Welcome to Slashdot Microsoft The Internet Patents Space Games
 faq
 code
 osdn
 awards
 privacy
 slashNET
 older stuff
 rob's page
 preferences
 submit story
 advertising
 supporters
 past polls
 topics
 about
 jobs
 hof

Sections
5/28
apache
6/12 (10)
askslashdot
6/7
books
6/7
bsd
6/12 (3)
developers
6/10
features
6/7
interviews
1/9
radio
6/11
science
6/11
yro
OSDN
freshmeat
Linux.com
SourceForge
ThinkGeek
Question
 Exchange

NewsForge
SlashCode

'Scott McNealy On Privacy' | Login/Create an Account | Top | 302 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say.
Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:1, Insightful)
by Lover's Arrival, The (Lovers_Arrival_The@americanwicca.com) on Tuesday May 29, @09:42AM EST (#11)
(User #267435 Info)
People in America, I have noticed, seem to think that privacy is some sort of fundamental right, when in fact it is socially constructed. If you look at simple stone age peoples, they do not hanker after privacy - they have no idea what it is. It is a western concept, and one we are forcing on the rest of the world, as we make the thrird world adopt our values.

It seems to me that privacy is only desired by those who have something to hide. Furthermore, everyone pretends to be squeeky clean, which means that we have unrealistic expectations of others.

In the future, privacy will not exist. This will create a more sane society - politicians will not be expected to be perfect, we will have more realistic expectations. We will be able to check up on our prospective spouses, find out everything about them before even meeting. It will be a wonderful way of meeting new people and finding love.

The transparent society that is coming will mark the ascendance of our species. In the beginning we were innocent and naked and had no privacy, like Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, naked but for a fig leave each. Later, with the rise of agriculture, information became power and the notion of privacy as an absolute right was eventually invented (about as absurd as stating that gun ownership is a 'right').

This is not the case. The only rights we can have are truly fundamental - the right to life, for example.

As we evolve forward into our new Eden, where privacy once again will be a silly idea and we can frolic openly and honestly, we must remember the ills that privacy has caused.

Privacy is not a right, it is a manufactured abomination, a cover for the dishonest and unnatural.

--Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
<<The transparent society. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) | Hmm, it does not sound like he is PRO Big Brother by Manitcor (Score:1) >>
Moderation Totals:Flamebait=3, Troll=12, Insightful=7, Interesting=7, Informative=2, Overrated=2, Total=33.
Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:2, Insightful)
by BilldaCat on Tuesday May 29, @09:49AM EST (#22)
(User #19181 Info) http://www.bangable.com
oh boy, here we go.

BilldaCat - http://www.bangable.com -- rate chicks and stuff.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:2, Insightful)
by tweek (john@[nospam].lusis.org) on Tuesday May 29, @09:51AM EST (#26)
(User #18111 Info) http://www.lusis.org/
about as absurd as stating that gun ownership is a 'right'

Not to pick out one point from an otherwise "interesting" point of view, but in the US, bearing arms *IS* a right. At least according to the constitution.


"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!"

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:1, Insightful)
    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @10:48AM EST (#115)
    Yup. Whereas right to live is not a right (aka death penalty). Not that his writing made any sense otherwise either, just nitpicking.

    Fundamentally, there are no "universal" (intrinsic, whatever) human (or animal) rights; only rights a human or animal has are the ones he/she/it can obtain and uphold. This doesn't mean other rights don't exist; they just aren't fundamental and are "granted" by society, that acts as a unit to uphold those rights independent of individuals powers to do so. At least that's the basic idea. Still, it doesn't make these rights any less valuable, weaker or unnatural.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @12:40PM EST (#185)
    Actually the right to bear arms is only given to the standing militia. Since the national guard is the militia in most states, the "right" to bear arms only extends to them.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Wrong (Score:1)
      by peter hoffman on Tuesday May 29, @01:06PM EST (#195)
      (User #2017 Info) http://www.OpenSourcerers.com/

      Actually, the right to bear arms is given to a much larger group.

      Even assuming that the phrase in the Bill of Rights is intended to limit those who are eligible rather than to simply give a reason for the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment (and I think that assumption is false) your statement is false.

      According the the U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 311 the definition of militia is:

      The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

      Title 32, section 313 covers who is eligible for enlistment in the National Guard and who is eligible for appointment as an officer.


      OpenSourcerers
      AuctionNet.Com
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Speak for yourself (Score:1)
        by then, it was nigh on Tuesday May 29, @03:26PM EST (#252)
        (User #455221 Info)

        Even assuming that the phrase in the Bill of Rights is intended to limit those who are eligible rather than to simply give a reason for the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment (and I think that assumption is false) [...]

        Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

        According the the U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 311 the definition of militia is:

        Note that the petitioner carefully neglects to quote the rest of Section 311, which clearly distinguishes between the "organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia" and the "unorganized militia, which consists of all members of the militia not members of the National Guard and the Naval Militia"; the latter, not being "well-regulated", are not included in the Second Amendment's "well-regulated militia".

        The U.S. Code is, of course, trumpted by Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states that "The President shall be commander in chief [...] of the militia of the several states" -- which means that unless you took orders from Bill Clinton last year, you are not a member of the militia.

        Further, under Article I, Section 8, "The Congress shall have power to [...] provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States" -- which, combined with the preceding, strongly indicates that the militia was meant all along to be interpreted as a military body. This is the basis for the Supreme Court rulings cited by the esteemed AC, ruling that the National Guard now fills the role of the constitutional militia.

        [And yes, I'm well aware that the NRA has become quite skilled in tying these rulings in pretzel knots trying to argue that they don't mean what they plainly say...]

        The gun lobby has never won a Supreme Court case based on their interpretation of the Second Amendment.[*] An unbiased observer would conclude from this that the gun lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is wrong.

        [*] And only one federal court case (out of dozens before and since that rejected its misguided lead), which is currently under appeal.
        --
        #/usr/bin/perl
        require 6.0;
        ALL ($your, $base) are Belong("to us");

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          I wouldn't presume to speak for others. (Score:1)
          by peter hoffman on Tuesday May 29, @04:34PM EST (#261)
          (User #2017 Info) http://www.OpenSourcerers.com/

          Actually, since I was careful to include a link to the Section of 311, perhaps I didn't quote it as a space consideration. I notice that you carefully avoided quoting it in its entirety, preferring instead to edit it.

