SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
There are many ideas which as billed as "privacy" laws but are actually censorship laws.
I want to make it very clear that true privacy is distinct and different from censorship.
Take for example, the "right to be forgotten". This is a "right" which can only be enforced by forced silence of other people. If someone has obtained public information, but is then forced not to share this information with others, that is a form of censorship. Requiring us to be silent about the acts committed by others is not "privacy" but rather a form of censorship.
It is important to distinguish true privacy regulations from this form of censorship. Privacy is about preventing unauthorized breach of confidence or collection of information, not about preventing the exchange of information.
Restrictions on the exchange of information are only permissible in the name of privacy when it is done to remedy an existing privacy breach.
Once information is lawfully made public, without a breach of privacy, making that information "forgotten" is not a protection of privacy, because public information is not a form of confidence. Preventing redisclosure of information which is true thus falls into the category of censorship, not privacy protection.
Privacy violations occur when information disclosure is intercepted by someone other than its intended recipient. Once information is voluntarily disclosed, involuntary restrictions on redisclosure do not comport with the notion of privacy unless that information is held in confidence.
A person who voluntarily distributes information to another in a context without an expectation of confidence has no reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to that information after it has been disclosed voluntarily unless there exists a reasonable expectation of confidence regarding the communication.
All-party consent recording laws are thus infringements upon the right to free speech. They place upon another person a duty of confidence they did not agree to or accept, which can only be dispelled by agreement of another. Stated another way, all party consent laws impose upon information recipients an obligation of silence and censorship which they are not free to dispel, and which they never consented to.
There may perhaps be a particular set of situations where the existence of an implied duty of confidence can be justified. For example, information obtained in the process of conducting regulated business may reasonably be subject to an implied duty of confidence due to compelling purposes such as protecting doctor-patient confidentially. Likewise, the attorney-client relationship also presents such a compelling interest in protecting its confidentiality that it may be assumed that the presumption of confidence would withstand strict scrutiny. It cannot however be said that such a compelling interest exists for every possible communication conducted via telephone.
The presumption of confidentiality created by all party consent laws is not able to withstand strict scrutiny. In contrast, one-party consent laws fairly protect privacy.
In the one-party consent system, any intended recipient can re-disclose information they lawfully received, and only a breach of privacy, namely a disclosure of information to a person who was not authorized to receive it. One party consent, thus, concerns itself not with the speech of the conversation participants, but with the interception of communications. All party consent, on the other hand, regulates both this and also subsequent speech by persons who lawfully received the original information.
Distinguishing a recording of a conversation from a recording of a different conversation is a strictly content-based distinction which requires strict scrutiny.
I do note that restrictions upon the collection of information may be justified under the guise of privacy if they truly regulate involuntary collection of information. First, it goes without saying, but a regulation on the "collection" of information that someone voluntarily furnishes is not a regulation on "collection" but on "redistribution" of information. We cannot escape the fact that restrictions upon redistribution of information lawfully obtained are content-based distinctions on speech. True "collection" restrictions could be better described as restrictions on the manner by which information is obtained.
It stands to reason, that obtaining information which is spoken to you, written on a letter, etc. cannot breach any confidence in the transmission because the transmitter voluntarily and intentionally transmitted the information to you. Thus, only if a secondary confidence applies to you, such as through the doctor-patient or attorney-client relationship, could a breach of privacy occur.
Things get a bit different where computer systems are involved. We can make a reasonable argument, for example, that we do not expect our applications to be collecting sound surreptitiously. We might likewise reasonably not expect the contents of emails we store on a remote server to not escape the confidence of the machines upon which they are stored. But where information is willingly or knowingly transmitted to a human, we cannot reasonably expect it will not be spoken about absent another agreement. Such restrictions on information collection, insofar as they apply to our systems, and our applications, are no more an infringement upon speech than our ordinary assumption that our walls do not listen to our conversations. The government may not restrict the recording of such things per se, but it may at least require informed consent to the collection.
The problem with applying this logic to phone conversations is twofold. While we may have an reasonable assumption that a computer or phone system doesn't disclose information we provide to anyone but the listener at the other device, we cannot so make a reasonable assumption about what happens to the information we transmit after it leaves the other device. To begin with, we cannot know, as a rule of thumb, whether the other device is in speakerphone mode, whether or not others might be listening, or whether or not the recipient of the information might gossip about it to others. A distinction here, between recording and note-taking, is in any case a content based restriction upon the formation of another communication record.
For these reasons we must reject both the idea of "all party consent" and "right to be forgotten" as offensive to the notion of free speech. The right to free speech includes both the "right to record" and the "right to remember".
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday October 17, @04:50AM (50 children)
Perhaps then you will stop trying to claim things that you cannot substantiate. I have stated quite clearly examples of what is being removed. (In the last few days alone he has engaged in personal abuse, doxxing of another community member, repeating comments from previous journals that are nothing at all to do with the current discussion, and various other abuses of the site.)
