HorrorMovieFans.com

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:if this causes change of bestbuy's policy, cool. like i said, it does sound like a violation. just a legal one, as of now. but this is the world we live in. no one gave a crap at all, when i mentioned that the president of the united states is even advocating to act on things before going to due process. so yeah.

It is only going to get worse. I tried to bring it up in the context of mental health and gun control, but no one cared.

The ends justify the means, I suppose. Look at all the accusations that are leading to people losing jobs. We can take away rights if it advances our agenda, apparently.

Look at Obamacare forcing people to buy insurance. No problem, because it was pushing the agenda.

agreed. you even argued against me, when it related to gun control. and yeah, it's going to get worse.

Was I arguing? Or presenting an alternative viewpoint?

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:if this causes change of bestbuy's policy, cool. like i said, it does sound like a violation. just a legal one, as of now. but this is the world we live in. no one gave a crap at all, when i mentioned that the president of the united states is even advocating to act on things before going to due process. so yeah.

It is only going to get worse. I tried to bring it up in the context of mental health and gun control, but no one cared.

The ends justify the means, I suppose. Look at all the accusations that are leading to people losing jobs. We can take away rights if it advances our agenda, apparently.

Look at Obamacare forcing people to buy insurance. No problem, because it was pushing the agenda.

agreed. you even argued against me, when it related to gun control. and yeah, it's going to get worse.

Was I arguing? Or presenting an alternative viewpoint?

at first, potentially. it became arguing, when you continued to defend that "alternative viewpoint".

i didn't even think a search by a third party service was even necessary. i thought they had backdoors already built in to the devices, honestly. but then i veer to the side of conspiracy and general distrust of government and authority.

Your view of rights needs updating.

showa58taro wrote:Your view of rights needs updating.

Do you think rights change annually?

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:Your view of rights needs updating.

Do you think rights change annually?

No. But they have evolved since when you seem to be ascribing them. I think your rights are about 3,000 years out of date.

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:Your view of rights needs updating.

Do you think rights change annually?

No. But they have evolved since when you seem to be ascribing them. I think your rights are about 3,000 years out of date.

Well, I don't think our rights erode with time. Privacy, free speech, and the right to defend ourselves are too important to lose to some sort of cultural evolution.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:Your view of rights needs updating.

Do you think rights change annually?

No. But they have evolved since when you seem to be ascribing them. I think your rights are about 3,000 years out of date.

Well, I don't think our rights erode with time. Privacy, free speech, and the right to defend ourselves are too important to lose to some sort of cultural evolution.

Yeah except none of those are total and absolute. And haven’t been for millennia.

no, they are constantly in flux. but they should be protected. they should be fought for. and not allowed to be whittled away. innocent until proven guilty should be upheld. it shouldn't be "guilty and i'm gonna find out how".

people should not be treated as if they cannot be trusted, until they give signs that they can not be trusted.

zombie wrote:no, they are constantly in flux. but they should be protected. they should be fought for. and not allowed to be whittled away. innocent until proven guilty should be upheld. it shouldn't be "guilty and i'm gonna find out how".

people should not be treated as if they cannot be trusted, until they give signs that they can not be trusted.

Nonsense. That’s all fine onna theoretical basis but this is the real world. We have social contracts that preclude certain behaviours and restrict types of “freedom” of the individual in favour if freedom of the group. It’s why you can’t hoard pictures of naked children, get your dick out in public, make harassing and threatening statements, own a tank or cannon, drive whatever speed you fancy, or steal things. You surrender that base freedom so that you can be truly free.

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:no, they are constantly in flux. but they should be protected. they should be fought for. and not allowed to be whittled away. innocent until proven guilty should be upheld. it shouldn't be "guilty and i'm gonna find out how".

people should not be treated as if they cannot be trusted, until they give signs that they can not be trusted.

Nonsense. That’s all fine onna theoretical basis but this is the real world. We have social contracts that preclude certain behaviours and restrict types of “freedom” of the individual in favour if freedom of the group. It’s why you can’t hoard pictures of naked children, get your dick out in public, make harassing and threatening statements, own a tank or cannon, drive whatever speed you fancy, or steal things. You surrender that base freedom so that you can be truly free.

there is also a right to not be hurt or threatened by another person, that supercedes a lot of "freedom". but all of those things you mentioned are after the fact. "get your dick out in public", "hoard naked children pictures", "make threatening or harrassing statements" are all signs that you can not be trusted. and you're trying to just argue from the contrary position. stop it!

Your freedoms stop at the point where you are interfering with the freedoms of another. That is universal and does not conflict with the idea of freedom in any way. (My ability to swing my arms freely stops before it hits your nose, etc.) The things mentioned are protection of rights.

Giving private companies incentive to search and report, then the authorities to search and then get a warrant, is trampling of rights.

Again people sign an agreement with Best Buy of what's going on so I am not only ok with it I'm all for it.

Let's look at another scenario. The movie studios make a deal with your internet provider to report any copyright violations to them. Because you agreed to a lengthy document with your ISP that says you will not use your computer in illegal ways, it is all fair game? In fact, they can run deep searches of your computer just to make sure. Don't worry, they will ignore the pictures of your wife and kids, they are just after the illegal stuff.

Foo wrote:Let's look at another scenario. The movie studios make a deal with your internet provider to report any copyright violations to them. Because you agreed to a lengthy document with your ISP that says you will not use your computer in illegal ways, it is all fair game? In fact, they can run deep searches of your computer just to make sure. Don't worry, they will ignore the pictures of your wife and kids, they are just after the illegal stuff.

Does t sound the same at all. Don’t think that you can do that in any case but that is definitively not the same at all. So unless you find a real scenario like that I’m uninterested in your hypotheticals.

i still contend that privacy should be upheld, in general. people should be treated as if they can be trusted, until they prove that they cannot on a case by case basis. searching computers looking for a crime is treating people like they can't be trusted. it is a violation to the customer. but it does seem to legal as of now. i don't like it, but it is what it is. until enough people push back against being treated like children.

zombie wrote:i still contend that privacy should be upheld, in general. people should be treated as if they can be trusted, until they prove that they cannot on a case by case basis. searching computers looking for a crime is treating people like they can't be trusted. it is a violation to the customer. but it does seem to legal as of now. i don't like it, but it is what it is. until enough people push back against being treated like children.

It would be surprising if the methods held up to legal scrutiny. In tandem with the FBI, they were doing deep searches to uncover deleted files, then getting warrants later.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:i still contend that privacy should be upheld, in general. people should be treated as if they can be trusted, until they prove that they cannot on a case by case basis. searching computers looking for a crime is treating people like they can't be trusted. it is a violation to the customer. but it does seem to legal as of now. i don't like it, but it is what it is. until enough people push back against being treated like children.

It would be surprising if the methods held up to legal scrutiny. In tandem with the FBI, they were doing deep searches to uncover deleted files, then getting warrants later.

they'll find a way to justify it legally, and enough people will go along with it for now. hopefully that changes.

people are always yelling about boycott because a director or writer or studio includes something they don't like in a movie, or some celebrity says something they don't like, or a guy doesn't stand for the anthem.... maybe if people boycotted for being investigated as if they all are already guilty, there will be change.

The defense “you shouldn’t have found my illegal child pornography” doesn’t really hold any weight to me morally.