Europe versus Facebook

[happybeing]

@janitor

What a gigantic waste of time this topic is. I give up.

What?? You mean you chose to do all that even though it was a waste of time…sounds stupid no?

[Traktion]

@happybeing

@traktion you are using the same logic the US / UK governments, NSA and GCHQ use to justify mass surveillance.

You have also ignored my points about the right to privacy, and the fact that coercion does not require violence.

Suggesting that it all depends on intent is a very weak defence of what the law, and I suggest, most people, would regard as unacceptable, and intimidating behaviour. I’d like to see how you reacted to being subjected to it.

Governments and their agencies use force take data and/or enforce collection. This is often not public data and is often kept secret by the corporation providing the service (as privacy is a feature).

I didn’t intentionally ignore anything. I don’t agree that anyone has a right to anything, other than ‘negative’ freedoms. That is, the ability to live without others threatening you or taking your stuff.

Privacy is something that you can keep at all times, simply by not haemorrhaging information that is sensitive to you. This is why I am interested in safe net and the encryption technology it brings to the fore. It is also why I don’t blab about my life on Facebook or feel the need to reveal my identity without a purpose.

Whether coercion implies violence or not is an argument over definitions. Any word which best describes someone threatening to aggress against me is fine. Ofc, there are nuances which the courts can define through precedence, as that is their job.

This ultimately comes down to whether you agree with enforcing positive freedoms, using legislation. I take the position that nothing should supersede negative freedoms. If that means people must take more responsibility for their actions, this seems entirely reasonable.

P.s. Apologies for the delay. It has been a busy week.

Edit: typo