          Paragraph (b) was clearly not required as we are discussing the definition of who is in the militia, not how those people are allocated in the militia.

          Paragraph (b) says:

          The classes of the militia are -
          1. the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
          2. the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. (I.e., the people not listed in the bullet point directly above.)

          Which is simply a statement of how the militia defined in paragraph (a) as:

          The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

          are distributed. There is the organized militia in the form of the National Guard and the Navy and then there is everyone else who qualified under paragraph (a).

          If I say in paragraph (a) that swans are large water fowl that shall be fed corn and then in paragraph (b) I say that swans consist of the white ones and the not white ones, that does not mean that only white swans shall be fed corn.

          You also failed to quote much of Article 1 Section 8 which says:

          To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
          Emphasis mine.

          Since some of the militia are employed in the service of the United States it is clear that some of the militia is not. I.e., some of the militia is organized, receiving paychecks, and being given government issued weapons while some of the militia is not organized, not receiving paychecks, and is providing their own weapons per the 2nd amendment.

          Your argument trying to use the absence of orders from the President fails basic logic. He also did not issue orders to launch ICBMs, that does not that mean they can't be launched.

          In fact, the President does have the power to:

          To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

          So in the event of an insurrection or invasion that was beyond the capability of the organized militia to handle I would expect the President to issue an order for the unorganized militia to step forward.

          The fact that the Supreme court has made certain rulings does not obviate my right to share an alternate interpretation with millions of citizens. The Supreme Court and the the rest of the government (in fact, all governments of free people) operate at the largesse of the citizenry which may revoked at will as demonstrated in 1776.


          OpenSourcerers
          AuctionNet.Com
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re:I wouldn't presume to speak for others. (Score:2)
            by ScuzzMonkey (indigo_67a@(SYNONYMFORSTIMULATE).com) on Tuesday May 29, @06:28PM EST (#274)
            (User #208981 Info)
            And to riff a little further on your point, and get out of the morass of technicalities that you are replying to, one has to ask oneself, if Congress was so clearly given the right in Article I, Section 8 to arm and regulate the militia exclusively as an organized body, then why were the founders so intent on passing the Second Amendment at all? Why pass an amendment to grant the same power that was already assigned in the original document?

            Such an interpretation not only defies logic but also flies in the face of what we know about our founding fathers and their views on government. They were clearly wary of the centralization of power in the hands of the few; guaranteeing ordinary citizens the right to maintain arms was a way of preventing such a thing from happening. People can argue all they want now about how effective that premise is in today's world, but I don't doubt that some of the men who constructed the Constitution and Bill of Rights would, if alive today, be holed up with the Fremen in Montana and trying to lay their hands on rocket launchers and nuclear weapons. The right and the wrong of that position lies elsewhere; but their intent was not to bottle armament up into a federally regulated force, but distribute it amongst the states.
            No relation to Happy Monkey (User #183297)
            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re:I wouldn't presume to speak for others. (Score:1)
            by then, it was nigh on Tuesday May 29, @06:43PM EST (#278)
            (User #455221 Info)

            If I say in paragraph (a) that swans are large water fowl that shall be fed corn and then in paragraph (b) I say that swans consist of the white ones and the not white ones, that does not mean that only white swans shall be fed corn.

            Ooh, very deft slight-of-hand. The deceptive bit in this "analogy" is that the part about being fed corn is not in paragraph (a), but in a completely separate part of the farm rules that refers specifically to white swans. Remember, "unorganized" means not "well-regulated".

            Your argument trying to use the absence of orders from the President fails basic logic. He also did not issue orders to launch ICBMs, that does not that mean they can't be launched.

            I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I phrased that badly, though I'm inclined to read it as willful misinterpretation. Under Article II Section 2, someone who did not recognize Bill Clinton as his commander in chief from 1993 through 2000 was by definition not a member of the militia during that time -- and that description fits a very large majority of the people who called themselves militia members during that time. (And I suspect you knew that was the intent of my argument.)

            So in the event of an insurrection or invasion that was beyond the capability of the organized militia to handle I would expect the President to issue an order for the unorganized militia to step forward.

            The irony of that statement is that, given the behaviour and statements of the self-styled "unorganized militia" to date, it's likely that they would be the source of said insurrection.

            The fact that the Supreme court has made certain rulings does not obviate my right to share an alternate interpretation with millions of citizens.

            The fact that scientists have concluded that the Earth is round does not obviate the Flat Earth Society's right to share an alternate interpretation with millions of citizens either. That doesn't make them any less wrong.

            My point (as, again, I suspect you were aware) is that a group of people who are, I submit, a bit more qualified to interpret the Constitution than you or I have repeatedly and consistently rejected the interpretation of the Constitution that you put forward. To me, at least, that constitutes compelling evidence that your proposed interpretation is almost certainly wrong.
            --
            #/usr/bin/perl
            require 6.0;
            ALL ($your, $base) are Belong("to us");

            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:I wouldn't presume to speak for others. (Score:1)
              by peter hoffman on Tuesday May 29, @07:55PM EST (#284)
              (User #2017 Info) http://www.OpenSourcerers.com/

              The 2nd Amendment says:

              A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

              The definitions of "regulated" in the Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary includes this definition:

              Of troops: Properly disciplined; obs. Rare.

              The definition of people is pretty obvious (OK, perhaps not to the Roe v. Wade debaters but the rest of us can probably find a working definition for our purposes here).

              Therefore, the 2nd Amendment can be paraphrased as "in order to maintain the freedom we have won, we must have an available pool of people who are disciplined in the use of weapons, therefore the people shall be allowed to keep weapons".

              This is very much like the mandatory longbow training in England during the Middle Ages (cite). At that time, longbow practice was mandatory after church on Sundays.

              There is a law that is still on the books in South Carolina that says that every adult male must bring a weapon to church on Sundays. These people are part of the militia being referred to in the Constitution. At the time that law was enacted it seems clear that the average adult male had a weapon available to him.

              The statements that attempt to tar me with the brush of the poorly regarded pseudo-military organizations sensationalized by the media and the brush of the flat earthers are purely red herrings.

              The founding fathers indicated their intentions in more places than just the Constitution.

              • Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference—they deserve a place of honor with all that's good. - George Washington.
              • If the people are armed and the federalists do not know where the arms are, there can never be an oppressive government. - George Washington.
              • The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. - Samuel Adams.
              • The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government. - Thomas Jefferson.
              • No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. - Thomas Jefferson.
              • The people will not understand the importance of the 2nd Amendment until it is too late. - Thomas Jefferson.
              • Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them. - Thomas Paine.
              • I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials. - George Mason.
              • To disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. - George Mason.
              • A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms …To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... - Richard Henry Lee.
              • The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . .(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. - James Madison.
              • What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect t

              Read the rest of this comment...

              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @01:05PM EST (#193)
    yes, and look at how many shootings there are per head of capita compared to say..Australia. Gun ownership may be an American right, but it is an unneeded, stupid one. Hiding behind your constitution won't reduce the amount of school shoots either.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Insightful? (Score:1)
by poot_rootbeer (poot@dork.com) on Tuesday May 29, @09:56AM EST (#36)
(User #188613 Info)
Clearly this is bait. Very well written bait (save for the token gun-ownership button-pushing), but bait nonetheless.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
No problem (Score:4, Insightful)
by Unknown Poltroon (george42@Usspama.net) on Tuesday May 29, @09:57AM EST (#41)
(User #31628 Info)
So when can I stop by to take pictures of you and your girlfriend having sex and mail them to your mom? And paste them up around your office. And can you point out to me where you make your mail publicly available to your neighbors? Id like to read your tax returns. By the way, if you could e-mail me a copy of all your medical records, just cause I'm nosy and want to see what kind of birth control you use. Oh, and I see you’re wiccan. I’m sure your conservative catholic boss and the local born again Christian association would love to have your home address. Ill send them a copy of your medical records also, they’re sure to want to know if you’ve had an abortion because of that case of herpes you caught. I'd call you a troll, but I think you're serious.
Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Here's a clue... (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @11:36AM EST (#155)
    There's always the one who reads the headline, then without bothering to actually read the article, then post a completely moronic message, demonstrating his double-digit IQ.

    Scott doesn't advocate giving up all rights to privacy, you lunatic. He's saying that absolute privacy could be dangerous in critical circumstances. Have you ever heard of Medic-Alert? The bracelets and necklaces that provide critical medical information if you're unconcious? Would you rather die that let a few strangers know that you're allergic to penicillin?

    What about post office wanted posters? Wouldn't you like the FBI to be able to warn you that your new neighbor killed his former 14 neighbors?

    Finally, here's another word for your limited intellectual capacity: perspective.

    bh

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:No problem (Score:1)
    by elflord on Tuesday May 29, @12:34PM EST (#180)
    (User #9269 Info) http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord
    The problem with your reasoning, is that you want him to give up his privacy, but noone else can do the same. You can't have some people with privacy and some people without.

    In a world without privacy, the born-again Christians would be a tad more realistic, indeed, there'd likely be less born-again Christians, because for the most part, their squeaky clean expectations are unrealistic, and they wouldn't be able to maintain the charade.
    --Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:No problem (Score:1)
      by DaBunny (jonmarcus@mediaone.xpinkmeat.com) on Tuesday May 29, @01:45PM EST (#216)
      (User #56964 Info)
      You say that in a world without privacy people would be more accepting. Do you have any way of defending that assertion, or is it just wishful thinking?
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    The Lovers Arrival == troll (Score:2)
    by BeanThere on Tuesday May 29, @02:34PM EST (#240)
    (User #28381 Info)

    He/she's been trolling around slashdot for a while, check out his/her posting history.

    -----
    "if the bible proves the existance of god, then superman comics prove the existance of superman" - Usenet

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Ugh, people, have you not realized yet? (Score:-1, Offtopic)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @09:57AM EST (#42)
This fuckhead is a troll. Every post by TAoaNLA is a troll. Expect it to be, learn this, and never ever moderate this bullshit up. It just points out how obviously retarded moderators are if they haven't even caught on yet.

To recap: The Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival is a troll, all the time, never is there a deviation from this.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Ugh, people, have you not realized yet? (Score:3, Insightful)
    by Bitter Cup O Joe (bittercupojoe@home.SPAMTRAPcom) on Tuesday May 29, @10:06AM EST (#56)
    (User #146008 Info)
    The problem is that trolls, even though they my not realize it, sometimes have good points. And because they usually take the point of view diametrically opposite the average slashdot reader, in order to enrage them, sometimes these points are the one that need to be heard most so that slashdot doesn't become (remain?) just another old boy network.

    "Laws are like sausages: You have much more respect for them if you haven't actually seen how they're made."
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Ugh, people, have you not realized yet? (Score:-1, Offtopic)
      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @10:40AM EST (#109)
      true, however, there are plenty of other posts that raise the same points and questions without being completely trollish, and this retard doesn't need to be encouraged anymore.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Ugh, people, have you not realized yet? (Score:-1, Offtopic)
      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @12:05PM EST (#166)
      Encouraging Trolls, for whatever seemingly good reason, only lowers the signal-to-noise ratio and slashdot and helps turn the site into the spork-infested sewer it has become. I say again, the moderation system is broken and needs to be replaced with a system where known trolls are kicked and their mindless posts deleted.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        OT Re:Ugh, people, have you not realized yet? (Score:0)
        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @06:41PM EST (#277)
        I say again, the moderation system is broken and needs to be replaced with a system where known trolls are kicked and their mindless posts deleted.
        Some guy has a sig that says "Jonathan Swift" is the biggest troll. (Writer of a "modest proposal" saying the English should start eating the irish babies, as they have started doing so already. Find it here). If we started letting moderators kick known trolls entirely, then we would be infringing on the freedom of speech of people who are unpopular in this public forum. Why do you think every time you post you see the Important Stuff "Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)". (bold added) Slashdot editors know the importance of freedom of speech.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:OT Re:Ugh, people, have you not realized yet? (Score:0)
          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 30, @07:17PM EST (#299)
          >Slashdot editors know the importance of freedom of speech.

          I would agree with you except for the fact that Trolls like this "Lover's Arrival" vegitable keep getting moderated up. Obviously the moderators do not know the difference between intelligent but controversial speech and adolescent trolling. I like free speech too, but not when it is abused.

          Oh well, it's not my message board. If you are content to see slashdot descend into the septic tank of sporks, Natalie Portman and goatse.cx posts, all noise and no signal, fine. Don't say you weren't warned. There are plenty of other intelligently-run tech sites out there.

