by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Monday December 01, 2003 @10:48PM (#7605621)
"...expands the rights of corporations at the expense of individuals."
Wrong. It limits the rights of everyone, period. Why do people so consistently miss the fact that less government involvement neatly solves problems like these?
Government, and laws, are neither good nor bad per se. Good laws protect people from being screwed, and bad laws, like this one, enable the screwing of people.
You describe laws as being neither good nor bad then go on to talk about good laws and bad laws. Which is it? Or do you not know what you are talking about?
...probably, that some people think less government solves all problems "like these" neatly, as if idealogical consistency were more important than evaluation, analysis, and good judgement.
Also, and I realize I'm just guessing wildly here, it could be that the stated "fact" is often disguised as an opinion, as in the parent post, thus making it easily missed.
I have to agree here, and this is one of the areas that Libertarians have it right-and both of the other parties are so far off base it is frightening. BOTH Dems and Reps are for big brother, and that is what scares me.
Laws like this are pathetic, and should be axed before they even get on the books. My personal policy is that if you are voting, look up who votes for laws of this and DON'T support them. This is the ONLY way that we Americans will be able to maintain a reasonably free society--by removing those politicians who repeatedly support government intervention in areas that don't need it (which by the way is the vast majority of our lives).
I will probably vote Libertarian in the next election. The only thing that turns me off is the Libertarian polits whose main platform is the legalization of marijuana as a recreational drug. This platform, although popular in certain subcultures, scares the daylights out of so many people that it will never be a winning platform.
Personally, I would rather see an emphasis placed on deregulation of many things, lowered (or eliminated) taxes, and increased fiscal responsibility. This of course means reducing and/or cutting certain programs, but many of these should be removed from the gov't's hands in any case.
As for ownership of data, it is my personal opinion that ANY data belongs to the person or entity which it describes. Therefore, if a company has data which describes me, I should be considered the sole OWNER, and they are permitted to use such data only insofar as I deem it permissable.
This gets tricky, such as in the case of surveys, but essentially, if data is not traceable to a particular individual (as should be the case in surveys), then it belongs to the entity that generated such data--until such a time as they make it public. Once data is aired to the public as a fact (as in a news report, or whatnot), it should now be considered public domain, and freely usable by any who are interested.
This does not mean that one should not cite sources, or that we should be able to access any database, but that we should have the opportunity to use information that is available.
(As a note, I just took a Loritab and a Skelaxin(?sp), so if this doesn't make any sense or is totally crazy, just ignore me--it's the medicine talking.)
Due to the disservice that is the "Voice Vote", you cannot simply look up who is voting for what law. You can't hold your representatives accountable. Look at the DMCA. Look at the votes against giving Iraq all of the money they wanted (the media said that they did a voice vote so the presidential candidates in office wouldn't have to look like they're anti-troops).
It's impossible under our current system to do what you suggest. Sadly.
You say it's immpossible to vote against the pols who support this because of the voice vote process. Some people in this country, though, do already have a chance to express some outrage because there is a list on the bill of 9 cosponsors: COSPONSORS(9), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Delahunt, William D. - 11/20/2003 [MA-10]
Rep Greenwood, James C. - 10/8/2003 [PA-8]
Rep Hobson, David L. - 10/8/2003 [OH-7]
Rep Portman, Rob - 11/20/2003 [OH
As for ownership of data, it is my personal opinion that ANY data belongs to the person or entity which it describes. Therefore, if a company has data which describes me, I should be considered the sole OWNER, and they are permitted to use such data only insofar as I deem it permissable.
On what do you base this opinion?
I mean that's a serious claim you're making; you should have some rock solid argument to back it up.
it's my opinion, so I don't really have a great answer for that. However, I personally think of it as the right to privacy. Many people would disagree, but if you accept that we have a right to be private people (which most people seem to think we do, unless we are deliberately public, such as is the case with politicians), then you should logically have control over anything that compromises this privacy, such as data that describes you.
of course, this opinion is not likely to be popular with certain orga
it's my opinion, so I don't really have a great answer for that.
If you cannot backup your opinion you should seriously reconsider it, especially when the opinion has such large implications.
but if you accept that we have a right to be private people [...], then you should logically have control over anything that compromises this privacy, such as data that describes you.
