Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that is true. But that is not a violation , which was in the first clause of your original claim. It's an end-run. If it were a violation, Courts could enjoin it. But since it's not a violation, there's nothing to enjoin.
You had me up until now. Turns out your whole point is arguing semantics? You're arguing just to argue and not providing anything of substance on this point. As another person said, this isn't a court.
Amazon's Ring and Google's Nest reveal the severity of U.S. surveillance state
351–360 of 696 posts
Re: Amazon's Ring and Google's Nest reveal the severity of U.S. surveillance state
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would like it a lot better without the mention to the "West", which, as usual, is a code word for: "I want to pretend my point extend outside the USA but I have absolutely no knowledge of how true that is. I don't intend to do any research because that would demand efforts from me so bear with my casual imperialism". Queue the purely American historical lesson following.
Universal human rights is a very widespread belief and concept, extending to all continents and many, many cultures. It's not hard to understand why.
So not just to the west?
Re: Amazon's Ring and Google's Nest reveal the severity of U.S. surveillance state
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
Universal human rights is a very widespread belief and concept, extending to all continents and many, many cultures. It's not hard to understand why.
No it's not. There are no human rights for the lowest castes in Hinduism, there are no human rights for polytheists in Islam, there were nothing like the modern idea of human rights in Japan or China before they westernized. That's why the west was able to leapfrog other nations economically (and hence militarily), because it was the first place where people had enough rights for something resembling a modern economy…
If you don't give someone a reason to live they ain't gonna slave away very hard for you
Re: Amazon's Ring and Google's Nest reveal the severity of U.S. surveillance state
#354We have a branch of government called Congress, here are some things they used to do that made it a crime to read your mail or listen to your phone calls. 1. Postal Service Act of 1792 2. Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986 Anyway, Facebook can read your DMs, Google can read your email, Ring can take photos from your camera. We can very easily make those things a crime, but we don't seem to want to d…
Get money out of politics (reverse citizens united) and enact term/age limits for all public offices. These problems will be solved. Most Americans agree on most things. Don't let the politicians who benefit off of dividing us fool you. An agenda that focuses on reform outside of the usual finger pointing game of partisan politics and promises to enact these reforms without fear or favor will win. Any such agenda mus…
Does the next coalition have any money?
Re: Amazon's Ring and Google's Nest reveal the severity of U.S. surveillance state
#355Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone commented on a HN threads on just de-googling and he couldn't even pick up his kids without a gmail or apple account. Just not using it is really unrealistic for the average person at this moment
Yea I noticed many of these sevices won't allow an email address not hosted with a provider that wasn't Google,Microsoft, or apple where they can collect other details. I think i tried to sign up for VanceAI, it would only accept gmail or discord connected account as a sign in.
"... tried to sign up for VanceAI, it would only accept gmail or discord connected account as a sign in ..."
I don't know what "VanceAI" is but I am confused ... why would they not want corporate (as in, Fortune 500) users to sign up ?
Re: Amazon's Ring and Google's Nest reveal the severity of U.S. surveillance state
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
Examining Glenn's work through an ideological lens leads to this kind of rhetoric. It's why he's so good at what he does. He's crossed ideological boundaries constantly in pursuit of the truth of a matter, and in defense of the public.
To anyone on Twitter in like 2016-2019, this is a rather funny sentiment to have about him. I can remember my respect for him dissolve day by day. I didn't even remember until now if he was pro- or anti- Trump, probably neither still. But I simply remember that he slowly turned into the worst caricature of a smug Twitter media guy. Just turned into "hot take" haver and seemed to lose his own plot. If you know you kno…
It's probably Twitter. There are people I know IRL who are completely different on that platform, it's unbelievably toxic.
Re: Amazon's Ring and Google's Nest reveal the severity of U.S. surveillance state
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an internet forum, not a court of law.
And therefore what, exactly? When you distill the two down to their essence, they’re similar in that they’re groups of people making written arguments against each other. (And, frequently, complaining about mistreatment.) Are you trying to argue that people shouldn’t be taken at their word? Or that we shouldn’t challenge people who make unqualified legal assertions? I’m not sure what your point is.
People here are making arguments about what should be. Either as interpretations or created laws.
We all know that the actual interpretation is up to 5 republicans on the supreme court and whatever they feel on a given day will increase their side's power/ideology.
No one is going to be making arguments about that because there's no point, you can't logic someone out of a position that they didn't use logic to get to in the first place.
So again, when someone on a forum says "this is wrong and something should be done about it" replying that it might technically be legal at this moment in time is incredibly useless. It's completely missing the point.
Re: Amazon's Ring and Google's Nest reveal the severity of U.S. surveillance state
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the only way it can be in a system with thousands of crimes on the books. People commit minor offenses, and often felonies without knowing it, on a regular basis. If surveillance was consistently used to actually enforce the laws, people would a) notice the surveillance[0] and then actually object to it and b) start objecting to all the ridiculous and poorly drafted laws they didn't even know existed. But they…
I wonder if this is a technique used by certain leaders of authoritarian regimes to take out people in power they they deem threats. Everyone in the party routinely breaks laws, knowingly or otherwise. The person in charge can decide they don't like someone and start an investigation, knowing they'll eventually find something illegal. Then they can delegitimize and remove them under the guise of "corruption".
Exactly. See also underposted speed limits, for example. It's not about being able to stop everybody, it's about being able to stop anybody.
Re: Amazon's Ring and Google's Nest reveal the severity of U.S. surveillance state
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
Examining Glenn's work through an ideological lens leads to this kind of rhetoric. It's why he's so good at what he does. He's crossed ideological boundaries constantly in pursuit of the truth of a matter, and in defense of the public.
"pursuit of the truth" is an ideology. What are you trying to say here? Glenn is, essentially, hypocritcal because he ignores things that go against his predetermined narrative. Does he post true things sometimes? Sure, but is it really worth filtering through the rest?
I think what they are saying is a common sentiment among people who don't belong in any of the major political camps. It's a common experience to take heat from all sides because, surprisingly, neither "side" in politics is perfect nor particularly virtuous.
Re: Amazon's Ring and Google's Nest reveal the severity of U.S. surveillance state
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
Examining Glenn's work through an ideological lens leads to this kind of rhetoric. It's why he's so good at what he does. He's crossed ideological boundaries constantly in pursuit of the truth of a matter, and in defense of the public.
His ideology is “America bad”, which leads to some alignment with foreign influence and arguably leads to him spreading propaganda
If only his ideology was "Republican America bad, Democrat America good", then he would not be aligned with foreign influence and wouldn't be spreading propaganda.