Google CEO Eric Schmidt predicts an end to privacy on the internet.
"The only way to manage [misuse for criminal and rebellious purposes] is true transparency and no anonymity. In a world of asynchronous threats, it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you. We need a [verified] name service for people. Governments will demand it."
Fuck Eric Schmidt.
Isn't he the same person who said "There is no privacy any more. Get over it." This from the company that collects all of the personal information on you that it can get. Big brother isn't the government. It's a corporation.
My college major is Constitutional Law. With that said, the fourth amendment grants us a resonable expectation of privacy. Technology has moved faster than the laws, and those who oppose higher taxes (most of us) only want rapists and murderers locked-feeling that everything else is manageable. Fact is, until we start truly punishing white collar thieves (identity theft, theft by internet) with indentured servitude, we're going to continue to be victims time and again, and again, and again.
However, since peopleare only interested in watching the NFL and America's Next Top Model, and flat out not giving a shit about anything else, nothing will get done. As a cop, I don't know how many times I've heard "Can't you do something ?" No, I can't do anything until the public actually gets serious about crime and punishment. Do you want to deter thieves ? Make them suffer, and really suffer. Want to keep a hacker from fucking with your identity ? Punish him to be in chains, outside in the weather, for the next twenty years, doing the jobs that illegal immigrants are doing now.
Dudester: I hope that bit about the 4th Amendment granting us an expectation or right of privacy was just a mistype on your part. A Constitutional Law major should know better.
GMD, I'm also a Libertarian. Loss of internet privacy involves a legal theory known as "implied consent". Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin would have all kinds of problems with implied consent. Implied consent is not yet tested by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.
What this means, is that unless you are committing a crime, or about to commit a crime, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Suppose you like to surf the net for porn involving very petite women, does this make you a rapist ? Should the fact that you surfed the net for petite women be the basis of a prosecution against you ? And yet, one guy was arrested and prosecuted because he had a DVD of porn actress Lupe Fuentes. Does Lupe look very young ? Yep, but it should have been embarassing for prosecution that they disregarded the age of consent disclaimer on the DVD-because Lupe herself showed up to testify for the defendant. Was his name dragged through the mud ? You bet. Was his right to privacy guarded ? NOPE.
This is a strip club website. If a stripper and/or her accomplice falsely accuse you of rape, your membership here could be used against you. If you get popped during an OTC jaunt, because a vice cop knows your date is a frequent provider, again, your membership here would be included in your prosecution.
Think about it.
Google is essentially a private spy agency amassing a dossier on you that they can and do sell to whoever wants to buy it or whoever has a national security clearance.
And a lot of 'privacy' proponents want to have you take all sorts of steps to remove cookies, history, temporary files, and whatever from your computer. The problem is that if you are accused of anything all that removal makes you look like you are tying to hide something. Their lack can look worse than the reality. Yes your computer can be your accuser but it can also be your alibi. So unless you are doing something defintily illegal then I usually recommend that people not behave like they are by feeling that they have to do all sort of cleaning.
Fuck Facebook
The average person will be hurt by the loss of privacy. Governments, employers, businesses, and other organizations will use the knowledge they gain to control and exploit individuals. Billionaires like Eric Schmidt don't care because their wealth and power will protect them from any unpleasant consequences.
Dudester: My issue was with your use of the word "grant". As a Constitutional scholar and Libertarian, you do realize that, in the context of rights and the Constitution, use of that word is wholly inaccurate, right?
