More German Anti-Tech Lunacy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

And the point I'm making is that Facebook already has tools available for what you consider "censorship", ie. that you can untag yourself after the fact, or opt out of a service after you're automatically opted in, or do those things once you become a member, and I am asking how you assume it is intrinsically different "censorship"-wise whether you opt out beforehand (my suggestion for how Facebook could operate), or opt out afterwards (currently implemented functionality). :bored:

Besides that stop acting like all censorship is bad. Your entire position here at the forums is to censor people when we ask for it. You don't post about who you actually are in real life, and have edited this information out of your own posts when it accidentally happens, and have edited it out of the posts of others. Is this not censorship too? How would you feel if I posted your IP address? The other person I'm arguing with uses a Tor gateway or other anonymizing proxies to hide or "censor" his IP address from us. Hell didn't Cain, at the other forums, go on a huge deleting spree to remove his posts? For two people arguing how awful censorship is you seem to be alright with it to a degree.

---

Illusions, this is a really incongruent point. The fact that almost all of us don't reveal our true identities here is a choice, not an act of coercive government censorship. As Fuzzy points out, some people may be peer-pressured not to have their real identities here (EG I fear social and professional ostracization if my political views were known). But that is at best self-censorship and entirely not the issue being forced by the German and Spanish government.

This forum has (and Atard had) written and unwritten policies about protecting personally identifiable information that is let loose or regretted later. But there is a massive difference between not posting information about yourself and the government actively restricting your right to post anything about anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

So when Cain deleted his Atari forum posts out of concern someone might find them, would you consider this self censorship when the third party is an abstract concept like Cain's bogeyman government?

---

I have no idea, I never really understood why he did that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

You seem to have problems with the difference between a right, and an already existing ability a website offers you. I'm stating that Facebook has an already existing ability to censor people, not that we have an inherent, natural right to it, like we do life or liberty. Stop acting like a child. Besides that, this website does offer you the ability to censor my posts at the mod's discretion, which involves using the report post function.

---

So your position is...? (Other than "censorship" apparently meaning any and everything, I mean.)

If Facebook already offers the ability to limited censorship (untag photos of yourself uploaded by others), why do you seem to be in favor of laws and regulations that would force Facebook to... um, let people do what they already let people do? Not really helping your case there - we already let people do it voluntarily, so now we need a law forcing people to do it as well...?

:weird:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

I have no idea, I never really understood why he did that.

---

Yeah, in fact, I was pretty sure he didn't really explain his reasons either... but why let details get in the way conflating it into "censorship?"

Cain, are you on facebook?

Fuck no. Don't have any social media accounts. No Facebook, no myspace, no Twitter, no Linkedin, no Google+, no... whatever else. But a lot (maybe "most") of my friends have Facebook, and I know some of them have uploaded assorted photos of me in various stages of alcohol poisoning and/or undress.

Oh noes! My fundamental human rights have been violated because there's a picture of me online, where I'm blitzed outta my gourd, wagging my genitals in some obnoxious moron's face!! :cry: (That's the claim OG and Illusions and the German government are making, right?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

If Facebook already offers the ability to limited censorship (untag photos of yourself uploaded by others), why do you seem to be in favor of laws and regulations that would force Facebook to... um, let people do what they already let people do? Not really helping your case there - we already let people do it voluntarily, so now we need a law forcing people to do it as well...?

---

I would argue the law is a slippery slope to go even further and demand people remove plain text captions identifying who is in a particular photo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Illusions, this is a really incongruent point. The fact that almost all of us don't reveal our true identities here is a choice, not an act of coercive government censorship.

---

You were making out that censorship of any sort was a terrible act, and I was arguing that we all engage in censorship, because we recognize that not all censorship is terrible or bad.

Quote:

---

As Fuzzy points out, some people may be peer-pressured not to have their real identities here (EG I fear social and professional ostracization if my political views were known). But that is at best self-censorship and entirely not the issue being forced by the German and Spanish government.

---

Yet you made it seem like you considered untagging myself from a photo to be a horrible act of censorship, on par with say Stalin airbrushing an executed officer from a photo.

Quote:

---

This forum has (and Atard had) written and unwritten policies about protecting personally identifiable information that is let loose or regretted later. But there is a massive difference between not posting information about yourself and the government actively restricting your right to post anything about anyone.

