Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:29 No.15266169

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:29 No.15266169

bump

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:30 No.15266232

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:30 No.15266232

Replies: >>15266639

You're right OP. I forget the case and I'm too lazy to look, but basically it was ruled that warrantless email searches aren't illegal because the user has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in using other company's email servers.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:34 No.15266347

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:34 No.15266347

>>15266256

I wonder what possesses people to make all tripfags look bad.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:36 No.15266405

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:36 No.15266405

Replies: >>15266464

FUCK OFF SHILL

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:37 No.15266442

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:37 No.15266442

File: 1370648242555.jpg-(35 KB, 360x517, 1367864409538.jpg)

35 KB JPG

>>15266256
well well well, if it isn't our chosen-tripfag

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:38 No.15266464

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:38 No.15266464

>>15266405

But anon, YOU are the shill. You can't into logic.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:38 No.15266502

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:38 No.15266502

Replies: >>15266581 >>15266878

But to our knowledge they're being forced, or at least coerced into supplying this, not to mention no one, at least most regular people, have no expectation that all their information is being handed over to the government.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:39 No.15266516

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:39 No.15266516

Replies: >>15266581

Until there are cameras watching politicians and government agents at all times, available to the public upon request from a publicly accessible server, then it's spying.

When it's one group keeping an eye on another group without their knowledge, and without an ability to look back and see who is keeping an eye on them, it's spying.

There is no legitimate justification for governments to have any secrets of any sort. Intelligence agencies serve no useful purpose.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:39 No.15266519

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:39 No.15266519

Replies: >>15266581 >>15266696

>>15264602 (OP)
is there a difference between the company volunteering that information and the govt forcing that company to give up that information? I'd say there is a very large difference.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:40 No.15266560

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:40 No.15266560

I hope OP doesn't believe what he wrote.

>its not spying if I put a camera in the woman's changing room, they should have expected it

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:41 No.15266581

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:41 No.15266581

Replies: >>15266658 >>15266715 >>15266743 >>15266796

>>15266519
>>15266516
>>15266502

finally some serious fucking replies.

I didn't look at it this way. Thanks.

How could they be forced though?

Does being told that sharing their information is "in their best interest" constitute being forced?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:41 No.15266584

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:41 No.15266584

Replies: >>15266775

here is the flaw in the argument. all the major companies explicitly state that your privacy is reasonably secured if used for lawful purposes. Ur use of their site (ie hotmail etc) is based on good faith to that policy. These companies know that if it was known they actively give out data, then the user base would collapse.

so basically:

>yes its their servers etc

>they trick you into giving info by attracting you to their service under false pretenses

>its not "up to them what they do with the data" as they stipulate what they can and cant do under the terms and conditions

>its blatant invasion of privacy, its blatant fraud

Fire Lord !AZULaFMcQ.
06/07/13(Fri)19:42 No.15266639

Fire Lord !AZULaFMcQ. 06/07/13(Fri)19:42 No.15266639

Replies: >>15266775

>>15266232
Jesus christ fag by that logic we have no reasonable expectation of privacy to anything that goes through a phone company's switchboard; shut the fuck up with you dumbshit fascist cocksuckery.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:43 No.15266658

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:43 No.15266658

Replies: >>15266775

>>15266581
They're being forced by the govenment, who has the power to say "do as we say or we fine/arrest/disappear/kill you"

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:44 No.15266696

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:44 No.15266696

>>15266519
government can force them, but there is very powerful methods of fighting back.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:44 No.15266715

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:44 No.15266715

Replies: >>15266890

>>15266581
>How could they be forced though?
subpoena that info.

I work in a bank and under the patriot act we are forced to check the govt database of possible terrorist, drug dealers etc, when issuing a check for non customers etc. if we do not the bank loses its FDIC insurance and can no longer operate, along with a bunch of other penalties. I have a feeling its the same with cellphone companies.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:45 No.15266727

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:45 No.15266727

Replies: >>15273096

>giving information to companies willfully then cry when they give it to the NSA

All you really have to do is read the terms of service.

Fire Lord !AZULaFMcQ.
06/07/13(Fri)19:45 No.15266730

Fire Lord !AZULaFMcQ. 06/07/13(Fri)19:45 No.15266730

Replies: >>15266775

There is no difference whatsoever between a phone call and an email; both are private communications between individuals and subject to the protections of the 4th amendment.

Behead anyone who says otherwise.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:45 No.15266743

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:45 No.15266743

>>15266581

Whether it's forced or 'just' coerced, it's still unequivocally spying on people, and if they paid for the camera that is watching them, it's also fraud.

There are no good reasons for a government to have such an agency. Earnest transparency in government and business makes it impossible for a hostile conspiracy, foreign or domestic, to threaten us. Allowing governments or businesses to have any secrets can only make us less safe, never more safe.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:46 No.15266775

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:46 No.15266775

Replies: >>15266798 >>15266956

>>15266639
>>15266730
thanks for the bump you dumb shill. You have a mental disorder. Seek help.

>>15266658

You're trying to tell me the government would "disappear" or hurt a company as big as google or microsoft or apple?

>>15266584

im sure there are lines that say they can do this in the terms of service. people just never read it

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:47 No.15266796

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:47 No.15266796

Replies: >>15266874

>>15266581
if a company chooses to volunteer that info he is telling its customer's "hey, i want to protect the country and you can disagree or agree with my reasons for sharing your basic info to the govt" if you disagree cancel your membership. if you agree keep it. Either way its in the power of the people.

Fire Lord !AZULaFMcQ.
06/07/13(Fri)19:47 No.15266798

Fire Lord !AZULaFMcQ. 06/07/13(Fri)19:47 No.15266798

Replies: >>15266855 >>15266890

>>15266775
Go fuck yourself, fascist.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:48 No.15266855

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:48 No.15266855

Replies: >>15266928

File: 1370648911305.jpg-(83 KB, 518x500, 1365355663258.jpg)

83 KB JPG

>>15266798
>I have nothing better to say so I am going to shout fascist until I'm right
>liberals

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:49 No.15266874

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:49 No.15266874

Replies: >>15266946 >>15267073

>>15266796

So they inform you before they use this technology to spy on you?

That is the only way you'd have a chance to cancel your membership to avoid it.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:49 No.15266878

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:49 No.15266878

Replies: >>15267047

>>15266502
>no one, at least most regular people, have no expectation that all their information is being handed over
[ ] I have read the terms of use (click here to see the terms of use).

[X] I have read the terms of use (click here to see the terms of use).

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:49 No.15266890

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:49 No.15266890

Replies: >>15267019

>>15266715

Wouldn't some companies like Google or Microsoft just be too big to shut down though?

>>15266798
Why don't you learn? How many times do you have to be banned? Just follow the rules and stop shitposting. Grow up or get medical assistance for whatever mental illness you have because it's absolutely pathetic that you continue to shitpost in /pol/ after all this time.