          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Privacy is a right. . . (Score:3, Informative)
by Salgak1 (salgak@earthling.net) on Tuesday May 29, @09:58AM EST (#43)
(User #20136 Info)
. . .at least in the US of A. . .

To quote the Constitution of the United States, 4th Amendment:

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now, I realize that the USA isn't the entire world, but the EU also places a high value on privacy. . .

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    However (Score:3, Informative)
    by wiredog (kitcase at home dot com) on Tuesday May 29, @10:18AM EST (#70)
    (User #43288 Info)
    The Constitution only applies to actions that the government takes towards people and the states. The actions of people towards other people are not restricted by the Constitution. We have a right to privacy in regards to the actions of the government. Not to actions taken by Sun Microsystems.

    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:However (Score:-1, Offtopic)
      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @10:59AM EST (#125)
      No but private property rights are designed to cover much of the rest.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Correct. . . the Constitution limits GOVERNMENT (Score:1)
      by Salgak1 (salgak@earthling.net) on Tuesday May 29, @11:03AM EST (#129)
      (User #20136 Info)
      However, I was responding to the statement that, and I quote:

      Privacy is not a right, it is a manufactured abomination, a cover for the dishonest and unnatural.

      If SUN, as a Corporate Entity, chooses to ignore privacy, which consumers are demanding, then the market will quickly remedy that situation. . .

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:However (Score:2)
      by Auckerman on Tuesday May 29, @11:07AM EST (#134)
      (User #223266 Info)
      "We have a right to privacy in regards to the actions of the government. Not to actions taken by Sun Microsystems"

      Given the fact that how campaigns are financed in the US amounts to nothing more than legalized bribery, where by economicly prosperous companies can buy laws on a whim, I don't see much of a difference between Sun Microsystems (and other assorted companies) and the government of the US.

      Burn Hollywood Burn

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:However (Score:2)
      by NumberSyx on Tuesday May 29, @11:22AM EST (#141)
      (User #130129 Info)

      That however does not mean I should have to give up my ability to prevent corporations from gathering information on me, just because Sun Microsystems wants to make a few extra bucks selling my information to other corporations. If I wish to prevent insurance company from gaining access to my medical records, I should have that right. If I don't want my "Born Again Christian" boss to know that at home I access porn sites, I should be legally protected and he should not have access to that information. Constitutionaly protected or not, it is THE RIGHT THING.


      Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
      -Patti Smith

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Wrong (Score:3, Informative)
    by sjbe on Tuesday May 29, @01:04PM EST (#192)
    (User #173966 Info)
    The Fourth Amendment limits the power of government and only government.

    It does not restrict companies, private citizens, or any other non-governmental group in any way. Unless there are specific laws created by the US government (and in many cases there are) limiting the activities of these groups, they are largely free to collect whatever information they want about you and use it for whatever purpose they like. This being the case, we have a hodge-podge of various laws limiting certain types of behaviour by certain types of groups and companies. But there is no particular rhyme or reason to them since they have been created to deal with individual problems as they arose. The problems that are getting attention here on /. are simply new problems that haven't been dealt with by US law yet either through legislation or judicial review.

    Putting it another way, there is no Constitutionally assured right to privacy in the US except with regard to the government itself. Whether that is a good thing or not, is a separate issue.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Wrong (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @04:43PM EST (#262)
      Good thing too. Otherwise I might have to supply my retirement account / tax ID / savings account / student ID number when I want to renew my ham radio license with the FCC or get a new driver's license from the DMV. Oh, wait...
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:1)
by GungaDan on Tuesday May 29, @09:58AM EST (#44)
(User #195739 Info)
Rights include "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I require privacy to pursue my happinness with a minimum of embarrassment/legal trouble.

Seriously, though, haven't there always been hermits and misanthropes who migrate deep into the woods (or high into the hills) to avoid any unwelcome contact with others? Didn't Siddhartha spend a few years alone in that cave? If he had no right to privacy, who would've been within their right to set up a webcam there?

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:4, Insightful)
by flimflam (jester at macconnect dot com) on Tuesday May 29, @10:00AM EST (#46)
(User #21332 Info)
I probably shouldn't be responding to this obvious troll, but since it got modded up so high...

People in America, I have noticed, seem to think that privacy is some sort of fundamental right, when in fact it is socially constructed.


All rights are socially constructed. That doesn't mean that they aren't real -- they're real as long as we (as a society) continue to value them. The right to privacy is becoming controversial because it is highly valued by a lot of private citizens, but many corporations see it as an outdated concept that's a hindrance to higher profits.

The transparent society that is coming will mark the ascendance of our species. In the beginning we were innocent and naked and had no privacy, like Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, naked but for a fig leave each. Later, with the rise of agriculture, information became power and the notion of privacy as an absolute right was eventually invented (about as absurd as stating that gun ownership is a 'right').


This doesn't really make enough sense to respond to.

Privacy is not a right, it is a manufactured abomination, a cover for the dishonest and unnatural.


This pretty much ruins your troll, unfortunately -- you should have toned down the retoric a bit and someone would have fallen for it.

-- I am always an optimist, but frankly there is no hope. -Hosni Mubarek
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @01:08PM EST (#199)
    oh, a lot of people fell for it!
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:1)
    by Therin (ted@majiq.com) on Tuesday May 29, @01:34PM EST (#209)
    (User #22398 Info)
    Privacy became a US constitutional level issue with the Roe v. Wade decision. That's where an imputed right of privacy was originally made up. So whether you think Roe v. Wade was an abomination or a cause for celebration, that's where US constitutional privacy guarantees come from - the justices claimed it was "implicit", and their decision made it explicit (unless it's overturned some day).
    No matter where you go, there you are
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:1)
    by Rakarra (rakNarraO@SpacbPellA.Mnet) on Tuesday May 29, @04:09PM EST (#258)
    (User #112805 Info)
    The transparent society that is coming will mark the ascendance of our species. In the beginning we were innocent and naked and had no privacy, like Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, naked but for a fig leave each. Later, with the rise of agriculture, information became power and the notion of privacy as an absolute right was eventually invented (about as absurd as stating that gun ownership is a 'right').

    This doesn't really make enough sense to respond to.

    Not to mention the poster contradicted himself/herself. If Adam and Eve had no need for privacy, why did they need "fig leaves?"


    Take the NOSPAM out of my address if you're responding by mail..

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:1, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @10:04AM EST (#50)
You may be correct in saying that privacy is a socially constructed right, though I can imagine a few arguments to the contrary (along the lines of "no peeking in my cave").

