Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Comgen & Dr. Socks' love child
12547 Followers
Who am I again?
859 Followers
AngelWardriver
11953 Followers
Jeff Flowers
18282 Followers
GentlemanGhost542Feb 12, 2012
there is a right to privacy and it should be extended to the internet. to what extend is debatable
10452bghfFeb 13, 2012
no way man privacy is dead...
if we want the RIAA & MPAA to adapt or die
it's only fair to expect the same, no pity
your way of thinking is a dinosaur, it's stone age way it does not work in todays model...with freedom of information, piracy, FB.
the new wisdom is
adapt or disconnect...
http://imgur.com/ueDa8Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The_SovereignFeb 13, 2012
You're absolutely correct.
peppermintpigFeb 13, 2012
If this is a matter of government respecting your privacy, I would not bet on this. Government is going to do what it wants and to hell with the rules that are supposed to prevent it from infringing on your liberty. The lie that everybody chooses to believe is the biggest harm here. We can't assume anything about rights if we expect them to come from the whims of political interest.
You have as much privacy as you can effectively obtain for yourself. From homes to vehicles to the internet, these things are not rights, nor is the 'effective' privacy you obtain from them a right. I'm not trying to tell you that privacy is not important. On the contrary, it's very important in the face of laws that try to chill unpopular speech from being expressed.
I would ask that you challenge the government's legitimacy on every infringement by talking about these issues because it's clear that it is not looking to your interests and alternatives must be found. Remember, the government tried to crack down on encryption when it first came into existence. What do you think is going to happen when people decide that an alternative internet infrastructure is necessary to preserve an open forum on ideas?
stuffradioFeb 13, 2012
There is no "right" to privacy. To have a right, that requires governance. Have you asked the elders of the internet? Anyways, your "right" to privacy is what you do post and what you reveal. That is the only right you have.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
whiteravenFeb 13, 2012
Privacy only exists if you are keeping your actions private. Trafficking over a third party network CAN'T be private. I actually don't see what's debatable... Twitter is in no sense private. If you take precautions to keep Twitter from being able to track you by I.P. address then you can achieve privacy but no one is obligated to just ignore the records they have.
falstaffFeb 12, 2012
Hey Government, might want to check your records on this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McIntyre_v._Ohio_Elections_Commission
Anonymous political speech is protected under the 1st Amendment.
whiteravenFeb 13, 2012
No, it isn't. You are badly misstating the case.
The 1st amendment says you can't be forced to express speech you do not wish to.
Using a third party network means you are freely and voluntarily giving that third party information. If you don't want to give them information, don't use the network.
barackalypseFeb 12, 2012
Encrypted VPN: He may not have the right, but I gave him the ability.
TaliscatFeb 12, 2012
Wonder how that works when the information given isn't necessary true... I know of four people that used Elvis Presley's information to set up gmail, twitter, and second life accounts (to get around the old BS age verification)
Hell I expect the next twitter account they go after will have the personal information of the gov attorney or even the president.
jonahsullivanFeb 12, 2012
uhm, DUH.
in case anyone is enraged or otherwise confused by this please allow me to help you:
THE INTERNET IS A PUBLIC PLACE.
as soon as I click 'post comment' here in a second, i have officially lost control over the content of this little text box i'm typing in. digg can archive this text until the world blows up, print it on bumper stickers and condom wrappers, or stamp it in gold foil, load it up in a tungsten capsule and fire it into the sun.
southsideirishFeb 12, 2012
You are indeed correct. Everyone needs to realize this, once something goes out into the ether it is out in the open for everyone to see. Sure, it might be hard to get, but not imposible. Someone can, and will get it.
FrankLuskaFeb 12, 2012
Yes, but only because you agreed to the T&A of Digg, in which you relinquished your rights to "control" the content. If you write something threatening, Digg is not going claim ownership, it will be yours. No matter what you write and post anywhere, it belongs to you, you have protections and liabilities under the law.
Steal my articles from my site and see if i don't have your site shut down within 24 hours. Yes, it is public, but you have no right to it other than reading it.
Just because i take my car out of the garage and drive it down a public street, i don't relinquish my right to own it.