Fire Lord !AZULaFMcQ.
06/07/13(Fri)19:50 No.15266928

Fire Lord !AZULaFMcQ. 06/07/13(Fri)19:50 No.15266928

Replies: >>15267047 >>15267206

>>15266855
You're the one who has nothing to say. You pretend that we lose the right to privacy by hiring someone to carry our conversations for us when that has never been a legal principle except for spy agencies that violate the constitution on a regular basis.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:50 No.15266946

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:50 No.15266946

Replies: >>15267078

>>15266874

OP's point is it's not really spying. You're using someone else service. You're in "their house"

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:51 No.15266956

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:51 No.15266956

Replies: >>15267008

>>15266775
>You're trying to tell me the government would "disappear" or hurt a company as big as google or microsoft or apple?
Yes. Microsoft has been collaborating with the NSA for a long time (see NSA signing key on Windows XP and later versions), but Google recently was forced to hand over user information they were initially unwilling to.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:52 No.15267008

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:52 No.15267008

Replies: >>15267134 >>15267179

>>15266956

Forced how? All google would have to do is get the billions of people that use it's services on it's side with a simple HEY THE US GOVT IS TRYING TO GET US TO GIVE AWAY INFO. SUPPORT US. Americans would support google in droves.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:52 No.15267019

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:52 No.15267019

Replies: >>15267080

>>15266890
>Wouldn't some companies like Google or Microsoft just be too big to shut down though?
It doesn't matter. its still extreme coercion through penalization of a company for not complying that is using force. you're clouding the issue. the govt used coercion or threats whatever you want to call it to get info the company would not normally have freely given.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:53 No.15267047

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:53 No.15267047

Replies: >>15267121

>>15266928
>we lose the right to privacy by hiring someone to carry our conversations
There is an expectation of privacy, this is why they explicitly say there will be none before you use their services, see >>15266878.

It's not even like a bar had a hidden camera, but if they told you about the camera every time before you entered the premises.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:54 No.15267073

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:54 No.15267073

Replies: >>15267158

>>15266874
yes its either directly in the open as the company admits that it chose to give its information to the govt to combat terrorism, or the media finds out it did. Either way the company did it willingly without force or coercion and we can choose whether or not to support said company.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:54 No.15267077

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:54 No.15267077

SLIPPERY SLOPE

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:54 No.15267078

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:54 No.15267078

Replies: >>15267130

>>15266946

It's not really spying if they inform you about everyone who is seeing the images. If they're giving or selling that data to someone without your express permission, then it's spying.

So do they send you a letter to ask for your consent to allow the NSA to watch you?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:54 No.15267080

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:54 No.15267080

Replies: >>15267242 >>15267603

>>15267019

I don't think you realize how much money these companies have. I'm not clouding the issue. I honestly wouldn't be afraid of the government when half of their branches use my software, hardware etc, and 90% of the worlds home computers use my tech. I wouldn't even bat an eye. The fuck can they do? Taking me down would cripple them.

!bgREVLN8FU
06/07/13(Fri)19:54 No.15267091

!bgREVLN8FU 06/07/13(Fri)19:54 No.15267091

Some people are claiming this PRISM business is a hoax. I don't really see how, though.

What does PRISM even stand for, anyway?

Fire Lord !AZULaFMcQ.
06/07/13(Fri)19:55 No.15267121

Fire Lord !AZULaFMcQ. 06/07/13(Fri)19:55 No.15267121

Replies: >>15267169

>>15267047
Establish that this is in fact included in a TOS

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:55 No.15267130

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:55 No.15267130

Replies: >>15267275

>>15267078

It's their data. Not yours. If you go into someone elses house and they have cameras all over the place, and you knew they had cameras, you have no right to get mad when that camera footage appears on the internet.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:55 No.15267134

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:55 No.15267134

>>15267008
I don't know. there was a thread here /pol/ not long ago. A judge who had first ruled it unconstitutional to force Google to do it, later changed her decision, then they had to comply.

If Google tried to do something like this, there would be nothing on the way of a legal monopoly on web search for Microsoft Bing.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:56 No.15267158

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:56 No.15267158

Replies: >>15267265 >>15267275

>>15267073

So if one buys one of these products, one is agreeing to being watched by any number of unknown third parties, at the whim of the service provider? This is the deal that one is making when they buy it?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:56 No.15267169

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:56 No.15267169

Replies: >>15267331

>>15267121
It is. Read them. When it isn't, maybe you do have a point, but I'm still to see one where there are no clauses about handing over information upon legal request.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:56 No.15267179

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:56 No.15267179

>>15267008
so a company is going to risk its livelihood because maybe the people would back it?

would Goldman Sachs or Chase risk its FDIC insurance by not following the patriot act?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:57 No.15267206

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:57 No.15267206

>>15266928
>You're the one who has nothing to say. You pretend that we lose the right to privacy by hiring someone to carry our conversations for us when that has never been a legal principle except for spy agencies that violate the constitution on a regular basis.

Don't be mad at the company for shady business practices. They have the right to do it as long as we are being informed. Be mad at the people who just accept everything they do and refuse to switch away from services that out right give away our conversations.

We don't lose privacy when we have to agree that they will give our conversations away before use.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:58 No.15267242

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:58 No.15267242

>>15267080
I'm sure Lehman Brothers thought the same thing. and lehman bros was one of the big 3.

You're assuming Google who caved to China and has caved again with the US will just buck the law and the patriot act IS THE LAW, just because it thinks MAYBE the people will back it.

are you high?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:58 No.15267265

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:58 No.15267265

Replies: >>15267341

>>15267158
yes.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)19:59 No.15267275

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)19:59 No.15267275

Replies: >>15267349 >>15267408

>>15267130

see;
>>15267158

This is made explicit in the terms of service? That you will be watched constantly and the footage given or sold to whoever the service provider feels like giving or selling it to? If you're signing up for that, then fine. If you aren't EXPLICITLY signing up for that, it's spying or fraud.

Fire Lord !AZULaFMcQ.
06/07/13(Fri)20:00 No.15267331

Fire Lord !AZULaFMcQ. 06/07/13(Fri)20:00 No.15267331

Replies: >>15267679

>>15267169
I know sure as fuck it's not in my TOS

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:00 No.15267341

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:00 No.15267341

Replies: >>15267382

>>15267265

This is explicit? People who sign up for these products are asked explicitly if they give permission for the footage to be given or sold to whoever the service provider wants to give or sell it to?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:00 No.15267349

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:00 No.15267349

Replies: >>15267407 >>15268337

>>15267275
>If you aren't EXPLICITLY signing up for that, it's spying or fraud.
it doesn't have to be explicit.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:01 No.15267382

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:01 No.15267382

Replies: >>15267427 >>15267506 >>15267558

>>15267341
what right do you have that the info you enter into the internet is private? I'm unaware of such a right guaranteed under the constitution.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:02 No.15267407

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:02 No.15267407

Replies: >>15267487

>>15267349

Yes it does. Since when was owning a camera an implicit agreement to hand over every picture you take with it to whoever the camera manufacturer compels you to?

