Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Privacy ? Which privacy ?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedPrivacy ? Which privacy ?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
CPicard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 10841 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 01 2011 at 13:02
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I'm sorry, but no. You sort of relinquish your privacy when you tell someone something.


Then, what would be YOUR definition of privacy and/or intimacy? Until what point do you consider some parts of your social life can be shared with thousands of strangers?
Back to Top
toroddfuglesteg View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
Retired

Joined: March 04 2008
Location: Retirement Home
Status: Offline
Points: 3658 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 01 2011 at 13:02

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I'm sorry, but no. You sort of relinquish your privacy when you tell someone something.

Please explain to me what communication and inter personal relationships is. 

Please ! 
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 01 2011 at 13:13
Originally posted by toroddfuglesteg toroddfuglesteg wrote:


Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I'm sorry, but no. You sort of relinquish your privacy when you tell someone something.

Please explain to me what communication and inter personal relationships is. 

Please ! 

This is so inmature. Obviously, inter personal relationships is a lot of people sharing their private matters. And when you use the word SHARING it ceases to be private.

I also think it was very poor taste but that's it. What do you want Torodd, regulation? Some confrol force checking that nobody says more about others than this control force allows? Explain YOUR definition of how you think this privacy that you so long for could be defended.
Back to Top
Negoba View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 01 2011 at 13:28
I get a sense there may be different cultural expectations based on backgrounds here. I don't know that there's any natural rules regarding privacy, just social convention.
 
 
Ownership of information is pretty illusory IMO.
 
 
Someone who is high and mighty enough to think they can lecture another adult about their manners has lost their expectation of kind behavior in return.
 
Which is what most of this is about, people treating each other with kindness and compassion. That's what protects privacy.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Back to Top
toroddfuglesteg View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
Retired

Joined: March 04 2008
Location: Retirement Home
Status: Offline
Points: 3658 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 01 2011 at 13:29

 

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

What do you want Torodd, regulation?

That emails between two persons remains private. That interpersonal relationships remains interpersonal relationships without being a public matter (as long as nobody is breaking the law). To be able to have sex or have a stupid argument without everybody in the public domain knowing the details some time after.  

   

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Some confrol force checking that nobody says more about others than this control force allows?  
 

Absolute not. The cat is already out of the bag/the genie has escaped the bottle. This is like music piracy. Nobody can stop or even regulate it. Neither can we regulate email communication. We can only appeal to the good in the people. But regulations/legislation ? No way. I am totally against that. So the answer to your question is an affirmative no.

For me, this is a matter of moral and to be able to communicate person to person without this communication entering the puclic domain. That according to the road map I have had so far. But the terrain tells me that all confidential emails can now enter the public domain and I am in my right to dislike that. So all my road maps has just been put on a funeral pyre. Burn, burn, burn ! 

 

Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:

 
Someone who is high and mighty enough to think they can lecture another adult about their manners has lost their expectation of kind behavior in return.
 

Being a stupid cow is actually a pretty basic human right. Ditto for being an idiot and a moronic t**t. It is my view that everyone can enjoy these basic human rights (as describe over) without them being held to account in the public domain unless you hold public office or are a public person trading on a false good reputation.

It is off course our human rights to avoid people like that as the plague they are.  



Edited by toroddfuglesteg - July 01 2011 at 13:36
Back to Top
harmonium.ro View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 01 2011 at 13:29
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I'm sorry, but no. You sort of relinquish your privacy when you tell someone something.


This is inconsistent with your position as I understood it from our discussions about cctv. By this logic, if you walk out of your house, you relinquish your privacy when you show yourself - hence videotaping your public appearance wouldn't be violating your privacy, yet you were against it.

IMO discosing the contents of a letter of any kind depends directly on the letter's actual content - if the content was initially intended to be private, then disclosing it without permision is not ok. If I tell someone very personal, for example, I expect it not to hear it again from someone else after some time.
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 01 2011 at 13:49
You cannot assume email is automatically private. You need to have a reasonable agreement with the person you are emailing, not an implied one based on the nature of the medium.
My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 01 2011 at 14:06
Originally posted by Vompatti Vompatti wrote:

In order not to violate anyone's privacy I chose not to read any of the posts in this thread.
Back to Top
The Neck Romancer View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 01 2010
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 10185 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 01 2011 at 14:08
Brian, I think you had to read Vomps' post in order to quote it.
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 01 2011 at 14:08
It's important in this conversation to differentiate between the legal and the ethical.
Back to Top
Negoba View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 01 2011 at 14:30
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

It's important in this conversation to differentiate between the legal and the ethical.
 