The internet may be public, but that does not mean you give up all your rights or are immune from liabilities.
jonahsullivanFeb 13, 2012
yes, digg will assume ownership to the extent necessary to provide any information they have to law enforcement if they're asked.
i like that you went to the car analogy. it's apt in a number of ways, imo.
inre your car: you do, in point of fact, potentially forfeit your right to ownership when you operate it on public streets. if you act out in ways which are deemed dangerous or otherwise inappropriate, you may have your vehicle taken from you with no hope of recovering it.
also, you have no guarantee to privacy when you're out driving. anyone could follow you home if they're willing to invest the necessary effort.
FrankLuskaFeb 13, 2012
Depending on state laws, like Texas, you can not get out of your car at a red light just to look inside someone else's car, same at a private parking lot like Walmart. Anything further than looking through the normal line of sight into ones vehicle is illegal.
If you are arrested for driving drunk, and someone in the car with you is not drunk, the officer may allow the other person to drive the car home, if it is impounded, you still own the car unless your forfeit your right to get the car out, if you no longer owned the vehicle, you could never get it back. If forfeited, it does become property of the department that arrested you.
By turning information over to law enforcement does not apply ownership, if it did, Digg would be liable, and not the person who wrote it.
jonahsullivanFeb 13, 2012
using TX as a for-instance: property used in the commission of a felony DUI can be seized on the fourth or subsequent offense, whether there's a sober passenger in the rig or not. many states do this now. also, texas, like a number of other states has laws allowing the government seizure of property determined to have been purchased with the proceeds of criminal activity (drug seizure auctions and such). a number of states will also take your vehicle by legal process if you're caught exceeding the speed limit by more than a certain amount.
we've gone afield with the car analogy though. there's also a tremendous body of legal precedent regarding rightful expectation of privacy and what constitutes public versus private. a person could try to argue it any way they wanted, but the point at which i post text in a public forum on the internet which is out of my control and carries its own terms of service and privacy policies which i've implicitly agreed to, i've assumed the risk that it might be used for any purpose whatsoever. if, on the other hand, i post information to an online property i control, i'm free to attach to it any sort of copyright (or -left) i feel like and pursue the ends of justice if my wishes are disregarded. if, however, i were to use my blog to talk about a murder i'd just committed, i could try defending myself by claiming that the writings were private, but i would not meet with success. =)
FrankLuskaFeb 13, 2012
Agreed.
The_SovereignFeb 13, 2012
Possession is 9/10 of the law.
FrankLuskaFeb 13, 2012
Not always, If i take a snip-it from a news article, say from the Washington Post, and place it on my site, do i own that snip-it?
Fair use laws say i can use it, but i don't own it, even though i possess it.
If i republish the entire article, that's theft and they can easily have my site shut down by filing a DMCA violation notice with the hosting company.
I have and will continue to have sites shut down that steal my content, i even had a fairly large eCommerce site shut down for using my content without permission, and another eCommerce site shut down for using one of my product descriptions.
In my opinion, the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" is the best law passed in the last 50 years.
The_SovereignFeb 13, 2012
I didn't say "10/10".
FrankLuskaFeb 13, 2012
Sorry, was not attacking you, just some people might believe that if they are hold something, it must be theirs.
I should have stated that this was the 1 tenth.
The_SovereignFeb 13, 2012
Well, perspective and reality clash under the banner of this topic all the time. If I buy the lawmakers long enough for them to make changes favourable to me, and then leverage those changes to imprison you for what is only a crime because I paid to make it so, your view that you have a right to freedom would not allow you to pass through the bars of your cell.
Similarly, if I believe that I own the things I buy, and can share or sell the things I own, recent legal history has shown that that won't necessarily stop me from being sued for more money than exists in the global economy.
Morality is what we use to keep the majority from intefering in a fight they cannot understand.
The fact is that you own whatever you can hold on to.
partrowFeb 13, 2012
The feds are also capturing all of your phone calls and other comm traffic.
Be aware.
U_logic_error_broFeb 13, 2012
what you post is public however I believe they are talking about the identity of the poster being private... before the internet there ware books written under pen names to conceal the identity of the writer, there was also a time when journalists did not have to reveal the identity of their sources.... its just they want to take these rights because to many "corrupt" people are getting caught by whistle blowers these days.
diggumsmack83Feb 16, 2012
Sign up under a fake name, use foreign proxy/VPN, problem solved.
whiteravenFeb 13, 2012
I think it would be better to say that speech on Twitter is just not anonymous by it's nature. Twitter knows your I.P... you are as a matter of actual fact NOT anonymous. It would be silly for laws to pretend there was anonymity when it doesn't exist.
