Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Telecoms say they have a First Amendment right to sell private data

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 150 posts

Re: Telecoms say they have a First Amendment right to sell private data

#101

Post by stordoff »

jessaustin wrote: post #58
strictnein wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporate personhood is a centuries old idea. It is what enables you to sign a contract with a company, for example. As a counter example that shows they are still not fully "people": a corporation cannot adopt a child or get married.

It is what enables you to sign a contract with a company, for example. We'd be better off if we couldn't do this. Predatory credit would disappear.

How do I order something if I can't make a contract with a company? It's a contract of sale.

Re: Telecoms say they have a First Amendment right to sell private data

#102

Post by Ajedi32 »

jessaustin wrote: post #58
strictnein wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporate personhood is a centuries old idea. It is what enables you to sign a contract with a company, for example. As a counter example that shows they are still not fully "people": a corporation cannot adopt a child or get married.

It is what enables you to sign a contract with a company, for example. We'd be better off if we couldn't do this. Predatory credit would disappear.

As would employment. (I can't be employed by a company if I can't sign a contract with it.)

Re: Telecoms say they have a First Amendment right to sell private data

#103

Post by krapp »

alfromspace wrote: post #92
krapp wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Society doesn't need to worry about whether it's tolerant enough of "nazis" (or any hateful, violent, extremist ideologues), nor do we all need to realize that our collective failure to be adequately sympathetic towards "nazis" justifies their extremism. The "nazis" are not the real victims here. They deserve the social and political punishment they get.

This is all just supposed to be self-evident? What even are you talking about? Be specific.

If you're truly baffled as to the context in which the term "nazis" is employed in reference to weev's political views as an exemplar, and don't understand how it can possibly be the case that such views and their advocacy deserve to be opposed by civilized society, I'm not going to be the one to hold your hand and gently teach you how the lessons of the last hundred years have led most of humanity to reach that obvious conclusion.

But really you're not confused at all, you're just trying to bait me into a tedious semantic argument in which you'll suddenly forget how English works and what words even mean, and I'm not wasting my time with that.

Re: Telecoms say they have a First Amendment right to sell private data

#104

Post by mannykannot »

Misdicorl wrote: post #53
mannykannot wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, freedom of the press is explicily stated in the 1st. amendment to the constitution. It does not depend on any legal theory of publishing corporations being people.

So what is your litmus test for distinguishing between the New York Time's API for accessing their data and an ISPs API for accessing their data?

Is your question intended to establish or imply that there is an error of fact in my previous post? It is not clear to me that there is any necessary relationship between the two.

Re: Telecoms say they have a First Amendment right to sell private data

#106

Post by krapp »

SkyBelow wrote: post #98
krapp wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Society doesn't need to worry about whether it's tolerant enough of "nazis" (or any hateful, violent, extremist ideologues), nor do we all need to realize that our collective failure to be adequately sympathetic towards "nazis" justifies their extremism. The "nazis" are not the real victims here. They deserve the social and political punishment they get.

>They deserve the social and political punishment they get. If the "they" are the people supporting the punishment and torture of someone for reporting on corporate incompetence, and the manner of punishment is extremism, then your rationale leads to the extremism you want to punish. By this rationale, society deserves the extremism it gives rise to through its treatment of individuals who were not extremist before t…

> By this rationale, society deserves the extremism it gives rise to through its treatment of individuals who were not extremist before the treatment.

It's a terrible rationale. The extremist ideology, itself, is unjustifiable regardless of the means by which it's acquired.

Re: Telecoms say they have a First Amendment right to sell private data

#107

Post by mrguyorama »

mcny wrote: post #65
howlin wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty clear the crime here was unauthorized access to the server, not the sending of the information on to the media.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev > It's pretty clear the crime here was unauthorized access to the server, not the sending of the information on to the media. I think this is a good place as any to reassert that the CFAA is irrepairable and irredeemable at this point and MUST be scrapped with no replacement.

Why should you be allowed to muck around on my computers without authorization from me?

Re: Telecoms say they have a First Amendment right to sell private data

#108

Post by m463 »

Note the word "privacy"

  California Constitution

  ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

  SECTION 1.
  
  All people are by nature free and independent
  and have inalienable rights. Among these are
  enjoying and defending life and liberty,
  acquiring, possessing, and protecting property,
  and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness,
  and privacy.

Re: Telecoms say they have a First Amendment right to sell private data

#109

Post by Misdicorl »

mannykannot wrote: post #104
Misdicorl wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what is your litmus test for distinguishing between the New York Time's API for accessing their data and an ISPs API for accessing their data?

Is your question intended to establish or imply that there is an error of fact in my previous post? It is not clear to me that there is any necessary relationship between the two.

The question is why the ISPs can't claim the same protections as The New York Times in selling this data. IOTW: is this a 'you know it when you see it' type of situation like pornography, or is there a real differentiator?

Re: Telecoms say they have a First Amendment right to sell private data

#110

Post by mannykannot »

Misdicorl wrote: post #109
mannykannot wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your question intended to establish or imply that there is an error of fact in my previous post? It is not clear to me that there is any necessary relationship between the two.

The question is why the ISPs can't claim the same protections as The New York Times in selling this data. IOTW: is this a 'you know it when you see it' type of situation like pornography, or is there a real differentiator?

That is a reasonable question in its own right, but it is not clear to me how the answer to the question would differ if the freedom of the press were based on the principle of corporations having (some of) the rights of individuals, rather than it being expressly, if vaguely, stated in the 1st. amendment.

Ultimately, I think you will find that a great deal of law (and, much more broadly, ethics) comes down to 'I know it when I see it' (or, perhaps, 'we (the people) agree that we know it when we see it'.) This can be a difficult thing for people with a somewhat rigidly rational approach to life to accept.

Post reply on HN