If it's not explicit, then it's spying or fraud.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:02 No.15267408

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:02 No.15267408

>>15267275
>If you aren't EXPLICITLY signing up for that, it's spying or fraud.
>EXPLICITLY
Almost every TOS or privacy statement out there has some "we reserve ourselves the right to keep your data till the end of time and after" and "you understand we may be legally required to hand over your data to government agencies, who may then be free to do whatever with it". Facebook goes much beyond that, just read it.
Some others even jokingly include things like ownership of your soul, although these are not legally binding in most countries.

Fire Lord !AZULaFMcQ.
06/07/13(Fri)20:03 No.15267427

Fire Lord !AZULaFMcQ. 06/07/13(Fri)20:03 No.15267427

Replies: >>15267608

>>15267382
It's called the 4th Amendment.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:03 No.15267446

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:03 No.15267446

File: 1370649810286.jpg-(51 KB, 650x433, Businessman_Holding_Gun_T(...).jpg)

51 KB JPG

>mfw people actually believe this.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:04 No.15267487

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:04 No.15267487

Replies: >>15267550

>>15267407
how are they getting the pics from your film? if you're using their service provide than its theirs unless they've otherwise said so in contract.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:05 No.15267506

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:05 No.15267506

>>15267382

The right to privacy in ones own home is guaranteed.

And even if it weren't, it would be a good idea to change the constitution to make it guaranteed.

If the contract stated up front and clearly that the products were being used to film you constantly and that information was given to unknown third parties without further notice, then it might be okay.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:06 No.15267550

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:06 No.15267550

Replies: >>15267785 >>15267861

>>15267487

If one were bringing the film in to be processed, would it be okay for that service to keep your film and sell it to third parties without asking for your permission first?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:06 No.15267558

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:06 No.15267558

Replies: >>15267719

>>15267382

I want to strangle you to death with my bare hands.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:07 No.15267603

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:07 No.15267603

Replies: >>15267641

>>15267080
I don't think you realize how much money these countries have.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:07 No.15267608

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:07 No.15267608

Replies: >>15267700

>>15267427
you're giving information freely on their product by your own free will.

its the exact same thing as if i own an airline nevermind TSA bullshit, if you ride my airplane you empty your pockets and open your luggage so i can peruse your shit if you want to get on my airplane. if you don't like it go to another airline.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:08 No.15267641

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:08 No.15267641

>>15267603

It's not really about money. It's about 90% of their government using MY technology. If it disappeared they'd be fucked.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:09 No.15267679

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:09 No.15267679

Replies: >>15267736 >>15267764 >>15267848 >>15268594 >>15268793 >>15269011

>>15267331
Google:
>We will share personal information with companies, organisations or individuals outside Google if we have a belief in good faith that access, use, preservation or disclosure of the information is reasonably necessary to:
>meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request.
>enforce applicable Terms of Service, including investigation of potential violations.
>detect, prevent or otherwise address fraud, security or technical issues.
>protect against harm to the rights, property or safety of Google, our users or the public, as required or permitted by law.

tl; dr: Google can do whatever they want, but they'll try to be nice

Facebook:
>we may use the information we receive about you:
>as part of our efforts to keep Facebook products, services and integrations safe and secure;
>to protect Facebook's or others' rights or property;
>to measure or understand the effectiveness of ads you and others see, including to deliver relevant ads to you;
>for internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research and service improvement.

tl; dr: lol we don't even have to be nice about it
>"data analysis, testing, research" is legalese for "whatever the fuck we want to"

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:09 No.15267700

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:09 No.15267700

Replies: >>15267764

>>15267608

And they are then selling or giving it to third parties. I think it's reasonable to require your express permission before each discrete release of that information to any third party.

We haven't had this kind of technology before. This is the only way to keep those who provide it honest.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:10 No.15267719

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:10 No.15267719

>>15267558
calm down. I don't like it either. If there was actually a free market there would be a greater opportunity for competition in internet providers and you would have a better choice on which providers you could use. I would choose a provider that didn't keep all my info and sell it etc. but we live in corporatist America where the govt only allows so many players. You want to change things? remove the over regulation from the govt.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:10 No.15267725

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:10 No.15267725

Replies: >>15267816

>>15264602 (OP)

Faulty analogy, OP. The bar/patron relation assumes the bar owner has no institution pressuring him to record and it is a voluntary interaction.

The federal government is a threatening entity and companies know that not giving the government its way can lead to bad events. Audits and raids are a regular feature of companies that make a show of thumbing their nose at the government.

The government working through private companies by implied threats and subterfuge is just as immoral as the government obtaining the records on their own.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:10 No.15267736

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:10 No.15267736

>>15267679

fucking told 90% of the people in this thread.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:11 No.15267764

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:11 No.15267764

Replies: >>15267817 >>15267913 >>15268172

>>15267700
>it's reasonable to require your express permission before each discrete release of that information to any third party
Which you give in advance by agreeing to their terms, see >>15267679.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:11 No.15267785

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:11 No.15267785

Replies: >>15267870

>>15267550
good question. I would say yes. if you didn't explicitly demand protection in a contract with said company that your photos were only yours. if you just assumed they were yours that is your fault.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:12 No.15267816

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:12 No.15267816

Replies: >>15267894

>>15267725

the problem is these companies are already so big. What would happen if Microsoft jumped ship, moved to Sweden, and denied the US govt the ability to use their technology in response to the US govt trying to force them to relinquish information? The US Govt would crumble because 90% of it uses technology owned by Microsoft.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:12 No.15267817

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:12 No.15267817

Replies: >>15267913 >>15267978

>>15267764
>implying people actually read them in full and attempt to understand the implications of the text
>implying Rational Action theory is valid in practice

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:13 No.15267848

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:13 No.15267848

>>15267679
This. You can choose not to use these sites. The fact that you have very little choice in the matter is a result of it being a new technology and the fact of over regulation. It sucks. but you don't have a god given right to the internet.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:13 No.15267861

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:13 No.15267861

>>15267550

I didn't think about it this way. It is kind of assumed they dont evern look at film thats being developed. Excellent point.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:14 No.15267870

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:14 No.15267870

Replies: >>15268056

>>15267785
No. If they offer a "film processing" service, it is reasonable to expect your data will not be kept by them. Unless there is a fucking huge checkbox in their door, and you check it.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:14 No.15267894

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:14 No.15267894

>>15267816
so because a company is pretty big its going to risk everything and break the law because maybe it can get some support from the people? why are you bitching about the company? bitch about the govt demanding the information. what the FUCK?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:15 No.15267913

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:15 No.15267913

>>15267764
>>15267817
*sorry
>implying Rational Choice theory is valid in practice
>implying the average person is a rational actor
>implying everyone operates within the same frame of information and values

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:15 No.15267925

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:15 No.15267925

"Spying" is a poor choice of words on their part. I think it's kind of scummy. But it's not really by definition "spying"

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:16 No.15267971

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:16 No.15267971

Replies: >>15268029 >>15268120 >>15268257

>/pol/ says corporations control the govt
>according to this thread the govt controls corporations

Make up your mind /pol/

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:17 No.15267978

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:17 No.15267978

Replies: >>15268037

>>15267817
>2013
>not reading linked documents before checking checkboxes
>not reading contracts before signing them
>expecting them to be void
I shig the dig.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:18 No.15268029

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:18 No.15268029

>>15267971
>/pol/ is one person

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:18 No.15268037

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:18 No.15268037

Replies: >>15268193

>>15267978
I don't shig it, many do. It's unfair to those that shig it.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:18 No.15268049

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:18 No.15268049

>OP

>Libertarian paradise

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:18 No.15268056

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:18 No.15268056

Replies: >>15268154

>>15267870
>it is reasonable to expect your data will not be kept by them.
why? because you assume theyre not dicks? bad assumption dude. You chose to use that company's service. If you didn't say you can't keep a record of your photos etc, and they didn't say they wouldnt you have no case. If you don't like it get a lawyer write up a contract and ask the processing company to sign it. If they don't. you're shit out of luck. go to another film processing company that promises they won't. or process the film yourself.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:20 No.15268120

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:20 No.15268120

Replies: >>15268210

>>15267971
only leftists complain about corporations the power of corporations all comes from the govt, and the seizure of info from corporations comes from the govt.

libertarianism wins again

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:21 No.15268154

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:21 No.15268154

Replies: >>15268313

>>15268056
Actually, most times it would be illegal for them to keep your information, unless you explicitly agreed upon it.
Just like if you pay someone to wash your car, and they wash it with fire, and it gets all burned, it would probably be wrong of them even though you both never agreed upon how should the car look like after washed.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:21 No.15268172

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:21 No.15268172

Replies: >>15268246

>>15267764

I'm saying that isn't enough. I don't think 'we can do whatever we want' is something that should be enshrined in a contract. And even if it somehow gets into a contract, I don't think that the courts should uphold such terms.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:22 No.15268186

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:22 No.15268186

Replies: >>15268271

File: 1370650925528.jpg-(175 KB, 1000x1000, 1302816713524.jpg)

175 KB JPG

>>15264602 (OP)
Yes, OP, it is spying. According to your logic, any time anyone tries to communicate in any way, the government should be allowed to listen, right? Is that what you believe? You don't own the Postal Service, the government does, so they should be allowed to read all your letters. You don't own the air or dirt in any public or private establishment, so the government should be able to watch you and listen to you there. If you don't own your own property, you shouldn't be surprised to find cameras and microphones in every room of your house or apartment, because it's not yours, right? Where do you draw the line?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:22 No.15268193

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:22 No.15268193

>>15268037
>2013
>not shigging the dig to the doo out of these things
shig

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:22 No.15268210

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:22 No.15268210

Replies: >>15268414

>>15268120
The power of corporations comes from the centralisation of power. Without a government holding corporations back, a corporation will simply get there faster. But all governments become corrupt, usually via infiltration by corporation (and remember that a corporation will exist whether or not we give it that name, since it's just a group of people working together). It's a losing battle either way.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:23 No.15268246

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:23 No.15268246

Replies: >>15268358

>>15268172
>I don't think 'we can do whatever we want' is something that should be enshrined in a contract. And even if it somehow gets into a contract, I don't think that the courts should uphold such terms.
>I don't think that the courts should uphold such terms.

>I don't think that the courts should uphold such terms.
>which I said I had read and fully understood
>and which I knew
>and which I could have just not agreed upon

nigger

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:24 No.15268257

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:24 No.15268257

>>15267971

Neither, it's both.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:24 No.15268271

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:24 No.15268271

Replies: >>15268527

>>15268186
>they should be allowed to read all your letters
>implying they don't
>implying this is not the point of a legal monopoly on mail

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:25 No.15268313

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:25 No.15268313

Replies: >>15268407

>>15268154
>Just like if you pay someone to wash your car, and they wash it with fire, and it gets all burned, it would probably be wrong of them even though you both never agreed upon how should the car look like after washed.
any car washing company is going to have some kind of list of liabilities that they follow. if they break those liabilities like lighting your car on fire you can sue them. but if they just say "i'm gonna wash your car" and they wash it with acid. thats buyer beware.

You can't just assume honesty from a company. Its your job to protect yourself.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:26 No.15268330

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:26 No.15268330

Amendment IV
(Privacy of the Person and Possessions)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:26 No.15268337

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:26 No.15268337

>>15267349
Uuhh yes it does.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:27 No.15268358

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:27 No.15268358

Replies: >>15268515

>>15268246

So a contract which implicitly gets you to give up all your privacy should mean that you are without privacy for the rest of your life?

Remember, this doesn't even have to be explicit, even if you sign it without being aware that the implications are that you will have no privacy ever again, it is still binding.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:28 No.15268407

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:28 No.15268407

Replies: >>15268475

>>15268313
So I can agree to pay them with 3 dollars.
And then pay with a paper written "3 dollars", instead of "official" dollars? I did not specify US dollars. And I don't believe it is a trademark or anything.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:28 No.15268414

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:28 No.15268414

Replies: >>15268455

>>15268210
>Without a government holding corporations back, a corporation will simply get there faster.
what harm can a corporation do to me without the govt?

>But all governments become corrupt, usually via infiltration by corporation
now here is the important question. If the govt cannot regulate or influence a marketplace because its expressly forbidden from regulating or subsidizing etc an industry or market what is the point of lobbying the govt? how can a govt become corrupted by corporations if the govt has no power to protect or subsidize, bailout said corporation?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:29 No.15268425

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:29 No.15268425

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:30 No.15268451

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:30 No.15268451

>Reasonable

>A standard for what is fair and appropriate under usual and ordinary circumstances; that which is according to reason; the way a rational and just person would have acted.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:30 No.15268455

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:30 No.15268455

Replies: >>15268594

>>15268414

>what harm can a corporation do to me without the govt?

If the courts were backing up absurd contracts like the ones discussed in this thread, then they could harm you quite easily.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:30 No.15268475

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:30 No.15268475

Replies: >>15268541 >>15268592

>>15268407
If you pay them with a piece of paper with three dollars theyre not going to provide the service for you.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:31 No.15268515

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:31 No.15268515

Replies: >>15268656

>>15268358
>So a contract which implicitly gets you to give up all your privacy should mean that you are without privacy for the rest of your life?
>implicitly
>we reserve ourselves the right to store any information you use on our services, till the end of time, and after that, and after, and to share it with any of our commercial partners
>implicit
How can you get any more explicit than this?
In every page there is also a notice "by using this you agree to our privacy policy [which you already agreed upon anyway]", so you get reminded every time.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:32 No.15268527

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:32 No.15268527

>>15268271
the point


your head

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:32 No.15268541

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:32 No.15268541

Replies: >>15268718

>>15268475

So if they give my information to third parties, I should be given my money back?

