On BNET: Online porn struggles for profits
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 12 of 18:
Next »
« Previous
What we Need Is a Privacy Law
in place. Before we go spelling what anybody can do with it. If you look at any of those,they consider only the user,rather than the person.The same problem wich cascades across the benifit of the computer itself - this is a machine,but I am a person.

If it was that the amendments of the constitution applied to the person .Then something could be said about what companies should do with their wares.

Since most privacy situations from law,simply put exemplory notations to their agreements to do what they wanted to do.

So it isn't law that one should expect their privacy.And business does not adhear to constitutional protections as we know that form government conduct. In the same way the government will 'outsource to provide the same conduit of 'doing what I want to do with a persons privacy''. You see that in the bill of wich gives the attorney general rights to sue ,on the part of copyright violation. However as you have rights to your accuser - the attorney general cannot be representative of all copyrights. They are individual,and that is the detail of wich hollywood may owe large sums for copyrights due to the digital technologie of wich they only have rights to distribute for x media .. and so on.

So there cannot be any kind of base for wich to start creating privacy for individuals unless business as well as government expects the same to themselves as anyone else could expect from a law.

My point of view as far as broadcast flag - is that it violates the constitution of illegal search and seizure.

Believe it someone is holding all these marks in scale.

It is true they cannot start where it ended. They must start where it begins.That is with a privacy law representing the person only.

Here the 'liscencing affect gets involved to hold some kind of refrain,to say that the person cannot arbitrate on their behalf between proprietors. This too is an ignoring of persons,.


The perspective wont change until it is considered to be illegal to invade the privacy of a person. Thus contents of person in corporation must be considered that of person 'inc. To something different from person 'respect of person in papers and documents - of wich our electronics now contains. So you could not leave those documents without the person,or to 'liberate from that person them casually.

That 'casually is also at arms length incidently . If it is only electronic,or worldwide web based. As we have a right to keep and bear arms. If the computer is equiped as it is our own abode - it would be clear what a decision of what privacy would be meant to mean.

Wouldn't be a situation of catering to IP addresses,web adress,email ids. The person isn't spelled out through them. The person is before them always known to have their own privacy.

That is incidently how one differentiates 'fair-use. The fact that copy is maintained within the integrity of ones person concludes that they can defend what they hold as their own property.(wether or not hollywood wants to debate that asset). It had been the ruling exception that distribution had to be provable.

Privacy cannot be provable w/o first defining as coinciding to its correct person as well. Just what or who is connecting the dots is up to you as that private individual person within there own constitutional relationship of personal security. Because we may not be able to define it for the government,or business. But should have a law to include it from being violated.

-just talking.
Posted by: ParadigmOdyssey   Posted on: 06/18/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

yes, but things that call home  V Sanders | 06/18/04
So ... use something that doesn't call home  Mike Rotch | 06/18/04
The choice of not using them  rapson | 06/18/04
does this include DVR's  V Sanders | 06/18/04
and what about two way digital cable  V Sanders | 06/18/04
i would think tht..  ryusen | 06/18/04
So will they make Microsoft change WinXP?  Xunil_Sierutuf | 06/18/04
"We are one step closer to restoring safety"  BitTwiddler | 06/18/04
Great Post!!! :o)  Mike Rotch | 06/18/04
Right on the money  Hanover Phist | 06/18/04
I agree I more ways than 1  ParadigmOdyssey | 06/18/04
What we Need Is a Privacy Law  ParadigmOdyssey | 06/18/04
Laws can't work, don't be stupid  tamuhockey | 06/21/04
Don't be so sure  Oreamnos_americanus | 06/21/04
Any more info?  tamuhockey | 06/22/04
Found out the real story  tamuhockey | 06/22/04
Giggle - Snicker - Snort  tbbrickster_z | 06/18/04
Spyware  samp_z | 06/18/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here