Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 464

Thread: More German Anti-Tech Lunacy

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    they can't make use of the data that people are freely and willingly giving to them.
    Problem is that most people are unaware of what information they are sharing by simply browsing the internet, hell, most sites operate without a full understanding of what they are sharing with advertisers. The UK had a law go into effect in May that restricts websites from using cookies without permission, and last I read most sites still violate it because of their advertising.

    Not to mention that cookies have evolved to the point where they can be made nearly permanent "ever cookies" (not the same as flash's super cookies), or that companies are able to track you, even better than what Google Analytics can do, even in incognito mode.

    The facebook problem isn't even an issue of information people are freely and willingly giving away. The German government has taken an issue with the idea of using a service somehow removing all your privacy rights. Having a facebook account shouldn't allow someone to put your name on something they freely and willingly provided and the you had absolutely nothing to do with.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  2. #32
    Administrator Dreadnaught's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    9,152
    The reason most people violate the UK law is it's arcane and leads to a bad user experience. Should everyone see a pop-up dialog indicating if they mind having a cookie placed every time they visit a site? Because TWF would have to as well.

    And, we all know, every technology has its counterbalance. Today's "ever cookie" is tomorrow's regular cookie (notwithstanding that the multiple-destination cookies could be considered a virus).

    But your ideas about Facebook are so very...European. So what if you can identity someone in a photo on Facebook? How is that substantially different from a printed photo caption? There is no privacy issue here. This is a curtailment of free speech masquerading as "privacy" and "data protection".

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    How is that substantially different from a printed photo caption?
    You mean the one you would hand write on a photo and stick in your photo album at home, compared to the autotagging facial recongition can do and then advertise (possibly publicly) to all of the users friends via status and wall updates?

    and you're ignoring the larger picture of wanting the general public to stay so up to date and informed about the workings of the internet and the latest exploits that they should be able to take on and protect themselves from the companies that base their entire business model around exploiting their software and hardware weaknesses. Then again, you didn't actually reply to how incognito mode has been rendered useless.
    but its interesting how you draw a line between viruses, even nonharmful ones, and data harvesting from browsing habits.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-11-2011 at 04:44 AM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  4. #34
    Administrator Dreadnaught's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    9,152
    I actually meant a newspaper photo caption. But even online, most services allow you to limit who sees photos.

    Still, you're not addressing the pivotal issue of: if you have a problem with your photos being on the Internet, don't upload them to the Internet.

    Saying "there should be a law!" is the most retrograde and free speech-limiting option out there.

  5. #35
    King of Ellipses...
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    But even online, most services allow you to limit who sees photos.
    What if you don't have a Facebook account and someone tags you in one of their photos, and they're completely visible to everyone on Facebook?

    Still, you're not addressing the pivotal issue of: if you have a problem with your photos being on the Internet, don't upload them to the Internet.
    Somebody else uploaded them.

  6. #36
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    What if you don't have a Facebook account and someone tags you in one of their photos, and they're completely visible to everyone on Facebook?

    Somebody else uploaded them.
    So, my right not to be seen online should restrict everyone else's right to express themselves? Very European of you. And again, it's not Facebook or Google that's putting these pictures online, it's individuals. So why go after Facebook, when the objectionable behavior is being performed by [alleged] friends of the "victimized" party?
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    175
    What is wrong with pop up asking if I want to accept a cookie? Not only they should ask permission every time they drop something on your pc, it should also include a description of the purpose of the cookie.

  8. #38
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    If that's what you want, do it. Set your browser to ask you every time before accepting cookies. The problem isn't choosing that option, the problem is forcing that option on everyone (as would happen with legislation).
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    But even online, most services allow you to limit who sees photos.

    Still, you're not addressing the pivotal issue of: if you have a problem with your photos being on the Internet, don't upload them to the Internet.
    and most upload servicers aren't banned in the EU. and at this point I've given up hope that you are actually reading the articles you are linking to and bitching about. No one is outlawing your own photos of yourself from being uploaded to the internet. again, its how the service is used. by allowing someone else to add people to facebook's facial recognition program without their consent.

    and news sources have all types of rights that extend past regular citizens, is that really your best defense? Not to mention this has absolfuckinglutely nothing to do with the problem facebook ran into. As far as I'm aware facebook's captioning option, something its had since the early days, is not under attack and thus far has not been banned. But don't let that get in the way of screaming doom and gloom.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-11-2011 at 01:49 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  10. #40
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    No one is outlawing your own photos of yourself from being uploaded to the internet.
    Right, they're trying to eliminate any semblance of free speech, or freedom of expression, and based on the truthful expression of certain individuals, are trying to punish a third party and prevent it from improving the free service it offers.

    This doesn't make you come off looking any better, by the way... but if you're going to insist on pointing out how your cause is actually far worse than Randblade's portraying it as, I won't stop you. Please, do continue. Just remember that I have the right to control what's posted about me, so if you say anything about me I don't like, I may be forced to haul you in front of some European commission on human rights.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  11. #41
    Patriot Act vs EU data protection laws.