Your predictions about a future "sane," privacy-free society, however, are ludicrous. We already have (had) an example of that society. It was called Soviet Russia. If you sincerely believe that it is possible to have any sort of sane existence in such a society, I highly recommend that you go live in one for a while. Unfortunately the Soviet Empire no longer exists in quite that form, but there are a few other places that are close: China, possibly Cuba, and several others. Go read Arthur Koestler's "Darkness At Noon," then think about it for a while. Unless you have firsthand experience with the logical extremes to which your ideas lead, I would consider your post an ultra-naive troll at best.

And before you flame off a response, I was born in Russia and immigrated to the U.S. twenty years ago, so I have a pretty good idea of how things really work in both places.

-HR

p.s. You may also want to think about the fact that if the situation were reversed, i.e. you lived in a place which had no privacy, and you publicly and severely criticized several of the fundamental principles of that place as you've done here, you could very well be tracked down and hauled off to prison for your post. {sarcasm} On the other hand, I'd never have to hear from you again, so maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing after all... {/sarcasm}

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @10:05AM EST (#52)
Privacy is not a right, it is a manufactured abomination, a cover for the dishonest and unnatural.

No, you're thinking of Windows.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:1)
by kalleanka2 on Tuesday May 29, @10:06AM EST (#54)
(User #318385 Info)
I don't agree with your statement that privacy should not exist; I think some privacy is a right.

However, I don't think that the possibility to be anonymous is good either. You shouldn't be able to write threats, harass people or committing crimes online under anonymous accounts.

A bit less anonymity online would be a good thing.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:2)
    by Flower on Tuesday May 29, @11:30AM EST (#147)
    (User #31351 Info)
    But the ability to let people know that faction X is committing genocide on on faction Y without getting your tounge ripped out and stuffed in your shirt pocket is a good thing.

    Anonymity isn't the problem. It's the immature dolts who abuse it that are.


    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Privacy is a right (Score:2)
by Wyatt Earp (wyatt@nospame.aracnet.com) on Tuesday May 29, @10:06AM EST (#55)
(User #1029 Info) http://www.bloodshed.org
Privacy is a right, privacy along goes hand in hand with Liberty, and Liberty is protected in the Constitution of the United States numerous times.

Had there been no Privacy, there could have been no Revolt against the United Kingdom in 1775.

As for the ownership of Firearms, yes, that too is a right, laid out in the Constitution of the United States as well. Any right held by a Democratic-Republic, even your right to life, has been "invented", most of them invented in the last 300 years. Like the right to vote, the right to own land, the right for women to vote, the right for women not to be bought and sold like livestock, the right not to be enslaved.

If you look upon the Bible for your basic rights, like in Genesis for example, you will not find many rights at all. Was there a right to life? No, there was not. Was there even freedom of worship? No, there was not.

While The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance, Liberty also must include Privacy, for every absolute government is at heart a tyranny, and only through privacy can the people avoid being ruled by a tyranny.

Ad Astra Per Aspera "A Rough Road Leads to the Stars"
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:2)
by cavemanf16 (cavemanf16@yahoo.NOSPAM.com) on Tuesday May 29, @10:07AM EST (#57)
(User #303184 Info)
I can't believe people modded this up to +5 at one point?! First off, let me reply to this statement you made:

In the beginning we were innocent and naked and had no privacy, like Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, naked but for a fig leave each.

If you had actually recounted this Biblical story correctly, you would have known that Adam and Eve were completely naked (no coverings what-so-ever) until they were tempted by Satan, the Devil, the Evil One, Lucifer (whatever you want to call him), and then they sinned by eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil which God told them not to do. He wanted them to not have to know what evil was. It was at this point, when they gained knowledge of good AND evil (before that they only knew good according to the Biblical story), that they realized they were completely naked, became ashamed, and covered themselves with the 'fig leaves', partly because they knew they had done that which God told them not to, hence, they were ashamed.

You are right in saying that privacy is not a right. So why do we want it? Because we all DO have something to hide, because we've ALL made mistakes and are ashamed of them. Or at the very least, we're pretty good, and we don't want other people (like Credit Agencies) making mistakes with our data and ruining our lives.

And as to your other statement: (about as absurd as stating that gun ownership is a 'right').

Of course it's not a right! It's written into the Constitution as a priveledge of our freedom in this country. It's a responsibility to use a gun or firearm properly, and unfortunately, too many people, like you apparently, think that the majority of people who own a gun just don't need it. Tell that to the little old ladies, moms, and dads of this nation who want to protect their families, and themselves, from violent drug addicts trying to rob their homes in the middle of the night.

"Nangi namaj perez, Pray Naked." - 77's

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @10:29AM EST (#90)
    If you had actually recounted this Biblical story correctly, you would have known that Adam and Eve were completely naked (no coverings what-so-ever) until they were tempted by Satan, the Devil, the Evil One, Lucifer (whatever you want to call him)

    I prefer using the name Bill Gates to describe the personification of ultimate evil.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:1)
by ffsnjb (jrb4838@SPAMFREE.rit.edu) on Tuesday May 29, @10:07AM EST (#59)
(User #238634 Info) http://mrnutty.yclan.net
The constitution gives us rights so the government can not strip us of them, although constituents are losing their grip on the ability to keep the government from circumventing the right to our rights.

As far as my second amendment rights to bear arms are concerned, yes, I have that right. That right is slowly being stripped. But it's also backed by the right to property. The reason you we're able to post your comment is because of your right to private property. As far as the constitution is concerned, the government can not take away my property, and since MY guns are MY property, they will not get them, no matter how hard they try. If the US existed by your logic, you wouldn't have posted your opinion because there would be nothing for you to post it with.

Just a note, I am a NRA Life Member, and damn proud of it.

"I love my computer, you never ask for more. You can be a princess, or you can be my whore." - Bad Religion
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    You can't take it! It's my PRIVATE PROPERTY! (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @10:49AM EST (#117)
    Private property can easily be confiscated in the US. New York routinely confiscates the cars of DUI offenders and the Feds seize the entire estate of people involved in drug crimes. The only way I can see you holding on to your guns for a little while longer when they come to seize them is to duke it out with a SWAT team. Oh and btw... and also to sort of get back to the subject.. Since you're a NRA life member and so darn proud of it, they'll just subpoena the NRA membership roster and then they'll know exactly where to look for weapons.

