The Gradual Erosion of the Right To Privacy 234
PeteV writes "There is an interesting article on the BBC's website based around research carried out by Dr. Kieron O'Hara of Southampton University. He points out that under British law, an individual's right to privacy is being eroded by the behavior of those who have no qualms about broadcasting every intimate detail of their life online (via social networking sites) because the privacy law is predicated in part upon the concept of a 'reasonable expectation of privacy.' I think his request 'for people to be more aware of the impact on society of what they publish online' is likely to fall on deaf ears, but in effect what he is saying is that the changing habits of the world-wide community of social networkers is likely to have an effect upon English law and how it is interpreted. Given that the significant bulk of social networkers are American, this might mean 'American behavior' could cause changes in the interpretation of English law (which is not to say English people don't also post their intimate details on Facebook)."
There will always be privacy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't worry, there will always be privacy. It will just be solely reserved for corporations.
Re:There will always be privacy. (Score:5, Informative)
It is bizarre that corporations are "persons" because of the timing of a SCOTUS clerk's stenography. [ratical.org]
But the fact people are losing rights as the corporate "person" is gaining them is hazardous to human health.
A simple cure - if you can't beat 'em... (Score:3, Insightful)
Incorporate yourself, your belongings, etc. as an LLC.
Yes, it would suck that you have to become a one-man(woman) corporation just to get some privacy, but on the plus side, you can enjoy the same rights as the mega-corps, pay lower taxes (what is it, 15% as opposed to the 28% that higher-end individual earners make?), and enjoy the same skewed laws, but this time in your favor.
On the down side, if a larger corp decides to buy your corp, do you become their slave? (I know, I know... but I can't get the thou
Re:A simple cure - if you can't beat 'em... (Score:4, Interesting)
You avoid the double taxation or a normal corp.....income falls through to personal tax after all write-offs.
Nice thing too..you can save tax money from SS and medicare. You pay yourself a reasonable salary according to IRS definitions...and you only have to pay SS and medicare on that portion of your income. Example, you bring in $100K billed in. You pay yourself $40K salary....you only pay SS and medicare on that $40K. The remaining $60K...you just pay state and federal taxes on. Of course you write off purchases, mileage, etc...from that $60K before it falls through on your personal taxes...so, it is less than that..etc.
Definitely worth looking into, especially if you are a contractor...hey, it is about the only way to keep your hard earned money from U. Sam these days, and I gotta think that SS and medicare taxation is gonna skyrocket soon if congress has its way.....
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The military budget pays for a lot of things with civilian use, ARPAdnet and GPS for one. Also, it pays for food programs for children (cannot have malnurished soldiers).
The other fact is that US does tend to lead most peacekeeping missions. It's a burden on us, and we are happy to shoulder it, because we can. So next time you see a sick American, thank him for his sacrifices for world peace.
This is indep
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm quite happy with my healthcare situation right now, and the govt is set to fuck that up for me if this current bill passes.
One reason our military is so large...is that so many other countries (expecially in EU) don't really fund their milita
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Logic fail (Score:5, Insightful)
If this argument was "Well, all my neighbors steal cars, so it's okay if I steal cars too," people would immediately point out how broken that is. But when it's about privacy, suddenly that doesn't apply?
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot?!
The difference here is that we're giving this information to people by choice -- people we know. Our friends, family, and acquaintances. But the only way to do that is to have a central authority to proxy that exchange. The problem is that this central authority abuses its power and -- even worse -- that the government wants its hands in everything as well. It should require a warrant because although a billion billion people might have access to the data, that doesn't mean you gave permission to the next guy.
How f***ing hard is it to understand this? This isn't about privacy -- this is about permissions and how we construct social spaces online. The government's got no right installing bugs in my house without a warrant, so why the hell should it be any different in a digital space than in a physical one?
Answer: Because they're taking advantage of the fact that it can't be seen and nobody understands how it works. It's that simple. No complex intellectual arguments required -- they're doing it because nobody's going to stop them.
Re:Logic fail (Score:5, Insightful)
You're comparing apples to oranges.
Theft is clearly defined in law.
Privacy invasion's definition hinges upon "reasonableness" in many places.
So, no, that doesn't apply.
Re:Logic fail (Score:5, Interesting)
Theft is clearly defined in law. Privacy invasion's definition hinges upon "reasonableness" in many places.