I can add a few more examples:
Fuck Runaway! Fuck him in his Christian ass!!!
... fuck is going on, and why can't janrinok just Fuck the Shut UP?
Can we have a community vote on whether or not to fuck Runaway in his ass?
And quit protecting Runaway1956! Bring him out, so that we may lynch him, like we used to do with horse thieves back in the day. Or perhaps we might burn him at the stake?
Shut the fuck up, Day of the Dalek! You quit, remember?
You have made it very clear that nothing can be explained to you, and the only response rational people can make is to fuck you in the ass
Are these the comments that you believe should remain in this discussion, or any other? Removing them from view does not equate to fascism. I am well to the left of your own personal politics. You have accepted the site rules by participating here. If you don't like them you can try to get them changed, or you can go elsewhere that agrees with your own particular views. You don't have to stay here but if you do (and you are welcome to do so), the rules apply to you also.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17, @01:33PM (21 children)
The disgusting genocidal racism seems to have been mostly squelched so censoring such dumb comments as you have listed is not a defense of fascism.
For the USA the real solution is to deport all immigrants, starting with the genocidal Republicans. Let the natives have their home back. Or the immigrants (mostly pale skinned) can stop being total fuckwads and embrace the hippy movement which was their only real cultural achievement, minus the irresponsible STD behavior.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday October 17, @02:16PM (10 children)
If they are from the banned user then they will ALL get flagged. I have a lot more information than you do. For example:
There have been 19 spam comments made so far today. Fortunately, 'busy' is a single mouse click either on my phone, tablet or desktop - but don't spoil it for him...
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17, @05:27PM (9 children)
No need to be weird.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday October 17, @06:06PM (8 children)
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17, @10:06PM (3 children)
It was weird to address points I did not bring up.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday October 17, @02:22PM (9 children)
What you say is correct. The entire problem is caused by immigrants to the US - but not the ones being blamed for the current problems.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17, @05:42PM (8 children)
I did try to make that very clear! The ones being blamed are by and large the real blue collar backbone of the US and have done nothing but expand the USA's cultural diversity.
I used to have no problem with conservatives until they started supporting naked fascism. I named the Republicans because that is the current Nazi party, no hyperbole or complaining about that label when the VP is busy defending Young Republicans glorifying Hitler and talking about gassing Jewish people and more. BTW some journalists dug into the group chat and found the youngest one to be 24, so it is not just stupid teens being edgy.
Any conservatives that care to reject the Republican Nazi Party I am happy to consider my fellow neighbors.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday October 17, @05:59PM (7 children)
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17, @06:43PM (6 children)
Not much left to discuss, I hope people choose love over hatred, truth over lies. It is every human's choice. Does not mean we can't be angry, but what we do with our anger. Hoping the USA can avoid falling further down a bad path.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday October 17, @06:56PM (5 children)
Personally, I think it has already gone too far. The courts seem to be powerless and the supremes are already in someone's pocket, - any chance of bringing those judges to justice is laughable. Already there is gerrymandering of polling districts, requirements for personal identity that people of colour are much less likely to have, intimidation of immigrants (legal and otherwise) such that they are unlikely to turn up to vote even if they are entitled and want to, and having protests every couple of weeks which are advertised well in advance means that they do not influence those making the decisions. They don't care.
There are some here who still cannot see it or will not accept it is happening. I wish you all well but that wish does not come with any degree of optimism.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17, @10:03PM (4 children)
Hope springs eternal. Thanks for the well wishes.
I just wish the discussion around fascism wasn't minimized until now. There was a strange pushback even after multiple instances of clear Nazi salutes, like being polite and treating them as Boys Will Be Boys would magically solve the problem. Well now they are masking up, kidnapping and disappearing people. Just posting these comments paints a target on my back. How dare someone call white supremacists that have coopted the government with a willing corporate state be called Nazis?/s Who could have known after those pesky peaceful tourists made a little fuss in the capitol? Glad we waited to be extra sure it was truly a fascist takeover.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday October 18, @12:24AM (3 children)
Fascism CAN be discussed. What is not permitted by the current rules is attacking individual site members for having a view that someone else might disagree with. Everyone is free to express their opinions. It is often easy to see where abuse is beginning - people start using members' usernames rather than replying to a specific comment. At that point the argument is becoming personal.
There are millions of people in America, and many on this site who are perfectly good people but who hold a different opinion to others on this site. The way such discussions have gone in the past has resulted in personal abuse and an attempt to silence the person expressing that opinion. The true value of being free to discuss fascism is that BOTH SIDES of the argument can be heard in an attempt to persuade the other that their views have some merit. It is NOT acceptable to drive people into silence or, worse still, away from the site completely. I do NOT necessarily agree with their point of view - but I will defend their right to express it on this site.