    According to your logic I could just turn around and say, "Well officer, you're right you just caught me in the posession of a controlled substance. But you can't take it because it's MY PRIVATE PROPERTY and I will consume it right now in front of you so you wont have any evidence in court." and the officer of course then says, "Yes sir! It's your PRIVATE PROPERTY, sir, and you may do with it as you choose. Seeing that none of the controlled substance is left I apologize for having bothered you, Sir. Have a nice day, Sir"
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Let's not get in the gun debate again... (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @10:52AM EST (#120)
    People have been arguing about guns for years. It seems to flare up quite often when talking about government or the constitution. Here is my arguement:

    Guns work by propelling a lead bullet at supersonic speeds. This can only cause harm to something, whether it be a tree or a human being. Therefore, guns are bad.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Let's not get in the gun debate again... (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @11:23AM EST (#142)
      "Guns work by propelling a lead bullet at supersonic speeds. This can only cause harm to something, whether it be a tree or a human being. Therefore, guns are bad."

      The barbarisms of society go much deeper than the weapons used to express that barbarism. Who needs a gun, when you have a machete? Oh yes, it is possible for millions to be killed in machete battles, even during these enlightened times.

      I think the people who falsely believe they are civilized are the most dangerous. How does one determine that they aren't some type of animal?

      When ones' feet aren't hindered by the force of gravity, and other mortal constraints.

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Let's not get in the gun debate again... (Score:1)
      by peter hoffman on Tuesday May 29, @01:40PM EST (#212)
      (User #2017 Info) http://www.OpenSourcerers.com/

      Guns work by propelling a lead bullet at supersonic speeds. This can only cause harm to something, whether it be a tree or a human being. Therefore, guns are good.

      Hmm, we seem to have some disagreement about the definitions of bad and good.


      OpenSourcerers
      AuctionNet.Com
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @10:57AM EST (#122)
    The government can take your property from you under a great variety of circumstances, from emminant domain, to civil forfeiture. The former has been used to take peoples' property to build a parking lot for a "mall necessary for urban renewal". In the case of the latter, there's virtually no due process, you don't have to be charged, let alone convicted, of a crime, and the "legal case" against your property is in civil court, so it's up to you to hire a lawyer to regain your property, even if you can't afford one. Generally the government agency making the seizure gets to keep at least a portion of the proceeds.

    All of this may be against your view of what the constitution stands for, but it's the way things are right now. It doesn't seem likely they'll change any time soon.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Ah good, I'll be installing some cameras (Score:0, Redundant)
by Vicegrip (jrSpetit@hotPmailA.cMom) on Tuesday May 29, @10:08AM EST (#60)
(User #82853 Info)
into your bedroom and house over the next few days. I'm sure you won't mind the thought police scouring your house as well for any politically incorrect material. You've done nothing wrong of course, so you have nothing to worry about.

Later in the day, a representative of the Ministry of Proper Thought will be approaching you for you to fill out a questionaire on all your tastes and preferences-- remember, making false statements on those forms is a criminal offence now.

We've retrieved all your medical records, and whilst you'll be unhappy to know you are now inelligible for medical insurance of any kind, the new government has allocated a death insurance for you that will be allocated upon your death to defray funeral costs.

We here in the new government are very pleased with your forward looking attitude on privacy. Hopefully your insightful views will convince others that they truly do not need privacy.

Indeed, privacy is the whim of criminals who have something to hide. This cannot stand!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:3, Insightful)
by CrackElf on Tuesday May 29, @10:19AM EST (#74)
(User #318113 Info)
People in America, I have noticed, seem to think that privacy is some sort of fundamental right

And of course, no one in Europe or anywhere else for that matter desire privacy.

Information is power. Information can be used for good. It can also be used for malicious purposes. The question is who do you trust with that power. I do not trust the corporations. Nor do I trust the government.

Since the advent of society, the communication allowed people to disagree. With that came judgment and persecution. While I do not believe that the things that I do are immoral, someone else may. I should not have to suffer under their persecution. Just as you should not have to suffer for being (whatever you are), I should not have to suffer for being a left wing non-religious type. Yet, that is not the way of the world, as people wage their wars of prejudice and try to make other people bend to their will. If my boss found out that I am not a Christian, he might fire me (his being a right wing conservative Christian type who believes that those that think differently than him should be destroyed).

This is not right according to my morals. According to my moral code, a person should be judged on how they do their job ... not what creed, nationality, sex, or race they belong to... acording to my moral code, it is none of his business what my religion is.

Perhaps if there were better ways of preserving a persons right to, say, worship whatever god they wanted to ... and if everyone agreed to a single moral code, it might be possible to say that privacy is not needed... But I have yet to meet even two people that agree 100% on morality.

The ills that Christians (and yes, it was a religious as well as political party) did to Jewish People during the 2nd world war could have been prevented if the government did not know who the Jewish People were. The lack of this 'silly idea' has cost lives.

I agree that back in the stone age there was no privacy. I also agree that privacy is a social construct. But, so is religion, as religion is an organization. So are words. So are numbers. Everything used to communicate can be categorized as a social construct (and therefor unnatural). If you want to go and live without running water, toilet paper, computers, books (including your bible), and the ability to communicate around the globe ... you go right ahead. As for anyone that lives in this social structure, there are real issues to address. Such as privacy.

      -CrackElf

"Blake is an idealist, Jenna. He cannot afford to think." - Kerr Avon, Star One, Blakes 7
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @10:20AM EST (#75)
I remember the utopia presented in Orwell's 1984 in which privacy was a silly idea. I also remember how everyone in the book was frolicing openly because they were so free from the ills caused by privacy. I also remember how in Gattaca everyone was free to be who they wished to be once their DNA sequence was known and accessible by all.

Privacy is not a right, it is a manufactured abomination, a cover for the dishonest and unnatural.

So when can I watch the 24/7 webcam of your life. When can I buy it on video and DVD (w/ multiple angles)? When can I watch you get it on with the man/woman/animal/electrical appliance of your choice? When can I look at your medical records and deny you employment because your family has a history of heart disease and you could go at any second or at the very least raise the company's insurance premiums?