If we're going to say that theft of a person's physical property and theft of a person's intellectual property are equivalent (as the law leans towards), then it's no small leap to say a person's privacy is nothing more than a license to that intellectual property. And as such, entitled to the same protections as physical property. Thus, theft and privacy violations are roughly equivalent.
Re:Logic fail (Score:4, Insightful)
It does?
Or are you comparing severity of punishment while ignoring the difference between criminal and civil statues?
You're right, it's a large leap.
Your arguments (at least those I witness on Slashdot) normally do not rely on such acrobatics. I'll assume you have a better argument which doesn't build upon so much shifting semantical sand, but were rushed and didn't have a chance to elaborate fully?
Re:Logic fail (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll assume you have a better argument which doesn't build upon so much shifting semantical sand, but were rushed and didn't have a chance to elaborate fully?
Sorry, I got nothin'. Running these websites isn't free, and once they get big and popular (which increases their usefulness), some company swoops in and turns it into a profit center. In the process, anything that doesn't have a value (your privacy, artistic merit, etc.) is destroyed. This model epitomizes the history of the internet at both the micro and macro level -- all this wonderful diversity and innovation eventually reduces to profit-oriented behavior. The thing that gives the internet its strength -- lack of a central governing authority, is also its biggest weakness because it results in lowest-common denominator value systems becoming the dominant force.
There isn't really an ethical mandate to prevent this behavior, and certainly not a legal one. It's hard to argue for privacy rights because it is a complex issue; It is difficult to come up with simple arguments, and evoke an emotional response from people. As a result, while everyone agrees privacy rights should exist, nobody can define them or present a unified front in advocating them -- what little effort is directed towards the problem is entirely and swiftly dissipated by economic considerations.
I have no easy answers -- I just have a strong feeling that this behavior should be opposed. That feeling is based on my life experience that unbridled economic exploitation results in the destruction of public resources. In this case, the internet is the public resource.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
and I think it comes back down to the question someone else asked in this thread earlier:
What expectation of privacy does one reasonably have for information they have shared publicly?
I don't feel it's a complex issue - I honestly think it is black and white - you chat about or do X online (outside those arenas explicitly protected) and you need to know X is no longer private by any definition. This is no different than in the physical world.
The only thing complex will be convincing people of this fact.
Re:Logic fail (Score:5, Insightful)
What expectation of privacy does one reasonably have for information they have shared publicly?
That question is improperly phrased -- of course, nobody would have an expectation of privacy when the information was intentionally and willfully shared with the world. It's like setting 0644 permissions: Anyone with access can see it. The problem is, a lot of people seem to think that what's 0640 is really 0644, to frame it in a way slashdot readers can understand.
When I post something on Facebook as an average user, my expectation is that the information posted there is only visible to people I have approved as a friend. In this regard, the information is private: Only those people should be able to see what I post, my pictures, etc. The only thing most people want available to the world at large is their name, picture, and e-mail so other people they may have known can find them. Unfortunately, much more than that is usually available -- and sometimes the re-release of that information isn't even within their control. The company can also access that information, aggregate it, and re-sell it to a third party. People don't expect that, but it's right there in the fine print of they care to look.
In an age where everything you install pops up several warning boxes, license agreements, etc., there's a real loss of impact. So you either have users afraid to do anything with their computers out of fear of breaking it, or users who disregard all warnings because there's so many and they've tuned it out. Privacy notices and the like are the same way.
It's like driving without your seatbelt -- you can do it for years and years and never think anything of it... Until the moment before impact when you realize how stupid it was to have ignored it up until now. Privacy is like this too -- nobody pays attention until something surfaces that has a real, tangible impact on their lives. Like being outed to your family because your netflix queue data was shared in some contest and was insufficiently anonymized. Or an employer asking about those photos some guy posted of you at that party where everyone else was drinking. Nobody, security expert or joe average, sees these kinds of things happen until they hit you right in the face. By then, it's too late. But what's the alternative? Exclude yourself from society -- live under a rock? Never post anything online, never buy anything online, just passively watch it like TV behind layers of anonymization proxies?
The problem is that people's "reasonable expectation" is that they won't be hurt -- and that they're in control. Neither of those things are true. What would you have them do? Live under a rock... or twist in the wind, hopeful that the next privacy catastrophe happens to somebody else, hiding behind statistical probabilities?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except that the law explicitly does not work how you seem to think it does.