---

Care to quote my original post again. Go read it.

Perhaps to be clearer, since I now realize my original post was not:

Other people have control over information about you that they can share via Facebook, with hundreds to millions of people. Facebook already has in place methods for you to control this information that other people, and Facebook, share about you. However Facebook favors an approach that mostly benefits them, in that you are opted into these services, or included automatically. You can still, after the fact, opt out. They also favor terms of service that behave as if you retroactively agree with any new service they offer. It would appear that Facebook would be better off if they 1) started by allowing people to opt into services they want, instead of requiring them to opt out if they don't want to participate, 2) be clearer about upcoming features, and allow people to either opt out of them in advance, or to quit using Facebook before the new service comes into effect. Right now Facebook acts like a large, selfish, entitled child whose behavior seems to be of the type where its easier for them to ask for forgiveness after getting what they want, if only for a little while, rather than to ask for permission, and be denied, and not get what they want at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

So your position is...? (Other than "censorship" apparently meaning any and everything, I mean.)

---

Censorship isn't always bad (a position which I entered into when Dreadnaught made it out as if censorship was the most horrific thing ever), and that Facebook has a possible alternative that in part already exists, if they would only implement the rest of it, that doesn't involve legislation, to solve this privacy issue.

Quote:

---

If Facebook already offers the ability to limited censorship (untag photos of yourself uploaded by others), why do you seem to be in favor of laws and regulations that would force Facebook to... um, let people do what they already let people do? Not really helping your case there - we already let people do it voluntarily, so now we need a law forcing people to do it as well...?

---

If you'd have read my replies, never did I mention that I was in favor of this legislation. I've never even mentioned it, or discussed it until now, what I've been discussing originally were points Dreadnaught brought up, and then later that you brought up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I would argue the law is a slippery slope to go even further and demand people remove plain text captions identifying who is in a particular photo.

---

You should stop digging this hole of yours any deeper and attempt to find Caspar's official statement on the matter. (warning, likely German).

Protip: Captions already exist on social services, and are no where near the subject of this complaint or law. (but thats already been pointed out to you a dozen times or so, and you continue to ignore it).

This is specifically about how facebook is, on a large scale, storing personal biometric information without consent. His office does not consider not opting out the same as consenting. (There, even did the leg work for you before fuzzy has another fit).

You always say someone is digging themselves into a hole when you feel cornered.

The point is it's hard to see how one couldn't sue over a caption. A tag is basically a structured type of caption. And given current European legal and cultural biases against posting photos that aren't of yourself, it's not hard to see how captions couldn't be targeted.

More specifically, it's not as if "personal biometric information" is some kind of massive invasion of privacy. Anyone with a set of photos can construct a "biometric information" database with the right software. And that's what the issue is: the "data protection" dictators can't come to grips with the basic premise of online photo sharing.

In that case you'd be suing or whatever over the photo first, not the caption.

Scanning this thread....it looks more like anti-German sentiment than anything else.

:popcorn:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

In that case you'd be suing or whatever over the photo first, not the caption.

---

The beef is they could (and likely would) sue both the photographer and the photo sharing service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Scanning this thread....it looks more like anti-German sentiment than anything else.

:popcorn:

---

You didn't read the thread, did you? :bored:

Nope, just scanned it. But your title choice speaks a thousand words. :bored:

I suggest reading the thread in detail. It's more specifically about crazy European bureaucrats who are restricting free expression on the Internet (with the spark for this thread starting in Germany).

Saying this is about anti-German sentiment is like saying your "Who creates the jobs" thread is a screed against employment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

You always say someone is digging themselves into a hole when you feel cornered.

---

You will claim anything, accuse anyone to stop from having to admit you are wrong. I have never, not once, used this line here. I used it once in a debate over at the other place, and it was in the DBZ section, and it was 5 fucking years ago. Now I'm here continuing an off topic attack, because you're an asshole.

Instead of debating what you find offensive with the actual complaint against facebook, or what part of the act they are propping up and you have an issue with, you went with an attack against me, again.

Quote:

---

The point is

---

Didn't see that one coming!

Quote:

---

it's hard to see how one couldn't sue over a caption. A tag is basically a structured type of caption. And given current European legal and cultural biases against posting photos that aren't of yourself, it's not hard to see how captions couldn't be targeted.