Is it any more acceptable to only allow Christians to express their religion, and forbid the mention of any other? What about atheists and agnostics? Might not they have something valid to say? For example, I do not believe that any religion is necessary for a person to know the difference between right and wrong, nor does having a religious belief automatically give a person that knowledge. We can all see some who claim to be Christians or Muslims or whatever who are clearly doing the opposite of what their religion actually teaches.
The journals are there to enable such discussion. But all too often we can see people being told not to publish some topics in their journal. If you do not like the topic then do not read it. Others might find in interesting and learn something from it. If you go back to the very first discussions about what this site was to become you will see that there was a strong belief that 'nothing is forbidden and any topic can be discussed'. Anyone who does not subscribe to this idea is on the wrong site. Attempts to derail a discussion into discussing something else is very much unwelcome. If someone wants to be able to raise a discussion on a topic then they need to have an account. If they do not wish to have that ability then it is their own choice that is restricting them from doing so.
If someone cannot bear to hear certain points of view expressed then it is they that have the problem, not the person expressing them. Limiting discussion to only one viewpoint is not what this site is about. Such behaviour only creates an echo-chamber.
I have, over the last few years, made various attempts to be more inclusive of Anonymous Cowards. Each time a small number of ACs have spoken for the silent majority and rejected such attempts. This site is not run by ACs, but by those who have accounts and thus have a vote. Many of the ACs that you see posting in the journals are actually account holders who are opting to post as AC. There are very few actual ACs on this site, certainly less than a few percent of our total membership. They cannot be permitted to control what everyone else on this site does or how others must behave.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 19, @11:16AM
You seem insistent on weird off topic discussions about site management. I was referring to the tendency of many people to downplay problems with western cultures when the problem people are of a certain type. I'll leave you to your concerns.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 19, @12:17PM (22 children)
"Think of the children!"
But the children are mostly old men. And they must be protected from the ravaging of the ASCIIs. At least promoting genocide is not illegal, or targeting groups of people for intimidation. Just don't bring up anything they publicly said, that would be illegal!!
Fucking LOL as BLM would say.
I look forward to this very dangerous comment being redacted.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday October 19, @01:12PM (21 children)
What do you mean by illegal? Various governments seem to be promoting genocide or doing very little to prevent it. It doesn't seem that they are constrained by any laws. I am not aware of any law that covers this example. I think you mean not in compliance with the site rules which, of course, only apply to people on this site.
If you phrase it so that it isn't a personal attack on a community member then it is quite acceptable. I have already told you that. If, however, it is directly aimed at a specific person (stated or implied) then it IS a personal attack. It is personal attacks that are against the rules, not discussing what somebody has said. Everybody can express their views - whether you agree with them or not. You can express your views without attacking anyone specifically just because you do not like what they have said or who you think that they voted for. If you have the need to express your feelings more forcibly go outside and pick on somebody to argue with. FAFO.
If you cannot follow simple site rules then you are on the wrong site.
If you wish to go back to being moderated again we can go down that path - it is up to you.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 19, @04:25PM (19 children)
Well I do hope you are capable of following your own rules. Your threat of moderation is a personal attack again off topic. Do the rules not apply to you or something?
A rhetorical question you have answered many times. Have a lovely evening.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday October 19, @05:18PM (18 children)
How can it a personal attack if you are 'anonymous'? I am arguing about what you wrote, not who you are.
But there was someone who has said similar things many times before... Was that, by any chance you, AC?
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday October 19, @05:23PM
Of course, that is also a rhetorical question.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 19, @05:53PM (3 children)
Whether you know who I am or not does not change the nature of your words. I see you are having trouble with personal responsibility and prifessional ethics. I wish you the best of luck resolving these issues and becoming a beacon of enlightenment and justice for all on this site.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 19, @08:13PM (2 children)
Flamebait? Sensitive much? It was a sincere and accurate comment. As usual double standards rule.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 20, @09:44PM (8 children)
But you know who I am, jan, you have the data, the hashtag, the geolocation!
What I wrote, based on who you think I am? You can't have it both ways, janrinok. We are men of the internets, lies do not become us.
An AC never posts and tells, jan. Perhaps you think you know who I am, or more likely you have developed an idée fixe, and you have started to see your Bête noire everywhere, so naturally you fantacize that I are him. "Have you seen the white whale?" Gnawed your leg off, did he?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday October 22, @04:27PM (7 children)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22, @07:44PM (1 child)
I believe the response you're expecting from the parent commenter is something like this:
"Oh now, be honest, janrinok. Spammer to admin, you do prefer it this way, don't you? As it was meant to be. No peace in our time. Once more unto the breach, dear sock puppets."
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday October 30, @01:51AM (3 children)
Haha! Nicely done, nan.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday November 03, @08:51PM (1 child)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