If you do something in public, you have no right to privacy with regards to that act.
You only have the right to privacy where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. The reasonable expectation bit is the relevant one here, since "reasonable" changes over time.
You will also note that the "intellectual property" you seem to be conflating here doesn't even exist as a licensable type of property. Are your personal details copyrig
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Thus, theft and privacy violations are roughly equivalent."
No they are not, in the real world today privacy is almost impossible unless you have lots of $. Every financial transaction you make, every bill paid, and just existing in the world means you have hardly any privacy. With sattelites pointing down from above, hidden camera's in all your places of business, just what kind of privacy do you think you have NOW? All one has to do is go around collating all that public information should someone with
Re:Logic fail (Score:4, Insightful)
1) The law leans toward physical property infringement and intellectual property infringement being equivalent? Really?
2) The point of IP law is to encourage people to release works to the public. Using IP to protect information you never intend to release is a corruption of that purpose and IP should most definitely not be used that way.
Re: (Score:2)
The law seems to rely on "a reasonable expectation." My reasonable expectation of privacy in my home with the blinds drawn isn't affected by my neighbour's penchant for posing nude in front of her open window. If I post details of myself online for everyone to see I shouldn't have any expectation of privacy whether or not there's a horde of others doing the same. If I take basic precautions to restrict access to that data (such as checking the box on Facebook that asks Facebook not to share my informatio
Metasurvelliance? (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, think about the world we are moving into as described by Bill Joy, then Chief Scientist at Sun Microsystems, in a now-famous essay published in Wired Magazine. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html [wired.com]
Joy's point is that in the near-long-term technologies will be available that won't take huge infrastructure
Re: (Score:2)
If this argument was "Well, all my neighbors steal cars, so it's okay if I steal cars too," people would immediately point out how broken that is. But when it's about privacy, suddenly that doesn't apply?
Exactly. It also does not apply when the majority of the neighbors all download content online - that makes them all evil thieving pirates. Because of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with the copyright laws and their never ending extension periods and stealing from the public domain without giving anything back.
Of course, loss of privacy suits the aims of the establishment, while downloading does not - you don't have to look very hard to find a large chunk of laws that serve the business interests
English law (Score:2)
This is because in the UK we do not h
Re: (Score:2)
When you post something on facebook, you don't just give that information to the people you are friends with, you also grant facebook permission to use that information. And if they want to then give that information to the police, that's their right. Just like if you tell your friend something and they go and tell the cops, that's perfectly fine also.
Ha! You leave me out of this. (Score:5, Interesting)
. Given that the significant bulk of social networkers are American
That's probably true, but I, for one, do not post the intimate details of my life on the Internet. Mainly that's because, as an adult, I have an awareness of consequence (having suffered through enough such consequences over the years to have gained an appreciation of the power of my own stupidity.) Nevertheless, that Facebook/MySpace phenomenon is largely an expression of childlike behavior on the part of many of those users. Eventually, they'll grow up and wonder "what the Hell was I thinking?!". Or maybe they won't: some people are just stupid after all.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
>That's probably true, but I, for one, do not post the intimate details of my life on the Internet.
Here's a quick 5 minute google search, knowing nothing about you but your slashdot userid. I didn't try crossreferencing to see if any of this information is right; I'm only interested in seeing where it lead.
You father was a physicist and electronics engineer. He lived in/around Bethesda, MD when you were growing up. You are most likely 55 to 65 years old. You lived in Illinois for a long time -- probably
about you, but not --by-- you (Score:5, Insightful)
... I, for one, do not post the intimate details of my life on the Internet.
I think the point is not what you reveal, but what is revealed about you.
If the norm is everyone posts private details about their lives which includes their private interactions with you... Then your reasonable expectation of privacy doesn't include your puking Friday night. Maybe not even what happened with that person on your friend's couch at 3 AM. What becomes public about your life is not only what you report, but what others report about you.
If at some time law (specifically interpretation, but maybe also legislation) starts obviously including the ramifications of our increasingly visible intimate lives, there might be some backlash. I'm having a hard time seeing the particular form such a law or interpretation would take. Maybe something like a precedent that it's okay for employers to use services that link together all references to you from friends' social site posts... ::shrug::
The point is that what is considered "private" is changing because all your friends are posting your and their lives publicly. It's not about what you post. If you want a non-public life, you'll have to spend time only with people who won't post your life.
