Politics, Religion & Controversy Politics | Religion | Controversy (Non-Corvette)

We either have Freedom of the Press or we don't.

 
Old 05-16-2019, 06:53 PM
  #161  
owebo
CF Senior Member
 
owebo's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2006
Location: Washigton, DC
Posts: 111,021
Received 31 Likes on 27 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11, '16
Default

Originally Posted by Millenium Z06 View Post
Triggered snowflake got kicked off FB now throwing a tantrum..need your passy?


You are one ugly ******* LWNJ.....
owebo is offline  
Old 05-16-2019, 06:57 PM
  #162  
Millenium Z06
CF Senior Member
 
Millenium Z06's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: Frisco TX Pants Shitingly Fast
Posts: 6,932
Received 139 Likes on 122 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by owebo View Post
You are one ugly ******* LWNJ.....
Weak odumbo, weak.
At least put some effort into it

Last edited by Millenium Z06; 05-16-2019 at 06:57 PM.
Millenium Z06 is offline  
Old 05-16-2019, 06:58 PM
  #163  
Millenium Z06
CF Senior Member
 
Millenium Z06's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: Frisco TX Pants Shitingly Fast
Posts: 6,932
Received 139 Likes on 122 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by shor0814 View Post
Did the public pay for FB? I would agree if my tax dollars went towards FB, if you can show that, then it is the public square.

The free market only works with little or no .gov interference. If you get banned from CF is that the same and do we need federal regulations for all private forums? What are your criteria for redefining private property as a public forum?
He's dumber than a dog turd, dont bother with logic
Millenium Z06 is offline  
Old 05-16-2019, 07:17 PM
  #164  
63 340HP
CF Senior Member
 
63 340HP's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2005
Location: Beach & High Desert Southern California
Posts: 15,673
Received 483 Likes on 293 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Millenium Z06 View Post
The answer is no, you cant enter your Skype "number" into the Do not call database, why because it not a phone and its number is an "Online" number.
WTF makes you think allow the corporation to monitor and record any conversations no matter the media? Did you miss where I said Fed Govt needs to do to Google what the EU did and not allow the use of private data?
When that online number (assigned by Skype or another app) connects to your traditional phone, and Microsoft monitors and records the call, you don't see a reason to restrict that "corporate privilege" that was agreed to by the app user on the other end of your phone call?

The EU rules apply to FB and Microsoft and Google, and if you have been to Europe the result is you must "opt-in" to use any server, wifi, or app. Once you "opt-in" they can use the data. Many of the app features are restricted unless you "opt-in." The difference to the US from a user stand point is you have to keep "opting-in" rather than the default opt-in policy unique to the US and Canada (where we must "opt-out," before we experience app restrictions). The EU rules do not change anything once you "opt-in" (they can use your "opt-in" approved data).

The EU member nations also do not recognize a 5th amendment style right to privacy or 1st amendment right to free speech. EU law enforcement has fewer restrictions preventing their access to recorded app content and telephone conversations like we enjoy here in the USA (although calling apps will quickly equalize the access, unless the US extends the same protections to app communications as enjoyed with telephone communications).
63 340HP is offline  
Old 05-16-2019, 07:22 PM
  #165  
Millenium Z06
CF Senior Member
 
Millenium Z06's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: Frisco TX Pants Shitingly Fast
Posts: 6,932
Received 139 Likes on 122 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 63 340HP View Post
When that online number (assigned by Skype or another app) connects to your traditional phone, and Microsoft monitors and records the call, you don't see a reason to restrict that "corporate privilege" that was agreed to by the app user on the other end of your phone call?

The EU rules apply to FB and Microsoft and Google, and if you have been to Europe the result is you must "opt-in" to use any server, wifi, or app. Once you "opt-in" they can use the data. Many of the app features are restricted unless you "opt-in." The difference to the US from a user stand point is you have to keep "opting-in" rather than the default opt-in policy unique to the US and Canada (where we must "opt-out," before we experience app restrictions). The EU rules do not change anything once you "opt-in" (they can use your "opt-in" approved data).

The EU member nations also do not recognize a 5th amendment style right to privacy or 1st amendment right to free speech. EU law enforcement has fewer restrictions preventing their access to recorded app content and telephone conversations like we enjoy here in the USA (although calling apps will quickly equalize the access, unless the US extends the same protections to app communications as enjoyed with telephone communications).