    According to German-language magazine WirtschaftsWoche, a Google spokesperson confirmed that the company has complied with requests from US intelligence agencies for data stored in its European data centers.
    The situation is likely to spark an official inquiry from the European Commission, with some members of the European Parliament already reacting to the stories.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  12. #42
    Administrator Dreadnaught's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    9,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    What if you don't have a Facebook account and someone tags you in one of their photos, and they're completely visible to everyone on Facebook?
    How is that any different from someone uploading a photo to a blog and saying in the caption, "That's Joe"?

    If you don't have a Facebook account you're not participating in the Facebook tagging process. But there's tons of people and businesses that exist on photographs on the Web.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    and most upload servicers aren't banned in the EU. and at this point I've given up hope that you are actually reading the articles you are linking to and bitching about. No one is outlawing your own photos of yourself from being uploaded to the internet. again, its how the service is used. by allowing someone else to add people to facebook's facial recognition program without their consent.

    and news sources have all types of rights that extend past regular citizens, is that really your best defense? Not to mention this has absolfuckinglutely nothing to do with the problem facebook ran into. As far as I'm aware facebook's captioning option, something its had since the early days, is not under attack and thus far has not been banned. But don't let that get in the way of screaming doom and gloom.
    I've given up hope that you weren't educated in Norwegian academia.

    As Cain pointed out, this isn't about photos of yourself but about photos of your friends. All this Facebook feature does is do what your own mind does —*see who has the same face and suggesting who among your existing tags applies to a given photo. There is no privacy being violated here, and I haven't seen even the semblance of an argument as to how it does.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    So on one side of your mouth you demand strict government regulation, than on the other hand castigate a company for complying with government regulation?

  13. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    As Cain pointed out, this isn't about photos of yourself but about photos of your friends. All this Facebook feature does is do what your own mind does —*see who has the same face and suggesting who among your existing tags applies to a given photo. There is no privacy being violated here, and I haven't seen even the semblance of an argument as to how it does.
    What the fuck are you talking about? You claimed previously that all someone had to do was not upload their own photo to the internet, but thats not the problem here, and even if someone decided to not upload their photo, thats not protecting them from this recognition database facebook is building.
    This facial recognition requires a database of information in order to work. What the government is opposing is that facebook currently allows anyone to add other people into that database, without any form of consent. There is a huge difference between sorting this information in your mind, in your livingroom, or even via captioning, compared to giving all that information to a 3rd party and possibly making it public, without consent. Here, maybe you don't understand yet how it works? Current (or previous depending on how you look at it) forms of captioning does not work like that.
    So on one side of your mouth you demand strict government regulation, than on the other hand castigate a company for complying with government regulation?

    whoosh
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-12-2011 at 02:47 AM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  14. #44
    Administrator Dreadnaught's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    9,152
    I've been very clear that this is way beyond just photos of yourself. And a third party-hosted database of photo tags based on automated facial recognition is no different than a third party-hosted database of photo tags based on manual tagging.

    It's all photos of people hosted on a Website. Using your boundaries of the power of consent, any photo of anyone uploaded anywhere could be taken down because it's being hosted by a third party.

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I've been very clear that this is way beyond just photos of yourself.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    if you have a problem with your photos being on the Internet, don't upload them to the Internet.


    And a third party-hosted database of photo tags based on automated facial recognition is no different than a third party-hosted database of photo tags based on manual tagging.
    This is you not understanding. The problem isn't the tagging. Its the database of information required in order for the "automated facial recognition" to work.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  16. #46
    Administrator Dreadnaught's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    9,152
    Er, grammar fail OG. "Your" is possessive. "Photos" is a noun. When I say "your photos" I mean the photos that belong to you. Which can, of course, include photos of you, but still. Come on.

    And a database of photo tags is a database of information.

  17. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    And a database of photo tags is a database of information.
    correct, and a database of tags is not a database of personally identifiable facial features that can remotely and automatically used to publicly out people in anything its shown (what Germany has requested to be deleted). Amazingly enough, the EU doesn't ban databases in whole. Wonder why that is

    This isn't just a OG be crazy thing either. Simply google facebook facial recognition. All the top results are either on how to turn it off, why its creepy, or how its being challenged.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-12-2011 at 04:12 AM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  18. #48
    King of Ellipses...
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    How is that any different from someone uploading a photo to a blog and saying in the caption, "That's Joe"?
    Facebook has millions of users, and is a popular source for social data mining. Some random schmoe's blog is not.

    Also you can tag people who don't have Facebook accounts. You could technically tag a cactus and label it "Cactus" if you wanted to.

  19. #49
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    So on one side of your mouth you demand strict government regulation, than on the other hand castigate a company for complying with government regulation?
    Problem: government regulation.

    Solution: more government regulation!

    Kind of a succinct, albeit depressing, way of summing up liberal politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    This is you not understanding. The problem isn't the tagging. Its the database of information required in order for the "automated facial recognition" to work.
    In other words, the problem is the people who uploaded the information to the interwebs in the first place. Because once they're up there, the photos are accessible, searchable and downloadable.