I might recommend more "me" time. Perhaps alone in the basement. If you want social interaction, online chatting is good. But use a pseudonym. And maybe Tor. And you should probably make up a different identity or two that's hard to link with the real you. Like you're a 15-year-old female elf or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, after R'ing the FA, scenarios are more imaginable.
So, in effect, any time you're in the company of other persons you should adopt a feeling like what you're doing is being video relayed on the net. Charming, no?
Eventually you should get that same feeling when you step out your front door. But don't let that (perhaps dystopian?) distant future distract you from the above-mentioned situation which mobile phone-wielding monkeys are bringing you now. The outside-is-globally-visible horror is a long, lo
Aggregation leads to dysfunctional freakshow (Score:3, Insightful)
Celebrities don't like their li
And for all the hype .... (Score:2)
The reality seems to be much different. I'm a regular Facebook user myself, and just about everyone I cared enough about to make a "friend" on there and follow posts nothing Id say would really cause a loss of privacy for them.
Most of the time, it's such "revealing" information as "I wish this cold weather would end soon!", or someone filling us in on where they decided to go out to eat earlier in the evening.
The "Facebook/MySpace" phenomenon you speak of is little more than people finding a new tool to "
Re: (Score:2)
Alternatively, the things you call consequences may simply disappear.
Not likely. You know the old saying, "Friends come and go ... enemies accumulate." Anything you post online can and will be used against you if someone thinks they'll benefit from it. Thinking otherwise is foolish. The Internet has not changed human nature, if anything, it's amplified some of the worst aspects of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but the set of things that society uses to judge is also constantly in flux.
True ... and that might very apply in the case of a school or an employer that looks up your MySpace page (i.e., a picture of you drunk at a party with a big mug of beer in your hand.) Social norms do change. However, that doesn't apply when it comes to identity thieves, or example. What about reporters trying to dig up dirt on you while you're running for political office? There are lots of ways personal info can come back to haunt you.
Matter of fact, it can work the other way: activities that might be
Re: (Score:2)
but I also do not think that the majority of those people are going to face *any* difficulty from those activities
Probably not, if nothing else from the anonymity afforded by the sheer number of people participating in those activities. But if you ask those that do get hit, they'll probably feel differently. In any event, this is just another one of life's little tradeoffs: the perceived benefits of social networking vs. the very real risks of engaging in those activities. Personally, there's nothing that I would gain from having a Facebook page, consequently any risk > 0 is too much. But that's just me.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't either, but it isn't strictly due to resistance, some of it is social passivity and things like that.
Oh, sure. I'm an old fart compared to the bulk of Facebook users. My life works well enough, and everyone that needs to know anything about me already does. Facebook wouldn't add much to that, at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess, but it has been 17 years since we had a president that did not admit to recreational drug use (and Bush Sr. probably was not a teetotaler).
At least the discomfort of losing the job would be offset with the not working for a hypocrite anymore.
(I'm sure I am a hypocrite, but I don't think it is awesome, and you would have to think it was pretty awesome to fire someone for doing something you also did)
Isn't it contextual? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's obviously true that if you post online _you_ have no reasonable expectation for privacy concerning what you post online. But even if I post my most lurid secrets online but I intentionally keep other data protected on my machine, I implicitly have a reasonable expectation that that _other_ data is secret.
His line of reasoning reminds me of claiming that a rape victim who is promiscuous in her personal life therefore wasn't "raped" because she "wanted it". She can screw every Tom, Dick, and Harry around the block but if she tells Duane "no" and he rapes her it's still rape in every sense of the word.
A reasonable expectation of privacy doesn't mean certain types of information are deemed to be not worthy of privacy protection because everyone else releases the data, it means that by the situations I put myself in and the actions I take can I expect MY data to be private.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a second... Is YOUR name Duane? Ahhh, I get it. Move along folks, nothing to see here.
Number please! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
In the days of yore, it was the girls that ran the telephone exchanges that served up the gossip. Nowadays people publish gossip themselves. The result is much the same though.
Worse. Now the telephone exchange girls all over the planet are serving up our gossip. Of course, I think they call them "routers" and "Web servers" nowadays.
