Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
posted by on Sunday February 23 2020, @03:20PM   Printer-friendly
from the anything-not-illegal-is-compulsory dept.

Bleh. Apparently not caring what you do on other sites or even requiring any personal information isn't good enough for the state of Confusion^WCalifornia, so we have a shiny, new, temporary Privacy Policy posted on every page and linked at the top of the nav bar.

If you feel like prettying the language, layout, or whatever up before I get around to it, feel free to do so and submit a pull request.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 24 2020, @11:49PM (5 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <> on Monday February 24 2020, @11:49PM (#962080) Homepage Journal

    That was civil. And truthful. And informative.

    And thanks for showing that you're exactly the disingenuous shithead troll who cares nothing about what he's complaining about that I said you were from the very start. Making one semi-coherent and civil comment might have actually confused someone.

    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -1  
       Offtopic=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Offtopic' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 25 2020, @12:41AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 25 2020, @12:41AM (#962110)

    It would be shocking for you to discuss something without hurling personal attacks in just about every post. Your comment about needing to seek help and being a sick person was exactly that. If you could actually defend your position, you wouldn't need to resort to personal attacks.

    Basic standards of consumer protection are NOT treating everyone like a criminal. Nobody is placing some great burden on you or this site by insisting that you add a bit of text explaining what data you collect and how it's used. The outrage you're expressing is extremely disproportionate to the actual burden of being required to have a privacy policy. This isn't treating everyone like criminals to require you to meet basic minimum standards so users know how their data is being used. By that logic, requiring people to obtain building permits and meet building codes would be treating anyone doing construction like a criminal. Or being required to obtain a concealed carry permit could be construed to treat gun owners who want to carry concealed like criminals. Requiring a privacy policy isn't an unreasonable burden.

    You're conflating maximizing your individual liberties with maintaining a free society. When you maximize the liberties of individuals, you end up with anarchy, not freedom. Some restriction on individual liberty is required in order to have a free society. Laws that restrict individual liberty can reduce the freedom of society or they can protect it, but it depends on the nature of the law. Privacy and data protection laws restrict the liberties of businesses and perhaps of some individuals to increase the privacy for all citizens. In this case, a privacy policy requires that users be able to understand how a website is going to use their data so they can make an informed choice about whether to share their data with the site. It places a very small burden on the website with a likely significant boost to the privacy of everyone and, therefore, their freedom.

    I want a free society, not the anarchy you seek. A small burden on individual liberty is worth it to significantly increase the freedom of society. You have a warped idea that a small burden from government is restricting your freedom but that businesses should be able to do whatever they want. Most corporations act like psychopaths because their sole objective is to maximize profit for shareholders. They're following Milton Friedman's idea that the sole social obligation of a corporation is to maximize profits. It is for this reason that businesses are willing to cut corners with worker safety, user privacy, and the quality of products and services. If you have your way, government won't restrict liberties at all, but we'll end up slaves to big businesses. The society you want is absolutely not a free society. It's anarchy that will end up being ruled by massive corporations.

    I am willing to allow reasonable restrictions to maintain a free society -- free from an authoritarian government but also free from corporate slavery. You, on the other hand, want to kick government out altogether, which will allow corporations the fully unrestricted ability to disregard the interests of users, customers, and workers, all in the name of maximizing profit.

    A small burden to protect free society is worth it. You are NOT being treated like a criminal. What you're after isn't freedom at all. Your individual liberties won't matter when the absence of government gives way to anarchy and corporate slavery.

    Now try responding without personal attacks next time. If you can make your case, you can make it without personal attacks.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 26 2020, @09:44PM (3 children)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <> on Wednesday February 26 2020, @09:44PM (#963130) Homepage Journal

      Yeah, sorry not sorry. I'm not buying it when you started the Privacy Policy topic with attacks and insults. Feel free to take your concern trolling and your tone trolling and shove them both up your ass.

      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @05:03AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @05:03AM (#963324)

        I wish you had discussed the topic instead of posting what you did. Upon reading your post, I've come away thinking you crossed a line. I said nothing in this particular series of comments in this thread about initiating the privacy policy discussion. I said nothing to that effect in this thread. The only reason someone would have been aware of that is by seeing my hashed IP. Connecting me to that original comment is sharing information that is normally only available to administrators.

        At this moment, you haven't posted anything that would directly reveal my IP address or other personal information. I'll grant that. But the fact that you were willing to disclose details only available to administrators like you seems to seriously undermine what you've said about your conviction to defend privacy. When it was convenient for you during an argument, it seems you were willing to violate that conviction. I expected that you would act in good faith and not disclose such information under any circumstances. It appears to me that you chose not to act in good faith and you've violated my trust that this website will honor my privacy.

        I've posted other AC comments that discuss the nature of my employment and where I work to discuss other matters in good faith. I did so with the trust that the administrators of this site would act in good faith and wouldn't provide details about which ACs are posting which comments unless compelled to do so by law. I believe you've violated that trust and violated my privacy. If you were willing to violate the privacy of an AC poster in this instance, it raises serious questions about whether you'd do it again. I'm not sure that I can trust that you wouldn't out ACs again when it suits your purposes.

        I'm far from perfect. I make lots of mistakes. When I'm frustrated with someone or in a heated argument, I've said far too many things that I regret. Part of the reason I post AC is because I don't think people should be judged on the basis of a few things they've said in the past that are stupid. I don't trust people to not dig something up about me in the past and hold it against me long after I've regretted what I've said and tried to learn from my mistake. And yes, I actually do regret some of the things I've said to you, which is why I've tried to address you in a conciliatory tone at times -- something you've repeatedly rejected. And I do apologize to you for the mistakes I've made. I did overreact about you saying that fusta wasn't also posting as AC and I'll admit that. Part of the reason I've replied in a hostile tone to you is because you've adopted the same tone with me in the past when I tried to address you in good faith. But I've always believed that one of the reasons anonymous posting is important is because I don't think people should have to fear that stupid comments they've made in the past will be held against them for a long time. I wish I could trust that my anonymity wouldn't be outed, but now I'm not 100% sure.

        If that's not your intent and I've completely misunderstood what you were saying, please tell me right now. I really want to believe your comments about being willing to even defy a court order to protect user privacy. But this exchange seems to say otherwise. I've tried very hard to word my comment in a way that conveys uncertainty about what I think happened. If you can provide a compelling reason that I misunderstood your comment, I'll take you at your word and drop it. I might even consider going on IRC to try to make amends and clear the air provided that my privacy is respected and we deal in good faith. I really want to believe that SoylentNews respects my privacy, though I'm not confident after your post. Please clarify.

        • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 27 2020, @11:00AM (1 child)

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <> on Thursday February 27 2020, @11:00AM (#963407) Homepage Journal

          Whether you started the topic in this thread or another thread is irrelevant. It's extremely obvious that you don't actually give a shit about it, you're just trolling. Fuck off.

          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @06:38PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27 2020, @06:38PM (#963646)

            I very much care ensuring that my privacy is protected. It's a shame you didn't take my concern seriously enough to even give me a straight answer. I've tried to be conciliatory. I even offered an apology in my comment and reviewed my comment to make sure it expressed uncertainty before posting it. I am still concerned about my privacy based on your behavior. Do I need to ask one of the other admins about my privacy concerns or do you want to give me a straight answer?

            The only person I've really argued with on this site is you. I've occasionally had disagreements with Azuma but those have been more civil on both sides. Otherwise, I can't think of any arguments I've had with anyone on this site. You, however, have a lot of enemies. There's a saying that if you meet an asshole in the morning, you met an asshole. If you meet assholes all day, you're the asshole.