I have the right to anonymity. I have the right to privacy. If I choose not to make my whole life known that is my perogative - no one else can make that decision for me. You and Scott McNealy should remove your rose colored glasses.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:2)
by tregoweth on Tuesday May 29, @10:20AM EST (#77)
(User #13591 Info) http://www.tregoweth.com/
Then what is your real name, Lovers_Arrival_The at americanwicca.com?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @10:22AM EST (#83)
I for one can't wait to see you frolicking naked in your webcam (with or without fig leaf...) ;)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:1, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @10:31AM EST (#94)
Every human right is socially constructed. The right to life is not "fundamental"--what would that even mean?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:2)
by Platinum Dragon (mbSialPkowsAkiM@home.com) on Tuesday May 29, @10:32AM EST (#98)
(User #34829 Info) http://platdragon.cjb.net
Privacy is not a right, it is a manufactured abomination, a cover for the dishonest and unnatural.

In that case, please give me your name, home address, and phone number.

Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @10:37AM EST (#103)
The only rights we can have are truly fundamental...

You are correct that privacy is not a "right". However, the entire concept of "rights" of any sort is false. All anyone has, or has ever had, is what they have been able to successfully to defend. This is true for all living things, not just people.

The set of things commonly referred to as "human rights" or "fundamental rights" is simply a common subset of our desires.

Since "rights" are just the things you can successfully defend, and there will always be people who will resort to violence, one of the first things to defend is one's defensive capabilities, i.e. guns.


[ Reply to This | Parent ]
The world is getting smaller (Score:1)
by bug1 on Tuesday May 29, @10:38AM EST (#104)
(User #96678 Info)
"If you look at simple stone age peoples, they do not hanker after privacy - they have no idea what it is"

Stone age people didnt have 10 million people living in one village, or the ability to instantly communicate with one of hundreds of millions of people at will.

Stonage people had great privacy, nobody outside the small tribe would know much at all about them.

As comminications and transport technologies become greater the world effectively becomes smaller, bringing more people into our influence.
Its only natural that people will want to protect there own private space from "outsiders".
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Privacy be some dyin' concept. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @10:42AM EST (#110)
Sucka's in America, I have noticed, seem t' think dat privacy be some kinda'
radical fundamental right, when in fact it be social-like constructed. If yo'
ass peek at simple stone age sucka'ss, they do not hanka' afta' privacy - they
have no brainstorm whut it be. It be some western concept, an' one we be
forcin' on da rest o' da damn world, as we make da damn thrird world adopt our
values. It seems t' me dat privacy be only desired by dose-dair who have sump'n
t' hide. Furthermo', everyone pretends t' be squeeky clain, which mains dat we
have unrealistic 'espectashuns o' otha's.

In da future, privacy aint gonna 'esist. Dis will create some mo' sane society
- baby-kissa's aint gonna be 'espected t' be puh'fect, we got'ta mo' realistic
'espectashuns. We will be able t' check down on our prospective spouses, find
out everythin' about them b4 even meetin'. It will be some wonderful way o'
meetin' fresh sucka's an' findin' love.

Da transparent society dat be comin' will mark da ascendance o' our species. In
da beginnin' we wuz innocent an' naked an' had no privacy, likes Adam an' Eve
in da garden o' Eden, naked but 4 some fig laive aich. Lata', wit' da damn rise
o' agriculture, 4-1-1 became powa' an' da damn noshun o' privacy as some
absolute right wuz eventual-like invented (down low, about as absurd as statin'
dat heat ownership be some 'right').

Dis aint da damn case. Da only rights we kin have be truly fundamental - da
right t' life, 4 'esample.

As we evolve forward into our fresh Eden, where privacy once again will be some
silly brainstorm an' we kin frolic open-like an' honest-like, we gots'ta
rememba' da ills dat privacy has caused.

Privacy aint some right, it be some manufactured abominashun, some cova' 4 da
dishonest an' unnatural.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Apologies (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @10:42AM EST (#111)
Sorry 'bout this folks. I forgot to give Bob his daily dose of Numb-me-down, and this is what happens. If above looked incoherent foolish rant, please try to understand. He'll be just fine in a second.

Move on, nothing to see here.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:1)
by jay42 on Tuesday May 29, @10:58AM EST (#124)
(User #413000 Info)
Privacy is not a right, it is a manufactured abomination, a cover for the dishonest and unnatural.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads :

Article 12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.

This declaration is supposed to be our ideal as a responsible society. Now of course you might want to disagree, but remember that "the disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts" as the declaration reads in the preamble.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:1)
by perlyking on Tuesday May 29, @11:01AM EST (#127)
(User #198166 Info) http://www.tarbard.co.uk
I wish moderators would spot trolls, come on the post doesnt even make sense in itself.
If you look at simple stone age peoples, they do not hanker after privacy - they have no idea what it is. It is a western concept, and one we are forcing on the rest of the world, as we make the thrird world adopt our values.

It doesnt even makes sense - you cant look at stone age people because nobody knows if they liked privacy or not. Privacy a western concept - pure crap, if anything eastern cultures are MORE interested in privacy. The whole post doesnt make any sense

The irony is I used my mod points up this morning or I would have given a -1 troll instead of getting steamed up :-)
--
"There ought to be limits to freedom."
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @12:14PM EST (#168)
    There ARE numerous stone-age societies around the world TODAY. Sociologists study them, and discover that these societies really DON'T value privacy! Don't mistake east vs. west for level of sophistication.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Once again--why is this tampon allowed to post? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @11:19AM EST (#139)
Everything this moron posts is either a troll or flaimbait or both. He's the same idiot that posts the same sort of crap over at plastic.com under the name "montoyathelawyer." All he and his goatse.cx-link-posting spork ilk do is lower the signal to noise ratio here on slashdot! SO STOP MODDING HIM UP!! It's quite clear that the moderation system here is broken and needs to be replaced by a system when known trolls such as this "Lover's Arrival" character are simply banned and the garbage they post deleted.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Fascist. (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @08:00PM EST (#286)
    It's amazing how people who spend half their time decrying censorship of the internent will do a complete about face when someone repeatedly makes them look like an idiot. "No censorship unless it's that guy who makes me feel like a total dupe, in which case, ban him." Think about what you're saying, hypocrite.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Troll-lover. (Score:-1, Offtopic)
      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 30, @07:26PM EST (#300)
      Um, what are you talking about? I've never decried censorship of the internet in any of my posts. I bet you didn't even read what I wrote. Now who's the idiot? But hey, if you want to see slahdot become all noise and no signal due to your fellow morons like "Lover's Arrival" and the goatse.cx posters then more power to you. Just don't bitch when you find you like the result less then you thought you would. Anarchy in real life isn't really all that much fun after all, is it?
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:2)
by dillon_rinker (dillonunderscorerinkerathotmaildotcom) on Tuesday May 29, @11:25AM EST (#145)
(User #17944 Info) http://slashdot.org
What a great troll!!