Expectation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with your point 100%, but here's a question for you. What about details about your life that other people post online? Go to a party with a friend, don't drink at all (because you're the DD), someone snaps a photo while your eyes are half closed (which tends to make people look high or drunk), and posts it online because see it as funny (and where the caption may not accurately represent what was really happening). This someone might not even be a friend of yours. For quite a while you might not eve
There's different things (Score:3, Interesting)
1- stuff you choose to put online. There may be a bit of an expectation of privacy there (only my friends should see some of my facebook), but even then you're taking the risk to trust a third party to enforce some privacy for you. I'm fairly sure facebook and co commit to NOTHING regarding the safety, privacy... of your data, but that most people do not realize it.
2- stuff you broadcast unintentionally. My brother uses gmail and is into mountain climbing and Canada... all the Google ads on his Mac are about these 2 subjects.I got treated to 2 days of Monster Cables ads last time I looked for a cable (hint for google: once I'Ive bought a cable, these adds become irrelevant). I'm sure most people expect privacy, they do not realize that their every move on the web is tracked. Pretty much like carrying a GPS tracker + mike + being filmed at all times.
3- stuff that gets taken from a private place, be it my PC or my home. full expectation of privacy there, and clearly criminal to take it.
We French have a law (roughly called "IT and privacy) that guarantees us the right to see and amend any data about us retained in computer form. I'm of half a mind to request my file from google, for curiosity's sake.
In the US, the fourth amendment does a bit... (Score:2, Insightful)
Would a fad for sex in the front yard... (Score:2)
...cause me to lose my expectation of privacy in my bedroom? I don't think so. Not even in England.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I've kind of wondered if the ease of access to pornography has changed people's attitudes with regard to being in porno videos themselves. The recent article about what percentage of teens have participated in "sexting" makes me think that attitudes are indeed changing.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that a bad thing? I'd rather see rampant sex than rampant violence, personally
Re: (Score:2)
The two are not, unfortunately, mutually exclusive.
Welcome (Score:3, Insightful)
Dumb, fashion-following, uncritical people fuck it all up for everybody else: Welcome to Democracy in a nation where education is all geared up to turn kids into make tomorrows working drones instead of empowering them as self-thinking and self-opinied individuals.
As a foreigner that lives in the UK, I'm not at all surprised that the greatest assault on privacy and freedom in the whole Western world is hapenning in the country of celebrity culture and political spin.
(the only claim to Cultural prowness that modern Britain has is BBC)
Some people around here do to try to turn their kids into true individuals (and they have my respect for paddling against the tide), but the vast unwashed masses just leave their kids' education as persons to the (mosly cheap and superficial) Tele and a state school system which is so in thrall of Political Correctness and Health & Safety Regulations that kids are not allowed to explore and are taught to not critcise anything or anyone).
This is very much in the best interest of the local politicians (whose kids go to private schools) since unthinking and uncritical people are easier to decieve with Smoke and Mirrors games.
Please go home (Score:3, Interesting)
I too can manage lazy stereotypes about many cultures - but I've worked in enough countries to know they are nonsense. And I know that the only people who complain about political correctness in the UK are private school educated drones working for right wing newspapers.
Re: (Score:2)
(the only claim to Cultural prowness that modern Britain has is BBC)
Really? So you don't rate the Welsh National Opera, the Royal Philharmonic Opera, or the National Gallery as culture, but you do rate the BBC?
Prude 2.0 (Score:2)
Dumb, fashion-following, uncritical people fuck it all up for everybody else: Welcome to Democracy in a nation where education is all geared up to turn kids into make tomorrows working drones instead of empowering them as self-thinking and self-opinied individuals.
You end up sounding just like the people that were aghast at Rock & Roll, and Free Love in the 60's. The stuff the kids are "fucking up" is, much like the heavily religious dogma of old, something you care about very much but is being discar
I notice that Dr. O'Hara is not a lawyer. (Score:2)
n/t
Re: (Score:2)
Touché! maxume strikes down an attempted ad hominem with flair.
Re: (Score:2)
Observing that a person who is expressing an opinion about a legal matter lacks professional credentials in law is "ad hominem"?
IANAL either. Did I just commit "ad hominem" against myself?
