posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 03:10 PM
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
Not everybody flaunts their private lives to the public. Be careful when using "we". I'm very selective about what I share publicly and am still
even selective about what I share under the guise of restricted privacy settings. I know the majority of my friends are the exact same way but
still, whenever an invasion of privacy comes up as an issue, that particular line always gets tromped out as a supporting argument for the invasion of
privacy. It's a lie and goes outside of common sense as the majority of people tend to tilt towards sharing only those things that garner a.
attention or b. admiration/envy. Gotta keep up with the Jones', you know? Honestly, I've seen a sharp decline in personal posts on things like
Facebook ever since PRISM was uncovered. In a way, I think that a lot of people didn't realize just what they were doing and that hit the hardest.
PRISM dramatically altered the feel, content, and frequency of status updates and personal photos on my feed. Not sure about anybody else's though.
The way to work around being sued is if the individual consents to it. If you willfully consent to having your privacy invaded, say as a condition of
employment, then you have been given the option to deny or affirm the application of such a thing upon you. Contractual agreements are the shield
from lawsuit as long as the details of that contract are met. If you agree to something without duress or fraud being imposed and were not under the
influence of alcohol, then you agreed to it. Such a lawsuit would be dismissed. That is why I bring up the "employers' market". While I agree
that we would normally regard such a thing as being as tasteful as getting implanted with a RFID chip, if such a thing were a condition of employment
and we really needed a job, then what we will do and won't becomes really very grey indeed.