I'm aware of how personal data in the EU is now treated, thats why I made the comment. If i dont opt in, they cant use my data, period but the default is now opted out in the EU vs here.
I'll ask again, where did say I was ok with corp's monitoring my data, emails, phone calls? That is your presumption right, that I'm ok with this?
Millenium Z06 is offline  
Old 05-16-2019, 07:23 PM
  #166  
owebo
CF Senior Member
 
owebo's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2006
Location: Washigton, DC
Posts: 111,021
Received 31 Likes on 27 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11, '16
Default

Originally Posted by Millenium Z06 View Post
He's dumber than a dog turd, dont bother with logic
The conversation is well above your double digit IQ snowflake....
owebo is offline  
Old 05-16-2019, 07:36 PM
  #167  
63 340HP
CF Senior Member
 
63 340HP's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2005
Location: Beach & High Desert Southern California
Posts: 15,673
Received 483 Likes on 293 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Millenium Z06 View Post
I'm aware of how personal data in the EU is now treated, thats why I made the comment. If i dont opt in, they cant use my data, period but the default is now opted out in the EU vs here.
I'll ask again, where did say I was ok with corp's monitoring my data, emails, phone calls? That is your presumption right, that I'm ok with this?

I asked if you are OK with monitoring of app service calls, and you have not provided a direct answer. Do you?
63 340HP is offline  
Old 05-16-2019, 08:51 PM
  #168  
blaforce
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
blaforce's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2011
Location: Bayou Country LA
Posts: 7,052
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
St. Jude Donor '11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17
Default

Originally Posted by shor0814 View Post
Did the public pay for FB? I would agree if my tax dollars went towards FB, if you can show that, then it is the public square.

The free market only works with little or no .gov interference. If you get banned from CF is that the same and do we need federal regulations for all private forums? What are your criteria for redefining private property as a public forum?
Give it up. Owebo is crying like a liberal because he got kicked off a liberal social media site.
blaforce is offline  
Old 05-16-2019, 08:55 PM
  #169  
owebo
CF Senior Member
 
owebo's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2006
Location: Washigton, DC
Posts: 111,021
Received 31 Likes on 27 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11, '16
Default

Originally Posted by blaforce View Post
Give it up. Owebo is crying like a liberal because he got kicked off a liberal social media site.
No, thatís not it at all....

Itís no wonder America is fucked....
owebo is offline  
Old 05-17-2019, 11:04 AM
  #170  
Millenium Z06
CF Senior Member
 
Millenium Z06's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: Frisco TX Pants Shitingly Fast
Posts: 6,932
Received 139 Likes on 122 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 63 340HP View Post
I asked if you are OK with monitoring of app service calls, and you have not provided a direct answer. Do you?
You clearly can't read then
Millenium Z06 is offline  
Old 05-17-2019, 12:41 PM
  #171  
63 340HP
CF Senior Member
 
63 340HP's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2005
Location: Beach & High Desert Southern California
Posts: 15,673
Received 483 Likes on 293 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Millenium Z06 View Post
You clearly can't read then
Apparently I cannot read, and you refuse to clarify.

This thread is not about freedom of the press as much as it is about the erosion of the 1st and 5th amendments as society embraces new communication technology that strips those Rights away from users due to terms of service agreements and private vs.public venue controls. When bulletin boards and blog sited first arrived you could post almost anything and expect it to be 1st amendment protected like the public square. When email technology arrived the documents were assumed to have the same 5th amendment protections as snail mail. With voice chat and telephone patch technology the conversations were assumed to have the same 5th amendment protections as landline telephone. The reason that the public square, snail mail, and telephone communication was constitutionally protected content was because they were essential to to the public to conduct public and private business. Technology has changed what services are essential to the public, and the application of constitutional rights protections must evolve with the technology and public perception of essential services.

A century ago nobody needed a home telephone; telegraph and telegram wire services with compromised privacy handled the communications "just fine."
Fifty years ago nobody needed cell phones; pagers, pay phones, and home phones worked "just fine," and radio telephone patch technology with no privacy was "just fine" too.
Today nobody needs Instagram, Messenger, or Snapchat, cell phones and email are "just fine," and if use of these services compromises privacy that "just fine."

What determines the transition from novelty communication technology with no need for constitutional protections of content, to essential technology where the assumption of privacy is enforced by Law?

Who are we to claim that the billion users of Instagram, Messenger, Snapchat, Skype, (etc.), do not believe the use of these services are essential to everyday life and need privacy protections, just like postal mail, telephone, and the public square bulletin board in past era's, with the same need for constitutional protections of the content (when is the status quo no longer "just fine")?
63 340HP is offline  
Old 05-17-2019, 02:46 PM
  #172  
pdiddy972
CF Senior Member
 
pdiddy972's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2014
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 10,612
Received 353 Likes on 234 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 63 340HP View Post
This thread is not about freedom of the press as much as it is about the erosion of the 1st and 5th amendments as society embraces new communication technology that strips those Rights away from users due to terms of service agreements and private vs.public venue controls. When bulletin boards and blog sited first arrived you could post almost anything and expect it to be 1st amendment protected like the public square.
You have no inherent right to broadcast your opinion using a for-profit company's resources. Walk into your town's physical "public square" and tell everyone in earshot your opinion. You're not entitled to a megaphone.
pdiddy972 is offline  
Old 05-17-2019, 04:34 PM
  #173  
Millenium Z06
CF Senior Member
 
Millenium Z06's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2004
Location: Frisco TX Pants Shitingly Fast
Posts: 6,932
Received 139 Likes on 122 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 63 340HP View Post
Apparently I cannot read, and you refuse to clarify.