« 零 » !Ry9.23Wow.
06/07/13(Fri)20:33 No.15268564

« 零 » !Ry9.23Wow. 06/07/13(Fri)20:33 No.15268564

>>15264602 (OP)

WOW.

THAT MAN RESEMBLES A COMBINATION BETWEEN JASON BATEMAN, AND MATTHEW FOX.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:33 No.15268592

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:33 No.15268592

Replies: >>15268674

>>15268475
What about fake money? Am I expected not to pay with my Federal Reserve Note lookalikes?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:34 No.15268594

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:34 No.15268594

Replies: >>15268758

>>15268455
i don't see any absurd contracts? google and facebook were quite clear that they could share their information if they wanted to. the fact that you really like facebook and google doesn't mean you can get angry that theyre doing what was explicity stated in their contract. see >>15267679

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:35 No.15268656

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:35 No.15268656

Replies: >>15268790 >>15268793

>>15268515

I want them to inform me before they release my information, telling me what of my information they are releasing and to whom. Otherwise it's a 'we get to do what we want' clause.

If this is what people are agreeing to anyway, as you say, then it makes no difference, they'd just agree every time they were contacted about the release of their information. If this is something people wouldn't agree to if they understood the true implications, then it shouldn't be hidden in a contract.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:36 No.15268674

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:36 No.15268674

>>15268592
you are expected to pay whatever the private company asks for its service.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:37 No.15268715

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:37 No.15268715

>>15264602 (OP)
>business giving government access to video of his business
>same as kinect showing government my living room

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:37 No.15268718

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:37 No.15268718

Replies: >>15268859

>>15268541
I'm not sure what you're asking.

if you paid them and they didn't perform the service you asked of them, then yes you should get your money back.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:38 No.15268758

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:38 No.15268758

Replies: >>15268947 >>15269011

>>15268594

They aren't clear that they always share all of your information all the time, though. They just need to be explicit about it in the contract.

Sharing all of your information all the time is what you are agreeing to, correct? Then they should just say it.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:39 No.15268790

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:39 No.15268790

Replies: >>15268962

>>15268656
>I want them to inform me before they release my information, telling me what of my information they are releasing and to whom. Otherwise it's a 'we get to do what we want' clause.
And i want them to supply me with a a pretty asian woman to suck my dick. that doesn't mean its gonna happen. You chose to work with these people. if you didn't expressly forbid them from releasing your information you shouldn't have agreed to be a part of their private organization.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:39 No.15268793

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:39 No.15268793

Replies: >>15268962

>>15268656
>it's a 'we get to do what we want' clause
Yes, it is.

>something people wouldn't agree to if they understood the true implications, then it shouldn't be hidden in a contract
>hidden

>>15267679
>We will share personal information with companies, organisations or individuals outside Google if we have a belief in good faith that access, use, preservation or disclosure of the information is reasonably necessary [...]
>we may use the information we receive about you: [...] for internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research and service improvement.

>these clear "whatever the fuck we want" clauses
>hidden

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:40 No.15268859

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:40 No.15268859

Replies: >>15269102

>>15268718

They defrauded me by releasing my private information without express permission.

What would be the downside to requiring the service provider to ask for express permission before each discrete release of information to a third party?

If this is what customers are agreeing to anyway, then they'd still agree when asked each time.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:42 No.15268932

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:42 No.15268932

>share the president's emails with everyone
>TREASON
>share my emails with everyone
>FREEDOMS

yeah no, this is not acceptable.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:42 No.15268947

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:42 No.15268947

Replies: >>15269006

>>15268758
>They aren't clear that they always share all of your information all the time, though. They just need to be explicit about it in the contract.
Yes, they are.
>Sharing all of your information all the time is what you are agreeing to, correct? Then they should just say it.
They do.

They say not "we will always, every single time, share every single thing you have on our services with the entire world", but "you do authorise us to, at our will, at any time, share every single thing you have on our services with anyone, up to the entire world".

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:43 No.15268962

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:43 No.15268962

Replies: >>15269170 >>15269214

>>15268790

>And i want them to supply me with a a pretty asian woman to suck my dick. that doesn't mean its gonna happen. You chose to work with these people. if you didn't expressly forbid them from releasing your information you shouldn't have agreed to be a part of their private organization.

I don't even.

If you were asked before each discrete release of your information, where they inform you what of your information they are releasing, and to whom, would you agree to this every single time?

>>15268793

>>it's a 'we get to do what we want' clause
>Yes, it is.

>>something people wouldn't agree to if they understood the true implications, then it shouldn't be hidden in a contract
>>hidden

Then you think people would just agree to every request by the service provider for each discrete release of information?

sage
sage 06/07/13(Fri)20:44 No.15269001

sage sage 06/07/13(Fri)20:44 No.15269001

>>15264602 (OP)
get fucked bootlicker

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:44 No.15269006

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:44 No.15269006

Replies: >>15269058

>>15268947

And I'm saying they should be required to ask before each discrete release of information.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:44 No.15269011

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:44 No.15269011

>>15268758
>They aren't clear that they always share all of your information all the time, though. They just need to be explicit about it in the contract.
i know theyre not clear. and that sucks. they are pretty explicit that they ARE going to share all your info as the one smart anon posted.

>Sharing all of your information all the time is what you are agreeing to, correct? Then they should just say it.
they pretty much do say it>>15267679

that doesn't mean i like it, and i wish i had an alternative that didn't do it. but american corporatism restricts competition and since its a new technology you're going to have few choices at some points in time. but you chose to be a member of these organizations so you have to follow their rules.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:45 No.15269058

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:45 No.15269058

Replies: >>15269129

>>15269006
>good goy. compromise. yess. give up your rights piece by piece...

