Giving up Freedom to Privacy... Willingly!

I came across three news clips today and it once again brings to mind, just how much of our privacy we give up almost on a daily basis. The big problem is, we do it without knowing! Often, we get snuckered into it by something akin to how congress and legislatures sucker people into accepting laws that we know nothing about... On the backs of other laws. In this case, with the aid of cool tools and gadgets, much like spam and viruses tag along with emails and websites.

Live Science:
'Like' or 'Share' Links? You May Be Revealing Personal Info

"By hitting the 'like' button," Burgess said, "you are giving demographic information about yourself to the site."

Untill I read this clip, I had no idea this was taking place, at least not in this way. I knew that FaceBook ads were capable, as well as the game apps that plague a user endlessly. But then... I found this news story shortly after, which goes even farther into the issue of things we use that take advantage of us and our rights...

BBC News:
Facebook sorry over face tagging launch

The social network said that it should have done more to notify members about the global launch.

Its Tag Suggestions feature scans photos and automatically picks out existing friends.

Although users have the option to switch it off, some complained that they were not explicitly asked if they wanted it activated.

Sure, They're sorry... But wait! I left the best of the three for last..

Live Science:
The PC (As We Know It) Is Dead

Yesterday's announcement of Apple's iCloud, which will store content online and synch all of a user's Apple devices wirelessly, is the latest in a series of nails being hammered into the PC coffin. Smart phones and tablets have given rise to a new consumer demand for immediate information at our fingertips, which John Quain, industry expert and longtime technology writer, said has made the desktop computer defunct.

So now, instead of having your own PC in your own private home, you will fal at the mercy of popular demand by having a system that will eventually end up totaly online. How's that for taking away your privacy?!? This way, not only is your personal information, everything you do, browse, like, follow, will be online for any hacker, fed, well... anyone that can and wishes access to your information can have it all right there, anytime, 24/7/365 online. Eventually this seems like it will be the way of the future. Why? Because if this is new tech, eventually all of the old will fall by the wayside as 8086s and 1 meg memory chips has done. By the time this tech hits the shelves, more and more old tech will fade away as it has always done. Your database will be online and there will be no way of keeping it private.

I would also like to add. Just a few nights ago, I noticed an ad in facebook, spam of course.. But the ad was trying to get me to look into a florida vacation. Yet, the picture was a picture of one of my best friends daughter on the beach. Oddly enough that they would steal a friends photo in facebook for the ad, but they actually used one of her on the beach... The ad was a beach vacation getaway. How disturbing!!!


It seems that if our rights cant be trampled one way, a hundred more new ways will come about that, by our own pocketbooks, we will bring it upon ourselves. It's a sad new world indeed.

reply to post by theRhenn


The phrase you are looking for is "Caveat Emptor" - May the buyer beware.

(below is in general and not directed at the op)

People should read the fine print before agreeing to anything. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? I see weird comments all the time across the spectrum of weird, assinine to just plain goofy. Guy kills 3 people because he was driving drunk, and its the cops fault because they pursued him. Kid steals alcohol, gets drunk and dies of alcohol poisoning, its the manufaturers fault. Its like the lady who is taking a bath while having the window over the tub wide open for all to see. When someone glances and sees it, she complains her privacy is being invaded.

This is no different...

You do not have an expectation of privacy in public, and scotus has ruled on that.
You have a restriction on your rights when you enter private property belonging to someone else.

Facebook is not public, but private, and as such they have whats called terms and conditions, just like ATS. If you dont agree with the terms, you arent forced to use the program. You are free to go anywhere else, or come up wiht your own program that suits you.

We really need to get our educational system fixed so people understand their rights, how they work, where they are curtailed, and where they stop. This has nothing to do with the government, and everything to do about personal responsibility and taking the time to understand exactly what it is you are agreeing to.

Its like the cell phones with GPS enabled on them. 99% of the time this feature is used in conjunction with apps on the phone for locations, driving directions etc. Its also in place to make the phones compatible with 911 services. People argue the government illegally tracks people in this manner.

You are under no obligation to use the cell phone. When the contract expires, find another carrier that doesnt permit the actions you find offensive.

In the end, if you still dont think something is right, participate in the system and make changes. It really is as simple as the people doing what the founding fathers envisioned - The people taking part in government at all levels and holding their elected officals accountible.

reply to post by Xcathdra

You do not have an expectation of privacy in public, and scotus has ruled on that. You have a restriction on your rights when you enter private property belonging to someone else.

The unfortunate proclivity to treat Supreme Court rulings as if they are unalterable decrees is all too common in the U.S. these days. The Supreme Court can and does reverse themselves.

For example, in the years 1946–1992, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself in about 130 cases. The U.S. Supreme Court has further explained as follows:

[W]hen convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions.

—Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 665 (1944).

en.wikipedia.org...

Of course, when someone speaks of rights in terms of their "restrictions", it is understandable they would place so much credence in a court ruling made by a court known to reverse itself. There are no restrictions on a right, either you have the right, or you do not. The appearance of any restrictions comes from the misunderstanding of what a right is.

A right is an action that, outside of self defense, defense of others, or property, causes no harm. If a person causes harm without just cause, this is not a right, it is a denial and/or disparagement of another person(s) right(s).

That said, I think you began well with caveat emptor. The buyer should always beware.