First you need to justify your statement that "we have a right to be private people" with respect to this situation. I mean, where i
as i said, this right (to be private people) is not specified anywhere, but I do believe that it is a right that we should have.
the reasoning behind this could take hundreds of pages to justify, and I'm not certain that I have thought it through enough to justify it (and maybe I should reconsider it--there are certainly reasons to do so).
I understand your position, and I think it is a smart one. I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to implement my idea without serious consideration of the implications--I,
Be careful. A right to privacy and an expectation of privacy are very different things. A legally enshrined right to privacy is a shield for the powerful and useless to the oppressed (the powerful can just ignore the privacy law).
An expectation of privacy in many situations is desirable, but a RIGHT to privacy is catastrophically bad for society.
I will probably vote Libertarian in the next election. The only thing that turns me off is the Libertarian polits whose main platform is the legalization of marijuana as a recreational drug. This platform, although popular in certain subcultures, scares the daylights out of so many people that it will never be a winning platform.
I know it's offtopic (mods, hammer away), but SO MANY PEOPLE smoke marijuana (and so many people use other drugs (many illegal) too), that it really ought not be a losing platform. The liberals are already for decriminalization, mostly; the conservatives ought to give it whirl based on the tax savings alone.
Are you mad? Everyone knows drug users are addicts and are all sociopaths that will kill you in your sleep and rape your wife and sell your tv for crack (unless that drug addict is White & wealthy, in wich case He's just misunderstood victim of what's really a desiease and we should support him as he works through rehab and returns to the AM airwaves). Besides, it's not like those taxes are coming out of their pockets, most of it comes from those they're throwing in jail for non-violent crimes. Fucking
exactly. so many people already smoke weed that if marajuana eroded society, society would have dissolved long ago. the numbers alone speak for the safety of the drug -- forget all the science that backs up the numbers.
You think modern conservatives give a rats ass about fiscal policy? Man, hell no. They only care about (a) maintaining power, (b) preparing for the imminent return of Jesus Christ, (c) making sure gays don't marry, and (d) abolishing taxes and the government and government programs which those taxes support. Everything else can go fuck itself.
Personally, I would rather see... lowered (or eliminated) taxes...
Yeah, great idea. As long as you're one of the rich people who aren't actually depending on tax revenue to provide them with, e.g., basic education, sanitation, healthcare, and housing.
In your tax-free utopia, who is going to pay to maintain the roads? Who is going to clean the sidewalk? Who is going to pay for the police to keep law and order? Who is going to pay for the military to defend your country?
Healthcare and housing are not fundamental rights, although if you want to live somewhere, the government will give you land... on which you can build a house and subsistence farm... Or did you want housing without working for it... basic education is IMO a marginal issue and should be handled by the local community... and if the local commmunity does not value education... so be it. Roads are necessary for commerce.. and so are the purview of the goverernment... ditto for law and order and a small defense
Personally, I would rather see an emphasis placed on deregulation of many things, lowered (or eliminated) taxes, and increased fiscal responsibility. This of course means reducing and/or cutting certain programs, but many of these should be removed from the gov't's hands in any case.
I mean no offense, but this is something I often hear from those with Libertarian leanings... but never with any concrete suggestions as to what should go. If you're going to argue that the Federal government should shrink,
No, the losing parts of the libertarian platform is the sexual worship of private property above life itself so that they hate the environment and all its protections. A libertarian would rather see every forest, river, and the very atmosphere we breath, be destroyed or polluted beyond redemption than have a single persons fictional private property right violated. Yes, fictional, because it is not evolutionarily/biologically encoded. It is purely a social construct, a social idea, not some inherent righ
"Why do people so consistently miss the fact that less government involvement neatly solves problems like these?"
Because it does not. In this case if there was no govt regulation then all data collected would be de-facto property of whoever collected it. In a world without govt you would have absolutely zero control over what a corporation could do with "your" information. The best that you could possibly hope for would be to try and sue the corporation which would go nowhere because the corporation would not be breaking any laws.
And what would be the least bit wrong with the situation you describe?
If the corporation (or the guy next door!) collects some information then great, it doesn't harm me at all. If he then uses the information in a way benefiting him, then that's not really a bad thing.
Sure in the end it may be bad for you, but hey, sometimes the truth hurts.