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:46 No.15269100

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:46 No.15269100

We use the websites under the assumption that "private" communications are, in fact, as their name implies, private.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:46 No.15269102

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:46 No.15269102

Replies: >>15269233

>>15268859
Facebook constantly shares information with advertisers. To a point it would be costly to their mail services to notify every single time it is done. Not to mention the information sold to third parties.
Google actually only does it upon legal request, or when contracting external data processing services, which are expected to keep your information to them.
Microsoft... read on the NSA key in Windows 2000 and onwards. They're not on your side at all.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:47 No.15269129

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:47 No.15269129

>>15269058

I don't see how owning my own life is giving up my rights.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:48 No.15269170

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:48 No.15269170

Replies: >>15269306

>>15268962
>If you were asked before each discrete release of your information, where they inform you what of your information they are releasing, and to whom, would you agree to this every single time?
no if they asked me "would you care if we released your information?" I would say yes I care, don't release my info

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:49 No.15269214

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:49 No.15269214

Replies: >>15269306

>>15268962
>Then you think people would just agree to every request by the service provider for each discrete release of information?
They agree or not upon signing up. They don't have to agree with individual actions. They can simply not give them information they don't want them to have. The terms are clear that what users put there is almost public.
It's not a "I don't want this bank to know about my history of not paying things that can be seen in my "private" Facebook conversations" thing. It's all or nothing.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:50 No.15269229

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:50 No.15269229

That's actually true. Maybe this will make some people realize they shouldn't trust the cloud with their information.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:50 No.15269233

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:50 No.15269233

Replies: >>15269295

>>15269102

It does seem costly to do that, but that's the only way to make it okay.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:51 No.15269271

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:51 No.15269271

Replies: >>15269307 >>15269342 >>15269451

Is fedex (or the USPS) allowed to read my personal communications just because I have entrusted them with their storage and transport?

Obviously not. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. This isnt some wishy washy proscription- it is the foundation of our republic.

And Obama trying to justify this constitutional excess by claiming the need for 100% security is laughably fascistic.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:52 No.15269295

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:52 No.15269295

Replies: >>15269354

>>15269233
>that's the only way to make it okay
Why do you use Facebook, then? If you want things to stay private, don't give them to a company that warns you they may share it with anyone at their own discretion.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:52 No.15269306

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:52 No.15269306

Replies: >>15269410 >>15269428

>>15269170

There are no companies you avoid for any reason?

There is no information about yourself you wouldn't want shared widely?

>>15269214

All or nothing shouldn't be acceptable. Contracts shouldn't include 'we get to do whatever we want' terms or clauses.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:52 No.15269307

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:52 No.15269307

>>15269271
fedex can do it. the govt cannot.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:53 No.15269342

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:53 No.15269342

>>15269271
>Is fedex (or the USPS) allowed to read my personal communications just because I have entrusted them with their storage and transport?
Did you tick that box in the form that said they can do it?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:53 No.15269354

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:53 No.15269354

Replies: >>15269564

>>15269295

I don't use Facebook.

Contracts that allow a company to do whatever they want shouldn't be recognised as legitimate.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:54 No.15269391

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:54 No.15269391

>>15264602 (OP)
By your reasoning your rights aren't really violated if someone hacks your email account. Obviously the government does not see things this way, and imprisons hackers right and left. What is illegal for individuals is supposed to be illegal for the government as well.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:55 No.15269410

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:55 No.15269410

Replies: >>15269485

>>15269306
>There are no companies you avoid for any reason?
of course there are companies that i avoid. i still avoid BP.
>There is no information about yourself you wouldn't want shared widely?
yes there is info i wouldn't want shared. but if i choose to voluntarily use a private service i don't expect them to not share my info. unless they have explicitly said they "will not share my info"

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:55 No.15269428

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:55 No.15269428

Replies: >>15269561 >>15269569

>>15269306
>Contracts shouldn't include 'we get to do whatever we want' terms or clauses.
Why don't you just not agree with it? I'm not using Facebook or Windows because I am aware of their privacy policies. I don't mind they doing whatever they want to do with a service they could just not be providing at all.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:56 No.15269451

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:56 No.15269451

>>15269271
What are your personal effects here? "Your" bits of data stored in their hard drives? I think a better solution is to not use the cloud. This punishes the companies (lost revenue) and the government (lost data).

Look into this:

http://labs.bittorrent.com/experiments/sync.html

or something else.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:57 No.15269485

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:57 No.15269485

Replies: >>15269693

>>15269410

So if Facebook asked you if it was okay for them to give your private information to BP, would you agree to that? This is literally putting your dollars in BP's pocket, remember, it's just artfully hidden from you.

What am I asking? You did agree to that. Because you agreed to them doing whatever they want.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:59 No.15269561

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:59 No.15269561

>>15269428
exactly. I don't use facebook for these reasons along with them being lame as shit.

what was that photo internet company who said they could sell your photos if they wanted? I believe they backtracked. but the point was they put it into a contract. if its not in writing it doesn't exist.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:59 No.15269564

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:59 No.15269564

Replies: >>15269649

>>15269354
>Contracts that allow a company to do whatever they want shouldn't be recognised as legitimate.
>The State's cock should be between every two people making an agreement. No way that can go wrong.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)20:59 No.15269569

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)20:59 No.15269569

Replies: >>15269662 >>15269902

>>15269428

I think that people who are in contracts that turn out to be exploitative, such as those discussed in this thread, shouldn't feel obligated by them. I don't think a court should recognise contracts that allow one party to have control over the property of the other party in perpetuity.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:01 No.15269649

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:01 No.15269649

>>15269564

The state is allowing these contracts, the state is enforcing them.

Courts that weren't, ultimately, owned by corporations, wouldn't enforce contracts that allow corporations to exploit people in this way.

You sir, are the one sucking the states cock. You just put a corporation flavoured condom over it.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:02 No.15269662

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:02 No.15269662

Replies: >>15269846

>>15269569
>I don't think a court should recognise contracts that allow one party to have control over the property of the other party in perpetuity.
>contracts that allow one party to have control over the property of the other party in perpetuity
Wait, you... you think buying and selling things should be illegal?
So if a writer sells his rights of a book to a printing company, he should be able to take it back as he wills?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:02 No.15269682

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:02 No.15269682

Replies: >>15269779

There are a select amount of companies that complied. Don't do business with them ever again, if you're against it.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:02 No.15269693

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:02 No.15269693

Replies: >>15269846

>>15269485
>So if Facebook asked you if it was okay for them to give your private information to BP, would you agree to that? This is literally putting your dollars in BP's pocket, remember, it's just artfully hidden from you.
no i wouldn't agree to that. but they EXPLICITLY said they would sell/share whatever i put on their site to whomever. If I sign into facebook and decide i don't like BP and they supply my info to BP I can't complain.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:05 No.15269779

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:05 No.15269779

Replies: >>15269862

>>15269682
IIRC, Google only did it because it was required by a court order.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:06 No.15269814

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:06 No.15269814

>>15264602 (OP)
an airline can ask me to open my bags and look at the contents. if i refuse, the airline refuses to let me on to their airlines.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:06 No.15269846

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:06 No.15269846

Replies: >>15269904 >>15269964

>>15269662

If a writer signs a contract that means the printing company owns everything he writes from then on, then I'd say that contract is invalid.