To be anonymous you have to refrain from being identified. Now, if you take precautions to use Twitter in an anonymous fashion... moving from place to place using available WiFi connections for example, then you in fact ARE anonymous. But if your postings are consistently associated with a traceable address then anonymity just doesn't exist. Don't make believe it does.
lojackFeb 13, 2012
There's no anonymity in China... uh ... wait a minute...
ageofmasteryFeb 12, 2012
This "columnist", (and I use the term loosely), lost all credibility when they did a column using WND and The Examiner, (yes the spam site) as sources.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
southsideirishFeb 12, 2012
How do you have a right to privacy on Twitter? You are using a party line, and anyone can read it, and anyone can figure out, with technology, who you are. The attorney is right, you have no privacy, or anonymity, it's all out in the open. Nothing that goes out on the internet is private, someone has a copy of it, and can use it against you. Free speech though is a whole different topic.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anomaly100Feb 12, 2012Submitter
I disagree. The hashtag was subpoenaed because public information was tweeted. Again, public information. So, their followers and their financial records, credit cards, etc are subject to the authorities. I call that extreme censorship.
Donuts4UFeb 12, 2012
You're aware that many of your posts, this being social media covering current topics about many government agencies and policies have most likely tripped one flag or another?
I'm not sure it's censorship though. I'm pretty sure full anonymity of twitter, or social media in general would not be best for the Internet too. Which leaves me a bit torn, because I'm very much in favor of a free Internet. It's the lack of responsibility that bothers me. Both in Internet users and the hidden rules the government plays by.
TaliscatFeb 12, 2012
we already have the anonymity due to the fact they cannot prove who is at the computer, the date given on sign up is not verifiable without undo hardship on the sites (that would stifle innovation and hurt more than help)
So what do you do when you get a court order for #HackDaFBI and the personal information on the account is Mickey Mouse, 101 Tinkerbell lane, Orlando FL and what ever zip code it is.. with the phone number being the disney website help line #
Donuts4UFeb 12, 2012
How about being an adult and taking responsibility for what you do? I don't mean that in a sarcastic way, I mean it seriously.
Sure, some people need anonymity, and while very very hard, it's possible to do it. YOUR anonymity so you can "yell fire" on the Internet should not be allowed to jeopardize the anonymity of those who truly need to avoid real and present danger.
TaliscatFeb 12, 2012
You miss the point. They can't take it away, because there is no way to verify that will not kill the internet as a whole.
FrankLuskaFeb 13, 2012
I would talk to an expert about that, don't think they don't have records of what ip's are used to connect to that account, and the phone companies are more than willing to help the government trace it back to whoever setup the account.
The same way they catch stupid hackers. But good hackers will use accounts from all around the world so it's harder to trace. Every computer connected to the net, has a MacD number, a IP number, service IP number, etc...
They can find out where that computer is, they may or may not be able to prove who is using it. There is no privacy on the internet, never has been.
And all the people out there that have sock puppets accounts, Digg knows your doing it. If they could prove only one person had several accounts, instead of a household of people having accounts, you would be cut off in a heartbeat.
anomaly100Feb 13, 2012Submitter
Meh, that's cool with me. All they'll find is a tech-dummy, and they have bigger fish to 'try' to catch.
Donuts4UFeb 13, 2012
Yeah me too on both counts. Been pounding keyboards since '83.
anomaly100Feb 13, 2012Submitter
So have I, actually since the Internetz was born, yet I'm still a tech-dummy. D'oh!
TaliscatFeb 12, 2012
Prove who is at the computer, prove the information supplied is factual.
sbuckley00Feb 13, 2012
You are correct sir. In a court of law this obtained information should be considered Circumstantial. If they were building a case against someone, they would have to prove it was in fact that individual who wrote the comment. Obviously, they gather the information for the purpose of getting leads, in which case they would need to then gather evidence of the crime.
ageofmasteryFeb 13, 2012
@southsideirish
It's not entirely like a party line, you can protect your account so that only people you allow can see your tweets. you can also communicate by DM so only the recipient sees the message.
You are however correct on your other point. Somebody still has a copy of your tweets unless you delete them, (and even then they may have got a screengrab of them or somebody may have retweeted them).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anomaly100Feb 13, 2012Submitter
People can read your DMs if they really want to.