shops in Bangladesh that copy skinflicks and whatever else have gotta be stopped. There is no such thing as "human" rights, just Corporate Rights.
Besides, the very idea of human Freedom of Speech is a dangerously seditious threat to Corporate Rights. And the whole concept of Corporate Governance.
Used to be, the air was all we needed as the medium of communication. . . . just enough to get a pulse of compression/rarification waves from a voice apparatus in a throat to an eardrum. Nobody thought they owned it until recently.
Now we have corporate/fascist interests and the whole UN schema of world "managers" thinking they own the air, the land, the water, all living things, all chemicals, all technology including radio broadcast technologies. . . . and those little backstreet shops in Bangladesh that copy skinflicks and whatever else have gotta be stopped. There is no such thing as "human" rights, just Corporate Rights.
Besides, the very idea of human Freedom of Speech is a dangerously seditious threat to Corporate Rights. And the whole concept of Corporate Governance.
DutchJazzer
Banned
also nobody owns the roads right. highways and such but still you get some privacy on it. no search and seazures without a warrant. the internet is just the same just a digital road.
so i expect privacy on the internet.
so i expect privacy on the internet.
You have significantly fewer privacy rights in public spaces than you do in private ones. That includes public roads, where it is significantly easier to conduct legal warrantless searches than it would be to conduct searches of a person's home.
That's why I didn't say anything about technology.
My points were as follows: It is not "hypocritical" for the United States to purportedly take actions in conflict with a EU Charter. Your source doesn't say anything about how a youtube upload of a birthday party could lead to liability.
You have advanced no response to those points and neither are about technology.
You get privacy for the things that are hiddeen from view in your. If you can plainly see it from outside the car, it's not private.
Then encrypt all your data transmissions.
DutchJazzer
Banned
the problem with internet is if i could hack into your pc/tabelt/smartphone. i have cameras and micropones in your house. ooh wait you dont need privacy in your home just saying acta has far reaching privacy concerns.
under the norm of piracy.
just like patriot act under the norm of terroism
or various internt filters under the norm of child pornography.(the uk one just blocking of sites without a court order
dont get my wrong terrorism and child pornography are wrong and piracy to a certain extent.
but for example the child porn filter is now being used for piracy(the uk one). after they promised to only use it for CP. so now add piracy to the list its a slippery slope sooner or later it would be used to filter other stuff maybe even anti goverment websites.
DutchJazzer
Banned
I know the plain view stuff seen it in lots of movies.
but most of my dtaa is encrypted
DutchJazzer
Banned
also deep packet inspection will be the NORM. so encryption might be useless
I'd like to see some smart and in the postive aspect of the term "progressive", meaning trying to enhance the quality and value of life, folks like Kicky and One Brow actually get interested in applying their considerable talents in bringing credible public attention to issues of declining personal rights and protection from overlordyism run amok.
Government of the people, by the people and for the people just isn't as good as government of the Corporations, by their toady bought-and-paid-for phony "peoples' representatives", and for the Corporations just isn't going to be as good. . . .
Well, actually, government has been more in the service of the moneyed interests for a lot longer than even this country has been in existence, and we were always "exceptional" when we still had people like Dutchjazzer insisting on human rights.
Government of the people, by the people and for the people just isn't as good as government of the Corporations, by their toady bought-and-paid-for phony "peoples' representatives", and for the Corporations just isn't going to be as good. . . .
Well, actually, government has been more in the service of the moneyed interests for a lot longer than even this country has been in existence, and we were always "exceptional" when we still had people like Dutchjazzer insisting on human rights.
Incoherent.
What part of ACTA specifically give permission for warrantless searches of PCs and smartphones, as opposed to communications?