51–60 of 150 posts
The 1st begins with "Congress shall make no law.."
The 4th states "..shall not be violated"
This is important because the 1st restricts what the government can do, while the 4th restricts what anyone can do. In other words, Congress need not pass a law restricting the collecting and sale of private information because that activity is already banned by the 4th. This is a job for the courts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Defeatist attitude aside, what would happen if we crowd funded a wikileaks-type organization that operates "as an ISP" and doxxed politicians/lobbyists/lawyers/isp executives?
You’d go to jail like weev did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev AT&T put hundreds of thousands of subscriber emails on the web with no password or firewall or meaningful authentication of any kind. (They were server-sent autocompleted values in the username field of a login form that had a sequential integer URL argument.) He and a conspirator downloaded them all and sent them to the media to run stories about AT&…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you handle the us government censoring newspapers, Wikipedia, etcetc if this is your demand?
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.
on edit: obviously not because I'm not in the U.S but if I were?
You never know, on a misunderstanding it might actually work!watering down freedom of speech because why not
As soon as companies and businesses were considered "people" and got the same rights, it all became a farce.
Corporate “personhood” goes back even further, to at least 1819 with the Dartmouth v Woodward decision.
Citizens United has been surrounded by ignorance, promoted by newspapers who, incidentally, had their effectiveness and power reduced since they were no longer the only “protected” gatekeepers for picking political candidates.
Why should the New York Times editorial board get to express their opinions through millions of printed papers distributed through an expensive and vast logistics network, or via a website maintained by hired employees with a budget of millions per year?
Why shouldn’t Bob’s Hardware Inc., be able to also spend money, in exactly the same way as the New York Times to spread the message of their preferred political candidates that would be helpful for their business? How is Bob’s Hardware any less entitled to being able to express their opinions or present their facts than the N.Y. Times? Should the EFF be able to spend money at the same levels as what the New York Times spends to cut down trees and print some words on it and then send those words to readers all over the world? Media organizations can spend limitless amounts on getting their message out — Bob’s Hardware ought to have the same rights.
The First Amendment doesn’t protect newspapers as a special class — it protects everyone. The “press” is referring to the actual machine used to print things, not specifically to a news gathering organization. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/02/dont-be...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No you don't. Those folks are a different class of people than you, a better class, a class that deserves privacy - us peons aren't important enough to have to worry about that stuff. That's what they'll argue anyway. They'll use different words, but whatever words they use will carry that message.
Privacy isn't a right. It's a product you buy. Rich people are better. They deserve more and better versions of all products: Justice, education, health care...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As soon as companies and businesses were considered "people" and got the same rights, it all became a farce.
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.
We'd be better off if we couldn't do this. Predatory credit would disappear.
For Comcast: https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/ccpa
It's a little tedious since you have to do it with each company, but so far I've found that it largely works.
You can also do it for equifax, experian, and transunion (though when I tried equifax it was unsurprisingly broken).
You can either request the data they have on you, ask for it to be deleted (the parts they don't require for operation), or opt-out of resale.
This website [0] has a bunch of links to the CCPA pages for different companies. The better companies have enabled this ability for all users, but generally the companies you'd rather delete from have only enabled it for California.
Great: furniture movers should also have the free speech right to talk about my address, describe all my possessions, etc. I hire those assholes to transport my bits, unmodified except for TTL, from my endpoint to a peer, no more, no less. Since they have a de facto monopoly I don’t even have the ability to choose an alternative. This exploitative crap must be stopped.
Furniture movers do have that free speech right. It's completely kosher for them to chat with some friends in a bar about how weird your possessions are or how hard it was to get to your address. Maybe ISPs should have special restrictions the same way medical providers do, but there's no general principle that people who discover private things about you aren't allowed to talk about it.