Using Facebook is stupid. (Score:2)
Don't see what the big deal is (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's fine, as long as you're the only one in the pictures. If you're not, then either:
a) You diligently consult all the other people about their privacy preferences before po
Re: (Score:2)
When I tag that picture of the guy laying face down in his own puke "ModernGeek", it gets harder. When someone on Assbook does the same, and you haven't heard of the site, and never go there, it is even worse.
If you look at all the pictures taken of me in the last 6 months, 95% of them are me at parties. Why? Because even though I hit a party a month, at the most, 30 other days a month I don't take a picture of me working diligently, acting professionally, performing open heart surgery or feeding s
The commercialization of the net... (Score:2)
...is killing our freedom of speech.
When the internet became all too serious, you know...online markets becoming just like your next door store, and online places where you could meet - the government thought it was a good idea to make it mandatory to log everything you say and do, the internet was killed!
The internet used to be a free place - where thoughts and information could flow freely - and it was up to each individual how they processed the data they found - pretty much like in books, but faster, an
Apples and ornages (Score:5, Interesting)
This really has nothing to do with 'a reasonable expectation of privacy'. That principle applies to things you intend to do privately that you wish to keep hidden from a second or third party, not to things you do publicly.
If I catch a Peeping Tom at my window (for example) it doesn't matter one bit what I do on Facebook, because in my home I have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. Period. If the defense were to bring up my Facebook activities, I would hope the prosecutor would realize that such a defense is no different than smearing a rape victim because she was wearing skimpy clothes or a robbery victim because they left their door unlocked.
Re:Apples and ornages (Score:4, Insightful)
A crucial point here is that this is in England, which has an entirely different set of priorities than America, I think some people don't realize it. This is why they call it 'American Behavior.' In America, we tend to favor things like freedom, truth, and independence, whereas in England they tend to favor propriety, respect, and order. I am not trying to say either system is better, but each side has made laws that reflect their ideals.
Thus in England laws are arranged so the truth is no defense against slander, and in America individual freedom is so valued that gun rights are protected, with often deadly results. This has been an arrangement England has been happy with for many years, but with the closer international integration being felt everywhere, England is having to confront the changes in society that come along with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Thus in England laws are arranged so the truth is no defense against slander, and in America individual freedom is so valued that gun rights are protected, with often deadly results against those who might do harm to others.
There, fixed that for ya. Cites are as close as your Google search textfield.
Re: (Score:2)
On the flip side, gun accidents are not a significant issue either. If you
Politicians view (Score:2)
Reversal of Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
This was apparently treated by the Executive Branch as a loophole, that if they could give the public no expectation of privacy whatsoever, they could wiretap without warrant at will.
Just a little history...
Boo-hoo the people have spoken QQ (Score:2)
Most people want fast & free and are less concerned about privacy. This is observable behaviour, and it would be idiotic to expect online corps to hobble their advertising revenue by foregoing user customization. Or courts to ignore admissible evidence.
Some people also seem to positively eschew privacy and want to publicise themselves. Their choice is valid too, but they must accept the consequences as well as the benefits. The interesting thing is that the consequences severity*probability has not
"british law" "english people" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So, what does this mean for the other people who live on.in Britain? You know, the Welsh, the Scots, the Irish etc.
Wales and Northern Ireland follow English law, Scotland has its own (broadly similar, but with a few very important differences). Ireland is not part of Britain, and has its own court system (although FWIW I believe it is similar to England)
It's people's attitudes. (Score:2, Insightful)
What I do find interesting is that although I myself have never been a MySpace/Facebook/etc user, I can almost always expect that my likeness will be used there anyway. If a friend takes a photo of me, I can almost be guaranteed that it'll end up on Facebook without my consent, yet at the same time I can't be the luser who stuffs their hand in the camera's lens, or worse, becomes the total social recluse that never comes out of his bedroom. The reason for that is simple: people expect that I am like them, a
Other people doing it for you (Score:2, Interesting)
What sucks is when other people post TMI about you. My real name and where I lived a few years ago is all over the dang place thanks to me suing and winning, which creeps me right out because it's on tons of law blogs and cited on several .gov sites. It's not exactly sealed information but why make it easy for everyone using Google to find it? It has affected me getting employment because employers think I'm a litigious nut, even though it the case wasn't anything about fair labor or employment.