This thread is not about freedom of the press as much as it is about the erosion of the 1st and 5th amendments as society embraces new communication technology that strips those Rights away from users due to terms of service agreements and private vs.public venue controls. When bulletin boards and blog sited first arrived you could post almost anything and expect it to be 1st amendment protected like the public square. When email technology arrived the documents were assumed to have the same 5th amendment protections as snail mail. With voice chat and telephone patch technology the conversations were assumed to have the same 5th amendment protections as landline telephone. The reason that the public square, snail mail, and telephone communication was constitutionally protected content was because they were essential to to the public to conduct public and private business. Technology has changed what services are essential to the public, and the application of constitutional rights protections must evolve with the technology and public perception of essential services.

A century ago nobody needed a home telephone; telegraph and telegram wire services with compromised privacy handled the communications "just fine."
Fifty years ago nobody needed cell phones; pagers, pay phones, and home phones worked "just fine," and radio telephone patch technology with no privacy was "just fine" too.
Today nobody needs Instagram, Messenger, or Snapchat, cell phones and email are "just fine," and if use of these services compromises privacy that "just fine."

What determines the transition from novelty communication technology with no need for constitutional protections of content, to essential technology where the assumption of privacy is enforced by Law?

Who are we to claim that the billion users of Instagram, Messenger, Snapchat, Skype, (etc.), do not believe the use of these services are essential to everyday life and need privacy protections, just like postal mail, telephone, and the public square bulletin board in past era's, with the same need for constitutional protections of the content (when is the status quo no longer "just fine")?
Then let me help you out, I detest any privacy intrusions whether it be Local, State, Fed or Corp. No one should be monitoring anything without warrants and probable cause, period.
Clear enough? for the 11th time...


Who are we to claim that the billion users of Instagram, Messenger, Snapchat, Skype, (etc.), do not believe the use of these services are essential to everyday life and need privacy protections, just like postal mail, telephone, and the public square bulletin board in past era's, with the same need for constitutional protections of the content (when is the status quo no longer "just fine")?
Crack and liquor are essential to addicts, are they not?

This thread is not about freedom of the press as much as it is about the erosion of the 1st and 5th amendments as society embraces new communication technology that strips those Rights away from users due to terms of service agreements and private vs.public venue controls.
When bulletin boards and blog sited first arrived you could post almost anything and expect it to be 1st amendment protected like the public square. When email technology arrived the documents were assumed to have the same 5th amendment protections as snail mail.
If your public square is in my yard, I get to say what does and does not happen. Now, If the Fed Govt buys a server and a domain and creates a SM site, then censors users, you then have a valid argument. As long as the "public square" is, in someones opinion FB and on their PRIVATE network, you're dead wrong. If 100MM people dont use FB and believe the public square to be elsewhere, why is your opinion more valid than theirs? What about FB's right to do what they want on their network? What if FB says eff it and shuts the server down, is your public square now gone forever?

Last edited by Millenium Z06; 05-17-2019 at 04:39 PM.
Millenium Z06 is offline  
Old 05-17-2019, 10:20 PM
  #174  
shor0814
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Dec 2008
Location: Spring Creek NV
Posts: 2,854
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Millenium Z06 View Post
If your public square is in my yard, I get to say what does and does not happen. Now, If the Fed Govt buys a server and a domain and creates a SM site, then censors users, you then have a valid argument. As long as the "public square" is, in someones opinion FB and on their PRIVATE network, you're dead wrong. If 100MM people dont use FB and believe the public square to be elsewhere, why is your opinion more valid than theirs? What about FB's right to do what they want on their network? What if FB says eff it and shuts the server down, is your public square now gone forever?
I think you hit on a problem here, when the .gov decides to use FB and Twitter as a place to conduct public business I do think that banned users are being denied access to .gov resources and the limited part of the private square used for public business. The same is also true of .gov page moderators censoring content on a FB or Twatter account. The two options I see are to
1. Not allow .gov to use a private business to conduct public business (just like a public meeting at a venue that has someone banned, it must be opened to any and all at the time of the public meeting)
2. If the .gov refuses #1 they must make arrangements with FB or Twitter to allow a restricted accounts to access their content and interact just like non-banned users. Just like .gov contracts require the public to access private buildings when they house .gov operations.

I think the use of FB and Twitter and encouraging the banning of individuals is a way of circumventing the 1A and there are solutions to prevent this.

As far as the rest of FB and Twitter, their server(s), their TOS.
shor0814 is online now  
 


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: We either have Freedom of the Press or we don't.


Sponsored Ads
Vendor Directory

Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: