191–200 of 311 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The court is legitimate by every measure, regardless it it matches your political views. Starting the contrary is honestly extremism.
It's extreme to expect them disclose "donations"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Baitposting followed by rudeness and aggression makes for a poor discussion.
It wasn't bait posting at all. It was a question for critical thinking. The rude was started with the response to that question. If you think you can tell me what I can do in my own place, you'll get a rude response as well. Where do you get off telling me what I can/cannot do in my private place?
This is partly why I use GrapheneOS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect the argument against that would be that you contract with the cell service provider and so have a colorable interest as a party to said contract. In contrast you have no such contractual relationship with Flock, and if your government contracted with them on your behalf your remedy is to vote harder.
According to the ruling, the exposure of your location history is the automatic price of conventional cell-phone usage—which, just as Carpenter noted, is a "pervasive and insistent part of daily life." If we can't step out of our houses or drive to the doctor without that fact getting placed into a searchable database, then I'd argue that it qualifies as a "pervasive and insistent part of daily life."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If it is reasonable to have your privacy in a public place I don't think it's reasonable to have privacy in a public place. All other arguments follow from there. What do you think should be "private" when you step outside your home?
I do. It's not the legal norm in the US, but in many countries you are still considered to have a right of privacy when you are outside your home. In Japan, for example, you can be sued for publishing photographs or video of street scenes without either securing permission or redacting the faces of passers-by.
Which countries?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the same time though, a bunch of people who know each other and the people allegedly involved could very easily share the same incorrect testimony. You wouldn't believe in bigfoot if 5 guys drinking beers swore they saw him while they were camping. Sending someone to prison or worse is much higher stakes. DNA evidence might be too extreme, but I'd expect some sort of evidence to back up a testimony. "What if the w…
Damn its almost as if juries exist to act as the sovereign so the violence which sustains the law can be vested in a general public that cannot be held accountable as a whole, similarly to how at least one member of a firing squad always has a blank.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if the grocery store has a security camera pointed at the door that records 24/7? Should they not be allowed to do that?
Try walking around a grocery store with your phone and take a picture of every person you pass. See how they react. That's the expectation people have for privacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if the grocery store has a security camera pointed at the door that records 24/7? Should they not be allowed to do that?
I think they should be allowed to point it at places inside their store , with prominent disclosure to people entering. I don't think they should be allowed to point it at the public sidewalk.
If I decide to take a picture of what's going on outside my house for no reason at all, should that also be allowed?
if I decide to put a camera in my living room pointed out the window and record, should that be allowed?
If I decide to run a business out of my home, does that change anything?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, this is the same argument used when the Biden admin during covid pressured the media companies to cancel people and news they did not like for "misinformation" instead of calling it censorship. This and LEOs buying data from Big Corp is just end-running the 1st and 4th amendments which is ultimately fascism.
The Biden administration both asked nicely for actual, factually incorrect information to be corrected by sites and pressured sites. They were taken to court over both, and they prevailed on the former and lost on the latter: the administration (any administration) is permitted to ask a site for a correction, and it is then truly at the site's discretion. They are not permitted to pressure them.