Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Supporters sign petition to repeal bill of rights

37 replies to this topic
Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#31

Posted 09 July 2013 - 07:59 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 17:01)
Because Facebook own all the data you post on their servers, making it theirs to do what they please with? It's your own stupid fault for trusting them with your data. I'd be far more pissed off about the fact they sell it for a profit than the fact they share some of it with the intelligence agencies.

Is this really accurate though? You have a right to privacy, and something isn't really a right if you can sign it away. And they don't just record your conversations- they put a cookie in your computer that records everything you do. If a pub opened up that asked everyone to sign a 10,000 word disclaimer saying you give them permission to record every conversation you have in the pub and give transcripts to corporations and the government and use technology to ascertain the entirety of your phone and iPod's content whether you're on the premisses or not, they wouldn't get away with it. And that's pretty much a direct parallel- there is absolutely no distinction between the example I gave and what facebook does.

QUOTE (fatal1ty619 @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 11:14)
Obamacare-forcing people to pay for healthcare (inhibiting life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness), it costs thousands of $ in tax money (breaking "no taxation without representation") each year to a majority of the country.

Dude, what? You have been thoroughly mislead. "Obamacare" isn't unconstitutional. It is if you strictly interpret the wording of the bill (namely the "individual mandate" stuff) but the US Supreme Court has ruled that it is considered a tax, and therefore a legitimate function of the federal government. You can call it unconstitutional until you're blue in the face, and maybe a lot of people agree with you, but you don't have a role in interpreting the constitution. The Supreme Court does and they say it's allowed. The constitution isn't meant to be applied directly by the citizenry, it's meant to be interpreted by the judiciary.

You probably feel that it violates the spirit of the Constitution. The constitution was written before insurance companies and expensive treatments. Trying to work within the scrip of the "founding father's" intentions is utterly moronic.

QUOTE
-we all know the measures he has taken to get rid of the 2nd Amendment...

As far as I know, the Second Amendment has survived a few Democrat Presidencies and Democrat House majorities- that weren't necessarily any softer on guns than Obama.

I think you're are relying on the false assumption that the Second Amendment gives you full unrestricted access to all firearms and any firearm laws are somehow a breach. That isn't the case. If the judiciary decides that certain measures are in line with the constitution- or reasonable caveats- then voila, the measures are constitutional. What the American far-right fails to understand is that they have no role whatsoever in applying the constitution to the legislative process. Leave it to the Supreme Court.

I have to ask America's far right: where was all of this outrage when the Patriot Act was signed?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#32

Posted 09 July 2013 - 08:19 AM

Melchoir, the parallel isn't perfect but I understand the point you are making. The amount of data Facebook pulls down doesn't really tally with the service they provide. The issue is that their service is financed by obtaining and distributing personal data and the terms and conditions make that really quite clear. As for the question of whether rights are rights if you can sign them away, I would agree entirely if the service demanded that you placed personal or private identifiable information in the ownership of Facebook, but to be honest it doesn't. They don't exactly discourage it but there's nothing in place which forces people to provide this kind of data to Facebook.

By the way, it isn't possible for a Cookie to record everything someone does. Cookies, even of the tracking kind so many browsers are now seeking to outlaw, only provide metadata on browsing habits and behaviour. It's not some remote piece of spyware which enables an organisation to see details of everything and anything a user does.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#33

Posted 09 July 2013 - 08:51 AM

It doesn't record everything you do, as such, only on websites that have the option to "Like" things via facebook. And that is... most websites.

The whole thing about having a right to privacy that's being signed away is based on the above, and the fact that it scans and records your private messages. Nobody has any real qualms with them scanning your basic details and going "okay, 19 year old male, send him some adds for universities and the military" or even them scanning your statuses for mentions of bands, genres of TV shows, types of clothing etc. it's the fact that when you send a private message you think you're corresponding privately with a friend and they have access to all the information you give. The fact that they're basically a marketing survey masquerading as a social networking site would be fine if they didn't encourage you to use a feature that lets you talk privately with a friend, and implies (if they no longer explicitly say) that those are private messages.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#34

Posted 09 July 2013 - 09:24 AM

Oh, I agree entirely. I thought you were insinuating that they were using cookies to directly spy on people, which isn't really accurate-nor is the implication they contain message or data content other than key words picked out by the affiliated add network crawler bots.

A loaded rifle
  • A loaded rifle

    Ghetto Star

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 08 Jun 2011

#35

Posted 10 July 2013 - 05:26 AM Edited by A loaded rifle, 10 July 2013 - 05:30 AM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 07:01)
Why are we all pandering to A Loaded Rifle again, may I ask? He's a self-confessed right-wing extremist, militant sympathiser, 13-year-old with a very poor understanding of the subject matter.

Wow your a f*cking tool.

Joe Chip
  • Joe Chip

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2010
  • United-States

#36

Posted 10 July 2013 - 06:10 AM Edited by zoo3891, 10 July 2013 - 06:13 AM.

Is this the same guy who did the Obamaphone one? These are usually pretty funny.

e: Couldn't find it. It was posted on one of those alternative news sites a few months ago, the one that Cory Doctrow writes for. I did find this though:

Greenline
  • Greenline

    Page 3 Girl

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2011
  • Iran

#37

Posted 10 July 2013 - 06:22 AM

Yeah, because its a good idea to ask a bunch of obviously stoned and drunk people why they're celebrating.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#38

Posted 10 July 2013 - 06:56 AM

QUOTE (A loaded rifle @ Wednesday, Jul 10 2013, 06:26)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Jul 9 2013, 07:01)
Why are we all pandering to A Loaded Rifle again, may I ask? He's a self-confessed right-wing extremist, militant sympathiser, 13-year-old with a very poor understanding of the subject matter.

Wow your a f*cking tool.

I see you aren't denying it then?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users