That's n
Re: (Score:2)
It'll just take society a while to catch up. Right now we're a bunch of fucking hypocrites, who all do the same things, but expect everyone else to have never done them. We'll reach a breaking point eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
The court system is public by design. When you chose to file suit, you chose to expose certain information about yourself. I'm sorry if you're suffering for it now, but consider that the alternative is a court system where proceedings take place in secrecy. We have a few examples of this already as part of the "War on Terror," and most thoughtful people consider this to be a Bad Thing; you really, really don't want to live in a world where it's the norm.
This is Silly (Score:2)
But if person A elects to make some aspect of his life public, then obviously there is no "expectation of privacy" of the details person A wilfully made public. However, person A may wish to keep other details of his life private, and his rights to do so should not be compromised
Yet again (Score:2)
And here we have yet another European academic blaming me for problems in his own country. I guess you don't have to fix things that are someone else's fault.
Most Facebook Users are Not in the US (Score:2)
At least according to Ben Lorica [oreilly.com] at O'Reilly Research. At the time of that post at least, the US made up about 35% of Facebook users, and the US and UK and Candada together made up about 61%. The US still had the most for a single country, but that's a long way from being the majority.
Privacy might be more of a luxury than a right (Score:2)
I think many things we presume to be rights are simply things we've gotten used to because authority structures have never had a reason to take them away. For example, years ago we had the "right" to take sharp objects aboard airplanes. Did we ever really have that right, or did we just get away with it because until recently it wasn't a problem? The idea of public safety constraining individual behavior is almost as old as civilization, and seems to me like a much more basic principle than any individual r
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Privacy is not needed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
A twisted thought... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Privacy is a myth (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good Morning. (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuck Myspace. Fuck Facebook. Fuck Twitter. And a special "fuck you" to attention-starved fucks who use any of the above.
this the most reasoned argument I have EVER heard.
Re:Good Morning. (Score:5, Funny)
And it's less than 140 characters.
Just saying...
Re:Good Morning. (Score:5, Funny)
That being considered, I don't think it is so much an insult as it is well-wishes, somewhat like "good luck" or "have a nice day".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
have a nice day
Let's establish some ground rules: I'll have any kind of day I want, ok?
Re:Good Morning. (Score:4, Insightful)
Those products are only a by-product of the attention seekers. If we could put an end to this idea that you can be famous just for being famous (big thanks to reality TV for that) then perhaps we'd have less people doing anything for attention.
Don't get me wrong. I do think anyone should be able to voice their opinion and post what they want rather than everything being filtered through corporations but I think people would be more reasonable if there wasn't a slight chance (and really it is only a slight chance) of fame for doing something retarded.
Fuck the Internet? Posting pics is nothing new (Score:2, Interesting)
Facebook is actually one of the better places, in that it allows people to set privacy controls.
However people were posting pictures on the web - that could be viewed by absolutely anyone - long before Facebook came around.
And a special "fuck you" to attention-starved fucks who use any of the above.
Aww, diddums, says the guy who has to post on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, but judging by my email I have hundreds of friends on LinkedIn. Even though I have no account there.
Re:Good Morning. (Score:5, Funny)
Translation of Translation:
"I have no real friends so I am relying on Facebook to cover the deficit."
Re:Good Morning. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure I could sign up to MySpace and add 500 people as friends and get at least 100 of them to accept. That doesn't mean I actually have 100 friends.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
People entertaining themselves with a large social circle of acquaintances aren't any less real than you are. You have no greater intrinsic value despite your derision.
Re:Good Morning. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want you can even provide false status updates, its not like anyone will ever notice except those who deserve to be lead astray anyway. Say you are in Starbucks sipping a caramellate when really you are out hunting with a high-powered rifle or doing some other activity others might not be comfortable with
I didn't want to be a computer programmer, you know. I wanted to be a Lumberjack! Leaping from tree to tree, as they float down the mighty rivers of British Columbia....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Add friends by brute force, find randomers, try to add a bunch of their friends, move on to the next randomer and do the same thing. A significant number will accept your request? Why? because most people on those sites are attention seeking whores.
So, what you're saying is... do online what stuck-up cheerleader types have been doing for years: Flirt with everyone, lie, cheat, steal, and sleep your way to the top without ever revealing just how shallow you are. GOD I LOVE HUMANITY RIGHT NOW! mutter...mutter...stab.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You know, as a general principle, deriding people who are social doesn't really make you a better person. I get the whole gallant loner nerd ethic. Its basis is as false as the idea of the noble poor.