>>15269693

You can complain. You should complain. Why wouldn't you?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:07 No.15269862

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:07 No.15269862

>>15269779
its part of the patriot act. obama forced them to comply under the law.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:08 No.15269902

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:08 No.15269902

Replies: >>15270096

>>15269569
>the information you share with us becomes a product, that we can sell as we will
>in exchange, we let you talk to your friends, share pictures, and do other stuff
>are you cool with this?
You can say yes or no. You are not being forced to do anything.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:08 No.15269904

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:08 No.15269904

Replies: >>15270096

>>15269846
>You can complain. You should complain. Why wouldn't you?
of course i can complain. and i do complain. i complain by NOT USING FACEBOOK. I don't have a constitutional right to use facebook.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:09 No.15269944

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:09 No.15269944

Replies: >>15270089

You have privacy in your affects. This means data you create.

Its not so fucking hard to understand you cock suckers.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:10 No.15269964

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:10 No.15269964

Replies: >>15270202

>>15269846
>the printing company owns everything he writes from then on
These terms are not legally binding. But you are not forced to share anything with Facebook, and you may stop and close your account at any time. They just keep what you shared until then.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:13 No.15270089

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:13 No.15270089

>>15269944
not when you enter that data into a private institution that doesn't say "we won't share that info"

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:13 No.15270096

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:13 No.15270096

Replies: >>15270214 >>15270315

>>15269902
>>15269904

Would you agree that Facebook should reveal to the customers who they are giving the information to and what information they are giving, even if they aren't asking for express permission each time?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:16 No.15270202

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:16 No.15270202

>>15269964

That is how it is, I'm saying that this isn't legitimate. I agree that Facebook does, in fact, do this. And that the state backs them up.

People shouldn't feel obligated by contracts like that.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:16 No.15270214

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:16 No.15270214

Replies: >>15270460

>>15270096
>Would you agree that Facebook should reveal to the customers who they are giving the information to and what information they are giving, even if they aren't asking for express permission each time?
yes, but i don't expect it nor do I demand it.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:18 No.15270315

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:18 No.15270315

Replies: >>15270460

>>15270096
No. They "buy" this information from you, in exchange for letting you use their services "for free". Then they sell them to their customers, which pay for it, therefore can negotiate terms where their privacy is respected.

You are not the Facebook's customer, Facebook is yours.
Just like you can choose which brand of sugar you buy in the supermarket, and the supermarket does not reveal your name to sugar companies, Facebook's customers can choose which users they will be buying information of, and these users need not know anything.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:20 No.15270372

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:20 No.15270372

File: 1370654413332.png-(415 KB, 636x693, 1370061450784.png)

415 KB PNG

This entire thread:

>my right to privacy is important
>but if you abstract it away by one degree then by all means violate it

The majority of you deserve everything you're going to get

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:20 No.15270373

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:20 No.15270373

Replies: >>15270581

Guys...

Why isn't Twitter on that list....

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:21 No.15270460

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:21 No.15270460

Replies: >>15270517 >>15270688

>>15270214
>>15270315

Why wouldn't you simply demand better terms? How else would we ever get those terms? Just hope that Facebook becomes good?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:23 No.15270517

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:23 No.15270517

Replies: >>15270721

>>15270460
Stop using Facebook.
But this does not make sense, Facebook cannot profit without rights to your information.

Just like you can choose which brand of sugar you buy in the supermarket, and the supermarket does not reveal your name to sugar companies, Facebook's customers can choose which users they will be buying information of, and these users need not know anything in detail.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:24 No.15270581

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:24 No.15270581

>>15270373
Things shared on Twitter are fully public already.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:27 No.15270688

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:27 No.15270688

Replies: >>15270727

>>15270460
>Why wouldn't you simply demand better terms? How else would we ever get those terms? Just hope that Facebook becomes good?
How are you expecting me to demand better terms? are you asking for the govt to write legislation to say they won't share such info?

i'd rather have a govt that doesn't have the power to influence the market than a govt that has so much power to say it can influence your ability to BROWSE FACEBOOK

cmon dude.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:28 No.15270721

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:28 No.15270721

Replies: >>15270853

>>15270517

They can have the right to information, only they should be informing you what they are actually doing with it.

Put it this way, does their business model rely on the users being unaware of how, exactly, they use the information they gather from them? That is, if people knew who their information was being sold to, what information was actually being sold, and how much Facebook was making from selling it, would they still use Facebook?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:28 No.15270727

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:28 No.15270727

>>15270688
>88
>dubs
nice

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:31 No.15270853

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:31 No.15270853

Replies: >>15271498

>>15270721
>Put it this way, does the supermarket's business model rely on the sugar-cane farmers being unaware of how, exactly, they use the sugar they purchase from them? That is, if farmers knew who their sugar was being sold to, how much of the sugar was actually being sold, and how much the supermarket was making from selling it, would they still sell sugar to that supermarket?
That's how you sound.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:32 No.15270909

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:32 No.15270909

Replies: >>15270974

>>15264602 (OP)
I don't expect my backpack to and jacket to be searched by CIA agents when I go to a concert and use the coat check.
When a website says that this page is Yours, that this chat is Private, etc, it should be. Then again, when has government ever played by the rules.
I would just fucking move into the wilderness, but Ive worked too hard to get where I am, life is comfortable. Frankly, Id rather violent revolution than secluding myself. I want to stay on the 'net

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:34 No.15270974

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:34 No.15270974

>>15270909
>When a website says that this page is Yours, that this chat is Private, etc, it should be.
But they don't. Facebook explicitly says, on the bottom of their every page, that by using it you agree to their privacy policy, which states they can do anything with the information you put on their service.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:36 No.15271087

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:36 No.15271087

Replies: >>15271179 >>15271259 >>15271796

Is it too late? Can I delete my facebook or will it just be archived somehwere anyway? Am I that important?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:39 No.15271179

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:39 No.15271179

Replies: >>15271854

>>15271087
>Is it too late?
Yes.
>Can I delete my facebook or will it just be archived somehwere anyway?
Archived forever and ever, till the end of time and after it.
>Am I that important?
No.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:40 No.15271259

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:40 No.15271259

>>15271087
it's too late, but you're not "important" unless you use some super-important flag words or a copious amount of semi-important flag words

for example: don't use facebook to talk about drugs and DO NOT use facebook to talk about overthrowing the government

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:46 No.15271498

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:46 No.15271498

Replies: >>15271554

>>15270853

They are two completely different kinds of transaction. Even then, I think sugar-cane farmers should be able to know how much their products are ultimately being sold for. That's the only way they can decide on a fair price.

Would the Facebook business model work if the users were kept informed of who their information was sold to, what information about them was being sold, and how much it was being sold for? Does it only work if the users are kept ignorant of what is being done, specifically, with their information?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:48 No.15271554

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:48 No.15271554

Replies: >>15271665

>>15271498
>Would the Facebook business model work if the users were kept informed of who their information was sold to, what information about them was being sold, and how much it was being sold for?
Do you want Facebook to be legally required to expose their customer's purchases?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:50 No.15271637

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:50 No.15271637

Replies: >>15271701

It's illegal for a cop to search my pockets and I feel that it should be the same for my computer/phone calls, especially in my own fucking house.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:50 No.15271665

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:50 No.15271665

Replies: >>15271818

>>15271554

Only to the users who provide the product in question. The users can do what they like with that information.

