301–310 of 494 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rubbish. Why can't this idiotic meme die already?
Because it's not a meme, it's an actual social cycle
Those Who Remain: A Postapocalyptic Novel is not an academic work of sociology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part of it is that we buy into it, literally. If you want to stop it, stop buying into companies that are compliant and sell you out in their technology choices.
And 3 steps after that you’ll have to go live off grid in a cabin in the woods. As romantic as it sounds, the one single purpose for for-profit companies is to produce shareholder value, and very few of them see shareholder value in keeping a legal department specifically designed for fighting constant and endless attacks on our privacy. Much more profitable to do anything else instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do these people continue to be re-elected at all? Surely there's some other (D) that could have replaced Feinstein a decade ago - but California keeps re-electing her? There's near unanimous agreement she "lost it" long ago - yet here she still is. A mandatory retirement age is great and all... but maybe we need to figure out why people vote for someone nearly nobody wants in the first place. Just the "safe" vote…
Senators get OP with longevity. Having a bunch of old senators is an emergent behavior of the rules of the Senate.
Put another way, what rules of the Senate benefit length of service over anything else?
A reminder that "you have nothing to hide" argument is a fallacy because people abuse their power: Some first hits as reminders of places where their powers are abused [1]: "NSA staff used spy tools on spouses, ex-lovers: watchdog" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog... [2]: https://reason.com/2022/07/26/police-can-access-your-ring-ca... [3]: https://reason.com/2021/04/26/warrantless-border-s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone who uses that argument, ask them to hand you their phone, unlocked, and a list of passwords for all of their accounts. If you have nothing to hide, why would you have a problem with me poking around in the most intimate aspects of your life?
The really crazy part is that I have multiple friends and family that would turn over their info to me with no questions asked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best analogy for this I've seen is this: it's no secret that everybody poops. But that doesn't mean everyone likes having other people watch while they do it (privacy).
I've tried using this in an argument and gotten a response along the lines of "I don't mind if people watch me poop."
If they truly have no ethical or moral boundaries, then they are probably deviant enough that they won't be able to get into a position to set much policy, anyways, by definition of their lack of fitness to represent the majority of any population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn't really convince them. To them, a friend might be someone they want to hide things from, but they won’t care about some unknown government entity having access.
This comes from not knowing what organizations are likely to do with it. Would they be okay with the data being used to overcharge them whenever they're in a hurry because the organization knows when they don't have time to comparison shop? How about maximizing their tax burden by using the data to calculate the highest tax rates each area would tolerate before moving or changing their vote? Suppose the government fa…
A reminder that "you have nothing to hide" argument is a fallacy because people abuse their power: Some first hits as reminders of places where their powers are abused [1]: "NSA staff used spy tools on spouses, ex-lovers: watchdog" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog... [2]: https://reason.com/2022/07/26/police-can-access-your-ring-ca... [3]: https://reason.com/2021/04/26/warrantless-border-s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please make your substantive points without calling names. No one is saying you owe your least favorite senators better, but you owe the community better if you're posting here. I can't link to the guidelines because I'm on my phone - but this is in there!
It's one thing to demand not calling ordinary people names, but Feinstein isn't an ordinary person. If one can't call a person in power names, that implies many things you probably didn't want to imply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many seem to not realize that privacy is not about having something to hide (I guess that would be secrecy), but about the right to keep things to yourself. Those are two different concepts.
"Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn't want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn't want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world." -- excerpt from A Cypherpunk's Manifesto, Eric Hughes, March 9, 1993