Or even just common courtesy. Needless to say, when you berate someone, you're going to get less of that.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 01 2011 at 14:35
Not that the young woman acted with decency, but the old one seems to be the type of person that deserves that treatment.
Back to Top
VanderGraafKommandöh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 01 2011 at 14:37
Yes.  I saw this on the Breakfast News.  She's a middle-class annoying idiot.

You can quote that too, if you like.
Back to Top
toroddfuglesteg View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
Retired

Joined: March 04 2008
Location: Retirement Home
Status: Offline
Points: 3658 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 01 2011 at 15:18

Well, I disagree with the sentiments expessed over. You are allowed to be an idiot in private without this being a matter of public  ridicule. It is called basic human rights.  

    



Edited by toroddfuglesteg - July 01 2011 at 15:26
Back to Top
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 01 2011 at 15:41
If you share a confidence with someone and that trust is betrayed, no amount of Privacy legislation is going to protect you from your own errors of judgement.
Back to Top
Henry Plainview View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 01 2011 at 15:50
Originally posted by harmonium.ro harmonium.ro wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I'm sorry, but no. You sort of relinquish your privacy when you tell someone something.

This is inconsistent with your position as I understood it from our discussions about cctv. By this logic, if you walk out of your house, you relinquish your privacy when you show yourself - hence videotaping your public appearance wouldn't be violating your privacy, yet you were against it.

IMO discosing the contents of a letter of any kind depends directly on the letter's actual content - if the content was initially intended to be private, then disclosing it without permision is not ok. If I tell someone very personal, for example, I expect it not to hear it again from someone else after some time.

I think Pat is against cameras because of the cost and pointlessness of them except for fascism (as I recall, they don't actually reduce crime), not for privacy. I can say that I personally believe that you have no privacy in public and can be videotaped or photographed. This is more or less the law in the US, unless you are a police officer...And people tend to throw a fit because they're irrational if THE CHILDREN are involved. But Pat and I agree that doing it makes her a jerk. We are objecting to this nonsense about violating human rights that torodd is talking about.
if you own a sodastream i hate you
Back to Top
harmonium.ro View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 01 2011 at 15:57
Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

Originally posted by harmonium.ro harmonium.ro wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I'm sorry, but no. You sort of relinquish your privacy when you tell someone something.

This is inconsistent with your position as I understood it from our discussions about cctv. By this logic, if you walk out of your house, you relinquish your privacy when you show yourself - hence videotaping your public appearance wouldn't be violating your privacy, yet you were against it.

IMO discosing the contents of a letter of any kind depends directly on the letter's actual content - if the content was initially intended to be private, then disclosing it without permision is not ok. If I tell someone very personal, for example, I expect it not to hear it again from someone else after some time.

I think Pat is against cameras because of the cost and pointlessness of them except for fascism (as I recall, they don't actually reduce crime), not for privacy. I can say that I personally believe that you have no privacy in public and can be videotaped or photographed. This is more or less the law in the US, unless you are a police officer...And people tend to throw a fit because they're irrational if THE CHILDREN are involved. But Pat and I agree that doing it makes her a jerk. We are objecting to this nonsense about violating human rights that torodd is talking about.


True, I'm with you on all counts.
Back to Top
toroddfuglesteg View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
Retired

Joined: March 04 2008
Location: Retirement Home
Status: Offline
Points: 3658 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 01 2011 at 16:10
 
Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

  We are objecting to this nonsense about violating human rights that torodd is talking about. 


So you have sex and your partner broadcast all details, no skinfold unturned, on the net the day after. That is not a violation of your human rights ? I think so, but I am talking nonsense anyway according to yourself so she/he is free to broadcast this event in emails, forwarded to everyone and on this and other forums. Or alternative; by using hidden web cams. You are welcome to a society like this since you think I speak nonsense. I have my moral standards though & political views. For me; any human beings has their rights to privacy, and that includes email communications. You brand this as nonsense. Well...... Clap




Edited by toroddfuglesteg - July 01 2011 at 16:18
Back to Top
Henry Plainview View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 01 2011 at 16:20
Originally posted by toroddfuglesteg toroddfuglesteg wrote:

So you have sex and your partner broadcast all details, no skinfold unturned, on the net the day after. That is not a violation of your human rights ?

I don't see anything in the UN Declaration of Human rights protecting the details of your sex life, do you? To be honest, I think it trivializes actual human rights abuses that actual people are suffering from right now when you conflate them with something as trivial as sharing an embarrassing email.

Morality has nothing to do with this. Nobody is arguing she did the right thing.
if you own a sodastream i hate you
Back to Top
harmonium.ro View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 01 2011 at 16:25
Funnily enough privacy and reputation actually are mentioned in the declaration of human rights (and in the context of correspondence). I didn't expect this. 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.240 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.