But that's not so bad. The CORE PROBLEM is people confusing "all copies of some data" with "one copy of some data". Data simply does not act like physical matter - If a corporation has a database, and I take a COPY of that database, the corporation still has its copy. But if the corporation has a legal right to restrict the dissemination of COPIES of information, that means people cannot keep track of what the hell they are up to without facing constant legal intimidation. Not good.
Because it does not. In this case if there was no govt regulation then all data collected would be de-facto property of whoever collected it. In a world without govt you would have absolutely zero control over what a corporation could do with "your" information. The best that you could possibly hope for would be to try and sue the corporation which would go nowhere because the corporation would not be breaking any laws.
Yes and no. If there is no law saying data collected is the property of the entity coll
"Lastly, although IANAL, I believe that even if there isn't a law explicitly prohibiting an activity you can still file a civil suit against someone as long as you can show you have been harmed somehow."
You are right. In America anybody can sue you for anything. I can sue you because I think you are ugly if I want to.
This "you can always take it to court" argument is used very frequently by the liberterians and I find the argument bogus. The founding fathers set into place a careful balancing of powers by
Right. And "corporations" (or whoever) would have less control over what we did with "their" information. That's the way we wan't it. This is not an "expantion" of any "right". This is only a limitation applied to everyone.
In this case if there was no govt regulation then all data collected would be de-facto property of whoever collected it.
I think you are confused here. This bill is formalizing this concept. According to this bill, if I were to collect a bunch of information, you could be liable if
If so then it's a bad bill. The answer to a bad bill is not a lack of oversight. The bill should be restructured to provide more control and power to the people that the data is being collected on.
If so then it's a bad bill. The answer to a bad bill is not a lack of oversight. The bill should be restructured to provide more control and power to the people that the data is being collected on.
I suspect you are likely thinking of various European regulations that give ownership and control of some types of personal information to the person who's information it is.
The answer if you would like to see that sort of regulation here is separate legislation specificly granting those privacy rights.
Who's really looses out here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. It limits the rights of everyone, period. Why do people so consistently miss the fact that less government involvement neatly solves problems like these?
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:0)
All laws are bad. Per se.
Deal.
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:0)
Not Everyone... (Score:1)
And that's not the only place in the text that precludes any liability on the part of Government.
Seems that this is being "snaked" through with clauses of immunity for the "skull and bones" people...Disgusting...
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:0)
For the same reason... (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, and I realize I'm just guessing wildly here, it could be that the stated "fact" is often disguised as an opinion, as in the parent post, thus making it easily missed.
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Laws like this are pathetic, and should be axed before they even get on the books. My personal policy is that if you are voting, look up who votes for laws of this and DON'T support them. This is the ONLY way that we Americans will be able to maintain a reasonably free society--by removing those politicians who repeatedly support government intervention in areas that don't need it (which by the way is the vast majority of our lives).
I will probably vote Libertarian in the next election. The only thing that turns me off is the Libertarian polits whose main platform is the legalization of marijuana as a recreational drug. This platform, although popular in certain subcultures, scares the daylights out of so many people that it will never be a winning platform.
Personally, I would rather see an emphasis placed on deregulation of many things, lowered (or eliminated) taxes, and increased fiscal responsibility. This of course means reducing and
As for ownership of data, it is my personal opinion that ANY data belongs to the person or entity which it describes. Therefore, if a company has data which describes me, I should be considered the sole OWNER, and they are permitted to use such data only insofar as I deem it permissable.
This gets tricky, such as in the case of surveys, but essentially, if data is not traceable to a particular individual (as should be the case in surveys), then it belongs to the entity that generated such data--until such a time as they make it public. Once data is aired to the public as a fact (as in a news report, or whatnot), it should now be considered public domain, and freely usable by any who are interested.
This does not mean that one should not cite sources, or that we should be able to access any database, but that we should have the opportunity to use information that is available.
(As a note, I just took a Loritab and a Skelaxin(?sp), so if this doesn't make any sense or is totally crazy, just ignore me--it's the medicine talking.)
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:0)
It's impossible under our current system to do what you suggest. Sadly.
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:1)
COSPONSORS(9), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Delahunt, William D. - 11/20/2003 [MA-10]
Rep Greenwood, James C. - 10/8/2003 [PA-8]
Rep Hobson, David L. - 10/8/2003 [OH-7]
Rep Portman, Rob - 11/20/2003 [OH
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:1)
On what do you base this opinion?