---

maybe because you're misinterpreting both the letter and intent of the law? Maybe because the closest thing you're posted to information on EU's privacy and data protection laws was in the OP on facebook's software, and maybe because you've shown a clear lack of understanding for said material.

Quote:

---

More specifically, it's not as if "personal biometric information" is some kind of massive invasion of privacy. Anyone with a set of photos can construct a "biometric information" database with the right software. And that's what the issue is: the "data protection" dictators can't come to grips with the basic premise of online photo sharing.

---

You don't think its an invasion of privacy. Germany does, and there are a whole slew of TSA victims that seem to agree; how many safegaurds are built into that system so images and information aren't retained long term? Anyone can build just about anything with the right tools and knowledge, even a nuclear reactor, doesn't make it legal to do or use.

Do you have cases of hosting or social services being sued for tags or captions? Cause the best you've posted so far is search result censoring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I suggest reading the thread in detail.

---

Very good suggestion, try it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I suggest reading the thread in detail. It's more specifically about crazy European bureaucrats who are restricting free expression on the Internet (with the spark for this thread starting in Germany).

Saying this is about anti-German sentiment is like saying your "Who creates the jobs" thread is a screed against employment.

---

No, it's not. You lumped all "crazy" European bureaucrats in with Germany, and called it Lunacy in your title.

Seriously, if you want to discuss censorship on the international intarweb machine, don't start a thread titled "More German Anti-Tech LUNACY .

I thought the jihad line was the best so far :haha:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I would argue the law is a slippery slope to go even further

---

Of course. Law always goes further and gets more broadly applied than originally intended. But how can we really be concerned about that, or about freedom of expression, when there's the possibility of your image being put online... to be <gasp> automatically paired up with an identifying caption?!??! Teh horroz, teh horroz!!!@ Or even... indexed by a search engine?!?!??!? :cry::cry:

I can, truly, think of no worse threat to our rights and liberties than the above mentioned possibilities, which is why it's only proper to... well, all that dumb crap OG is suggesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

However Facebook favors an approach that mostly benefits them, in that you are opted into these services, or included automatically. You can still, after the fact, opt out. They also favor terms of service that behave as if you retroactively agree with any new service they offer. It would appear that Facebook would be better off if they 1) started by allowing people to opt into services they want, instead of requiring them to opt out if they don't want to participate, 2) be clearer about upcoming features, and allow people to either opt out of them in advance, or to quit using Facebook before the new service comes into effect. Right now Facebook acts like a large, selfish, entitled child whose behavior seems to be of the type where its easier for them to ask for forgiveness after getting what they want, if only for a little while, rather than to ask for permission, and be denied, and not get what they want at all.

---

So, your primary complaint is that a business is acting in its best interests, rather than everyone else's? Shocking, truly. I should ask what makes you think Facebook would be "better off" running things your way, but instead I think I'll just point out that the fact that Zuckerberg's managed to sell the company as having a market cap exceeding 100 times revenue, even as expansion opportunities tail off and profitable areas of the business are rapidly drying up, would seem to indicate that he knows what he's doing a lot better than you, me, or anyone else who doesn't have access to privileged data about his company.

Oh, and your last little bit there about asking for permission instead of forgiveness, made me laugh. The adage goes the other way around - it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

Censorship isn't always bad (a position which I entered into when Dreadnaught made it out as if censorship was the most horrific thing ever), and that Facebook has a possible alternative that in part already exists, if they would only implement the rest of it, that doesn't involve legislation, to solve this privacy issue.

---

Well, censorship always ends up having bad consequences, particularly when government-mandated. (And I'm talking about real censorship here, not self-censorship or whatever.) I think the main problem with your position is that you haven't explained why this is a privacy issue, why anyone should even care, or how you'd implement letting non Facebook users opt out... let alone the troubling, broader implications about freedom of expression and whatnot (prohibition of sharing photos because of people in the background, etc).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Protip: Captions already exist on social services, and are no where near the subject of this complaint or law.

---

And what is a tag, if not a computerized, less-descriptive version of a caption?

Stop pulling crap out of your ass already. I'd respond to more of your shit, but really don't see the point. Conflating compulsory nude image scans with voluntary photos, making shit up, rank hypocrisy, moving goal posts, willful ignorance... really, who do you think you're kidding here?