The only rights we can have are truly fundamental - the right to life, for example.
As Heinlein pointed out, there is no such right.

Privacy is not a right, it is a manufactured abomination, a cover for the dishonest and unnatural.
Clothing is the most immediate practical example of privacy-protecting technology. Do you practice what you preach?

:)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Damn dirty wiccans (Score:0)
by Marcos the Jackle (anubis@dc.net) on Tuesday May 29, @11:54AM EST (#161)
(User #7778 Info)
I think we should burn wiccans.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:1)
by Torg on Tuesday May 29, @12:26PM EST (#177)
(User #59213 Info)
Privacy is about protection. Privace is about not allowing people to prey on others.

Would you like an amulance driver to know your medical record?
How about your prospective boss when he goes to hire you?

Would you like to have a web site offer you choices based upon past purchases?
How about if they sell that to every spam vendor an his brother?

Do you run your network without a firewall?
Do you park your car with the keys still in it?
If you trust everyone with your personal information why then do you protect it?

Yes privacy is also a part of security. You need privacy. You want privacy.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:1)
    by Ageless on Tuesday May 29, @02:02PM EST (#227)
    (User #10680 Info) http://www.vonnieda.org
    >Would you like an amulance driver to know your medical record?
    Of course.

    >How about your prospective boss when he goes to hire you?
    Sure, why not?

    >Would you like to have a web site offer you choices based upon past purchases?
    Yep

    >How about if they sell that to every spam vendor an his brother?
    If they mention that on the web site as a condition of the service, and I still want that service, sure.

    >Do you run your network without a firewall?
    No, but not because I don't want people reading my email. I do it because some people are malicious and would destroy my data.

    >Do you park your car with the keys still in it?
    Nope, see above. I don't care if someone climbs in my car, looks around, listens to my CDs and reads my insurance and registration, but I want it to be there when I come back.

    >If you trust everyone with your personal information why then do you protect it?
    There is a difference between someone knowing something about me and stealing my car. If you don't realize that... then I just wasted time responding to a troll.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Thing I love about Flamebait... (Score:2, Insightful)
by Pollux (splien/at/gloria/.cord/.edu) on Tuesday May 29, @01:31PM EST (#208)
(User #102520 Info)
...is it always makes for good conversation.

Alright, so let's disect this pig.

It seems to me that privacy is only desired by those who have something to hide. Furthermore, everyone pretends to be squeeky clean, which means that we have unrealistic expectations of others.

Close, but no cigar. You are half-right, that many want privacy to hide who they really are or what they might have done, but there's the other half: people want privacy so that others don't assume they have something to hide, and what it might be.

Classic example: how much should your insurance company know about you. We've argued it to the death, and everyone already has their opinions on it, but say they knew that your were genetically predisposed to heart failure. Would you like it if they assumed that you would have heart failure and that your premiums would cost $200 more per month than the Joe Smoe next door? It isn't something to hide, because it hasn't happened yet -- there is no guarantee that it will happen.

Better example: Just by looking at your e-mail address, I see that it belongs to americanwicca.com. Perhaps I should assume that you are a wiccan, and/or practice it on a regular basis. Perhaps you like to practice witchcraft...cast spells on people you don't like...sacrifice goats in your basement...do that voodoo that you do. What if you happen to send me a resume for a job offering and I see your e-mail address on it and jump to these conclusions? Yes, I know that Wiccan and Witchcraft and Voodoo are entirely separate practices, but who says that everyone does? Your personal knowledge of who you are does not stop the prejudice of others.

In the future, privacy will not exist. This will create a more sane society - politicians will not be expected to be perfect, we will have more realistic expectations. We will be able to check up on our prospective spouses, find out everything about them before even meeting. It will be a wonderful way of meeting new people and finding love.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Realistic expectations? Listen, ever since George Washington took office, people have been trying to follow his standard for serving their country. Check out prospective spouses? Who is going to want to marry you if you already know who they are, what they like to do, what they've done in the past, and who they've slept with (the fun in dating is finding that stuff out...well, except for who they've slept with)! That's not the way you find love! (would you like it if I assumed that you don't date much since you made that statement, or would you rather keep that private, hmm?)

I have noticed, seem to think that privacy is some sort of fundamental right, when in fact it is socially constructed...The only rights we can have are truly fundamental - the right to life, for example.

This is completely twisted. You're saying that the right to privacy is socially constructed (which you're right), but say that the right to life is fundamental. I'm afraid that both of those "rights" are socially defined. There was no right to life in periods of war, dictatorships, anarchies.

You presume we have a right to life because it is defined in our society. And it is, through the Declaration of Independence. But so is the right to privacy, in the 14th amendment (and Roe vs. Wade).

The problem with the right to privacy is that it has never been solidly defined. President Bush may support Roe vs. Wade in defending a woman's right to privacy, but he stands up for businesses in their continuing "economic progress," even though it's business that's really hacking away at privacy issues. Everyone sees this right in their own sense, but because everyone looks at it differently, there's no way that we are going to be able to defend it unless we know what territory to defend.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 29, @03:08PM EST (#248)
Moderation Totals:Flamebait=3, Troll=11, Insightful=6, Interesting=7, Informative=2, Overrated=2, Total=31.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 30, @05:17PM EST (#298)
Didn't eve get three fig leaves to protect her privates?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Privacy is a dying concept. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 31, @07:37AM EST (#301)
If you truly are Wiccan, I would think you would have learned from the trouble your "sisters" had a few years ago in Salem. Any information that can be used against you eventually will be. As far as rights go, our right to privacy is directly connected to our right to life. Look to the Jews under Hitler, or (again) the Salem witch hunts. BTW, when was the last time you went on a date based on someone's resume? Information hiding is part of the dating process. Show me someone who revails all of their flaws and baggage on a first date (or before) and I will show you someone with extremely few second dates.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  Burnt Sienna. That's the best thing that ever happened to Crayolas. -- Ken Weaver
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2001 OSDN.

[ home | awards | supporters | rob's homepage | contribute story | older articles | OSDN | advertising | past polls | about | faq ]