Are you saying their business model relies on misinforming the users?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:52 No.15271701

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:52 No.15271701

Replies: >>15271756

>>15271637

Not if you signed a contract with the pants manufacturer. Don't like it? Don't buy pants.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:53 No.15271756

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:53 No.15271756

>>15271701
>pockets
>pants

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:54 No.15271796

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:54 No.15271796

Replies: >>15271894

>>15271087
this is the future you chose

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:55 No.15271818

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:55 No.15271818

Replies: >>15272168

>>15271665
>Are you saying their business model relies on misinforming the users?
No. It relies on their customer's privacy, just like any other business. Would you like if the manufacturer was informed of every single purchase you made?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:56 No.15271854

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:56 No.15271854

>>15271179
no your not that important in the big picture.

but should you ever become important, say you become an outspoken dissident who gathers a following... they have enough shit on everyone in this nation to assassinate anyones character at a moments notice.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:57 No.15271894

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:57 No.15271894

>>15271796

How can you choose something if you're being lied to about your choices?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)21:58 No.15271961

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)21:58 No.15271961

Replies: >>15272354

>>15264602 (OP)
Yes, it is still spying, Mr. ZOGIDF

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)22:03 No.15272168

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)22:03 No.15272168

Replies: >>15272311

>>15271818

Then it does rely on the users being misinformed. They're the same thing. If the users knew what Facebook did with the information they provide to them, then the business model wouldn't work, right?

How else could users know if they are being sufficiently compensated for the product they're selling to Facebook?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)22:07 No.15272311

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)22:07 No.15272311

Replies: >>15272557

>>15272168
Again, would you like if every purchase you made had its manufacturer notified? Why or why not? Would you still buy things if the manufacturer knew you personally bought them?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)22:08 No.15272354

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)22:08 No.15272354

>>15271961
No, no it isn't, Mr. Whiner.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)22:13 No.15272557

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)22:13 No.15272557

Replies: >>15272794

>>15272311

I would want to know who I'm buying from, and I'd assume the manufacturer would want to know who is buying from them as well. It is already fairly standard to register with a manufacturer, providing them with your information as part of a warranty thing.

I don't see how a manufacturer knowing I am one of their customers could be bad for me. Would it be bad for Facebook's customers?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)22:19 No.15272794

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)22:19 No.15272794

Replies: >>15272937

>>15272557
>I don't see how a manufacturer knowing I am one of their customers could be bad for me.
I, for one, don't want Shell and BP knowing every time I buy petrol (not that I buy petrol at all, but still).

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)22:22 No.15272937

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)22:22 No.15272937

Replies: >>15273066

>>15272794

But you don't mind Shell or BP knowing every time you login to your Facebook? (not that you use Facebook, but still)

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)22:26 No.15273066

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)22:26 No.15273066

Replies: >>15273176

>>15272937
Users are the providers of Facebook's main product. Usually, sellers don't get to know about what is done with their things, while buyers can choose between many brands and usually need to know something about them.
Facebook is no different than any other reselling model now.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)22:27 No.15273096

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)22:27 No.15273096

>>15266727
I was just thinking that. These are multi-billion dollar companies. Surely they would have a clause in the Terms of Service that NOBODY reads. It only makes sense, or else they would be subject to being sued.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)22:29 No.15273176

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)22:29 No.15273176

Replies: >>15273238

>>15273066

And Facebook's model wouldn't work if the users knew when their information was being sold, what information was being sold, and who it was being sold to? The model would breakdown if it wasn't kept secret from the users?

This is a simple question, yes or no.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)22:30 No.15273238

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)22:30 No.15273238

Replies: >>15274089

>>15273176
No. It wouldn't. If people don't mind "we can do whatever we want", surely they wouldn't mind if some specific companies were there.
It is just that many customers would stop buying from Facebook if they had no privacy.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)22:53 No.15274089

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)22:53 No.15274089

Replies: >>15274272 >>15274335 >>15274422

>>15273238

Privacy is only important in that one direction?

You say that the customers wouldn't be interested in buying this information if they had to inform the people they're buying it from of what they were doing. The business model then relies on users being unaware of who is receiving personal information about themselves.

I think the users interest in knowing who has access to their personal information is more important than the customers interest in buying this information surreptitiously.

Knowing Facebook has your information and might give it to people, as the terms of service currently imply, is very different from knowing that Facebook sells all of your information to third parties all the time, as the terms of service should explicitly inform you.

I really can't think of a legitimate reason why it would be in a companies interest to secretly gather information on people through Facebook. Why would they stop buying this information if people knew they were buying it?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)22:58 No.15274272

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)22:58 No.15274272

Replies: >>15274600

>>15274089
>Privacy is only important in that one direction?
Yes. Seller/provider privacy is not important. I should know about which genes Monsanto puts in the corn, Monsanto should not know how I eat my corn.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)23:00 No.15274335

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)23:00 No.15274335

Replies: >>15274682

>>15274089
>I really can't think of a legitimate reason why it would be in a companies interest to secretly gather information on people through Facebook.
A health insurance company might want to know about your eating habits. A bank might want to know if you usually pay loans.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)23:02 No.15274422

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)23:02 No.15274422

Replies: >>15274682

>>15274089
>why do you need privacy? are you doing something wrong?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)23:07 No.15274600

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)23:07 No.15274600

Replies: >>15274779

>>15274272

Does the fact that customers want to know information about users without those users knowing what they are doing not bother you? Or the fact that users would not use Facebook if they knew specifically what was being done with their information? The whole arrangement relies on keeping users misinformed about the nature of their agreements with Facebook.

And you should also know at the point of purchase which products are Monsanto. Everybody should know everything. Nine times out of ten, secrecy in or around organisations like, Monsanto, or Facebook, or the Federal Government, is just covering someone trying to get away with something that would ruin their reputation if it were widely known. We don't need secrecy like that.

Since they're really workers, Facebook users should form a union.

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)23:09 No.15274682

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)23:09 No.15274682

>>15274335

Why would a health insurance company not want you to know they were collecting this information? What legitimate reason would there be for them to find this out about you without telling you that's what they were doing?

>>15274422

We're talking about the privacy to view another persons personal information without their knowledge. Does the peeper hiding in a tree outside your window have the right to privacy that prevents you from stopping them?

Anonymous
06/07/13(Fri)23:11 No.15274779

Anonymous 06/07/13(Fri)23:11 No.15274779

>>15274600
>Does the fact that customers want to know information about users without those users knowing what they are doing not bother you?
No. People know it when they share their information, it is not a secret that Facebook shares them with "their commercial partners".
I just used Monsanto as a example. I should know how Apple makes iPhones, Apple should not know who I call.

>Since they're really workers, Facebook users should form a union.
Then let them form one when they realise they are workers.