Just get a fucking clue, or learn how to engage in an adult conversation (that whole using DBZers as an example of your conversation skills is probably not helping) where you're not name-calling every other post... and then accusing the other guy of being childish. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Saying this is about anti-German sentiment is like saying your "Who creates the jobs" thread is a screed against employment.

---

I dunno, have you read that thread of hers? Might want to change your analogy a bit there.

I don't remember the last discussion on this subject. In the EU (not just in Germany), citizens have a right to exert control over photos of their faces (possibly with the exception of photos that are of journalistic interest), regardless of whether or not the photos are being used for monetary gain. All rights reserved, to be waived at the discretion of the person photographed. I recall someone saying that the US [occasionally] had a similar position on photos if they were used for making the $$$, but my brain may be tricking me.

Anyway, the scans aren't compulsory. You can opt out of the scan or better yet out of flying. In the meantime, the US government is seizing domains for linking to pirated material??? :bulb:

So, what happens if there are two people in the same photo and they want two different things? Do they give priority to the person who was closest to the camera?

I don't know if that's been tested. Maybe they could take a page outta the Bible and cut the photo in half. Or maybe the no would win because you'd actually need the consent of all participants. If you take a case like that to court, lemme know :P

Ok, is anyone up for a trip to Germany? Need at least two other volunteers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Anyway, the scans aren't compulsory. You can opt out of the scan or better yet out of flying. In the meantime, the US government is seizing domains for linking to pirated material??? :bulb:

---

And according to the complaint not opting out is not consent, and Facebook gathers and stores the information even if you don't have an account. Facebook has already gotten in trouble previously for sharing such information with marketing partners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Ok, is anyone up for a trip to Germany? Need at least two other volunteers.

---

Oh you wouldn't need to to to Germany, any EU.country should do if you want it to get to the ECHR

Just to be clear, I'm not actually going to go to Germany or anywhere else with any of your psychos.

Dread still jerking off?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Just to be clear, I'm not actually going to go to Germany or anywhere else with any of your psychos.

---

How about some of my psychos?

I hate you guys.

Maybe I'll open a thread with the title "USA still a racist enabler of genocide" and see how that flies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I don't remember the last discussion on this subject. In the EU (not just in Germany), citizens have a right to exert control over photos of their faces (possibly with the exception of photos that are of journalistic interest), regardless of whether or not the photos are being used for monetary gain. All rights reserved, to be waived at the discretion of the person photographed. I recall someone saying that the US [occasionally] had a similar position on photos if they were used for making the $$$, but my brain may be tricking me.

---

That really only happens with public figures who have a commercial interest in managing their image. Otherwise, you're pretty much shit-outta-luck, unless you can raise enough of a public stink to get the company to back down. I remember reading a while ago about some chick on Facebook who was surprised to see her images used in ads on Facebook for some online dating service, given that she was married and all, but there wasn't really anything she could do about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Anyway, the scans aren't compulsory. You can opt out of the scan or better yet out of flying.

---

Yeah, you can either get forcibly molested or book passage on one of the many ocean liners that make trans-Atlantic or Trans-Pacific passenger voyages. :| Seriously?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

In the meantime, the US government is seizing domains for linking to pirated material??? :bulb:

---

Using asset forfeiture laws, which are, in themselves a pretty good argument against giving government broader powers than are absolutely necessary... not to mention it kind of speaks to Dread's point about the slippery slope of legislation, doesn't it? Using asset forfeiture laws, designed and intended for use against organized crime and drug traffickers, along with the DMCA, which was supposedly designed and intended to update the US copyright and patent system to attack European sport-discussion boards which may or not link to web feeds of sports matches.

Anyone saying that would happen or crying "slippery slope" in opposition to either of those bits of legislation would have been derided as a completely delusional fear-monger, yet here we are. Thanks for reminding us of just how dangerous innocuous-seeming legislation can turn out to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Maybe I'll open a thread with the title "USA still a racist enabler of genocide" and see how that flies.

---

That would be rich, coming from someone whose country pioneered ground-breaking new research on how many Jews can be fit into an ashtray, in the recent past. See how that works?

Now, please, stop being a twit.