I mean that's a serious claim you're making; you should have some rock solid argument to back it up.
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:2)
However, I personally think of it as the right to privacy. Many people would disagree, but if you accept that we have a right to be private people (which most people seem to think we do, unless we are deliberately public, such as is the case with politicians), then you should logically have control over anything that compromises this privacy, such as data that describes you.
of course, this opinion is not likely to be popular with certain orga
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:1)
If you cannot backup your opinion you should seriously reconsider it, especially when the opinion has such large implications.
but if you accept that we have a right to be private people [...], then you should logically have control over anything that compromises this privacy, such as data that describes you.
First you need to justify your statement that "we have a right to be private people" with respect to this situation. I mean, where i
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:2)
the reasoning behind this could take hundreds of pages to justify, and I'm not certain that I have thought it through enough to justify it (and maybe I should reconsider it--there are certainly reasons to do so).
I understand your position, and I think it is a smart one. I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to implement my idea without serious consideration of the implications--I,
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:0)
An expectation of privacy in many situations is desirable, but a RIGHT to privacy is catastrophically bad for society.
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:4, Interesting)
I know it's offtopic (mods, hammer away), but SO MANY PEOPLE smoke marijuana (and so many people use other drugs (many illegal) too), that it really ought not be a losing platform. The liberals are already for decriminalization, mostly; the conservatives ought to give it whirl based on the tax savings alone.
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:1)
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:0)
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:2)
You THINK I'm kidding.
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:1)
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:0)
Yeah, great idea. As long as you're one of the rich people who aren't actually depending on tax revenue to provide them with, e.g., basic education, sanitation, healthcare, and housing.
In your tax-free utopia, who is going to pay to maintain the roads? Who is going to clean the sidewalk? Who is going to pay for the police to keep law and order? Who is going to pay for the military to defend your country?
Libertarianism inevitably towa
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:1)
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:1)
I mean no offense, but this is something I often hear from those with Libertarian leanings... but never with any concrete suggestions as to what should go. If you're going to argue that the Federal government should shrink,
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:2)
No, the losing parts of the libertarian platform is the sexual worship of private property above life itself so that they hate the environment and all its protections. A libertarian would rather see every forest, river, and the very atmosphere we breath, be destroyed or polluted beyond redemption than have a single persons fictional private property right violated. Yes, fictional, because it is not evolutionarily/biologically encoded. It is purely a social construct, a social idea, not some inherent righ
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it does not. In this case if there was no govt regulation then all data collected would be de-facto property of whoever collected it. In a world without govt you would have absolutely zero control over what a corporation could do with "your" information. The best that you could possibly hope for would be to try and sue the corporation which would go nowhere because the corporation would not be breaking any laws.
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:1)
If the corporation (or the guy next door!) collects some information then great, it doesn't harm me at all. If he then uses the information in a way benefiting him, then that's not really a bad thing.
Sure in the end it may be bad for you, but hey, sometimes the truth hurts.
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:0)
cheers.
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:1)
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:2)
That's why we have invented things like governments and laws.
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:1)
I can assure you that the reason we have governments and laws is not because people can do things that are bad for them.
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:1, Insightful)
Information is not
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:2)
Yes and no. If there is no law saying data collected is the property of the entity coll
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:2)
You are right. In America anybody can sue you for anything. I can sue you because I think you are ugly if I want to.
This "you can always take it to court" argument is used very frequently by the liberterians and I find the argument bogus. The founding fathers set into place a careful balancing of powers by
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:1)
In this case if there was no govt regulation then all data collected would be de-facto property of whoever collected it.
I think you are confused here. This bill is formalizing this concept. According to this bill, if I were to collect a bunch of information, you could be liable if
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:2)
If so then it's a bad bill. The answer to a bad bill is not a lack of oversight. The bill should be restructured to provide more control and power to the people that the data is being collected on.
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:2)
I suspect you are likely thinking of various European regulations that give ownership and control of some types of personal information to the person who's information it is.
The answer if you would like to see that sort of regulation here is separate legislation specificly granting those privacy rights.
As I un
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:2)
If they claim that then it's truly ridiculus. It just shows what a slippery slope the concept of intellectual property is.
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:0)
Yeah. Theft would be so much easier if it weren't for that pesky government.
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:0)
Wow, what wonderful English, you looser.