    Banning Facebook (or Google or anyone else) from having a database doesn't really do anything, because any shclubb with a copy of "Scripting for Dummies" can build his own database from publicly accessible information and do the exact same thing you seem to find so objectionable. What's creepier, when Facebook publicly auto-tags photos as a service to its users, or when some guy secretly does it in his parents' basement to get his rocks off (or whatever)?
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  20. #50
    Administrator Dreadnaught's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    9,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    correct, and a database of tags is not a database of personally identifiable facial features that can remotely and automatically used to publicly out people in anything its shown (what Germany has requested to be deleted). Amazingly enough, the EU doesn't ban databases in whole. Wonder why that is

    This isn't just a OG be crazy thing either. Simply google facebook facial recognition. All the top results are either on how to turn it off, why its creepy, or how its being challenged.
    Using the very low bar being thrown around, a database of photos and captions is absolutely a database of personally identifiable information. It can show me where a group of people was at a given time. The world will end!

    Just because there are articles about disabling it doesn't mean it's not crazy to ban it. Google Picasa has had facial-recognition photo tagging for years.


    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    Facebook has millions of users, and is a popular source for social data mining. Some random schmoe's blog is not.

    Also you can tag people who don't have Facebook accounts. You could technically tag a cactus and label it "Cactus" if you wanted to.
    Tagging someone who doesn't have a Facebook account is no different than posting anything else on the Web with someone's name next to it. If the New York Times posts a photo with someone's name in the caption it's a problem, but if the Iowa Dispatch does the same thing it's not?

    Free speech is about having the most universal standard possible. You don't ban a pretty well-established feature just because a company of a particular size is taking advantage of it.

  21. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    Banning Facebook (or Google or anyone else) from having a database doesn't really do anything, because any shclubb with a copy of "Scripting for Dummies" can build his own database from publicly accessible information and do the exact same thing you seem to find so objectionable. What's creepier, when Facebook publicly auto-tags photos as a service to its users, or when some guy secretly does it in his parents' basement to get his rocks off (or whatever)?
    This isn't some anti-google or anti-facebook law thats being used right now. Its part of the EU suite of data and privacy protection laws. Doesn't matter if you're facebook or john doe. What your suggesting is like saying laws should be legal to break as long as no one knows

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Using the very low bar being thrown around, a database of photos and captions is absolutely a database of personally identifiable information. It can show me where a group of people was at a given time. The world will end!

    Just because there are articles about disabling it doesn't mean it's not crazy to ban it. Google Picasa has had facial-recognition photo tagging for years.
    Yep. still not understanding how facebook's facial recgonition appears to work. The fact you're now trying to compare it to how Google's Neven Vision (from Germany [hint hint]) works shows that.


    Free speech is about having the most universal standard possible. You don't ban a pretty well-established feature just because a company of a particular size is taking advantage of it.
    "well-established"? Facebook's facial recognition is extremely new in the states, it didn't go full scale public with it until this summer in the US and its even newer in the EU (opting everyone into the program by default). Isn't technology focused legistation reactive by nature anyway?
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-12-2011 at 08:18 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  22. #52
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    This isn't some anti-google or anti-facebook law thats being used right now. Its part of the EU suite of data and privacy protection laws. Doesn't matter if you're facebook or john doe. What your suggesting is like saying laws should be legal to break as long as no one knows
    Oh, so now the EU's prosecuting Hans Doe for uploading party pictures which include friends and acquaintances or pictures of public buildings to imgur or Picassa or photobucket (etc)? I don't think so. You can say whatever the fuck you want, but this law is only being applied to large internet companies, not to individual users (who actually upload that content in the first place) or little blogs and whatnot. So that selective application does very much make it an anti-Facebook, anti-Google, anti-technology initiative.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  23. #53
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Yep. still not understanding how facebook's facial recgonition appears to work. The fact you're now trying to compare it to how Google's Neven Vision (from Germany [hint hint]) works shows that.
    OG, have you ever considered what a waste of time *and how big of a jackass you appear when you do it* it is to say something like this without also explaining what the difference between them is?
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  24. #54
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,487
    I don't see (yet) what the difference between Facebook able to recognise who you're posting and Google being able to recognise what you're searching for.

  25. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    OG, have you ever considered what a waste of time *and how big of a jackass you appear when you do it* it is to say something like this without also explaining what the difference between them is?
    Its not my responibility to hold someone's hand and force them to learn something new if they have shown clearly they don't want to learn to begin with. If this is your way of asking for more information, that works.

    Picasa Web Album does not have a facial recognition program that can tell you "hey, thats bob, lets tell bob, all of bob's friends, and all of your friends that Picasa knows what bob looks like". Picasa Web Album does however know (generally) what a face looks like, which makes it easier to tag people manually; sorta like how cameras can find a face before taking a picture. The web album also defaults so that pictures aren't shared or published without permission.
    Picasa 3.5 and beyond does include a more robust facial recognition tool, but it only works with the information on your computer. It doesn't send that information overseas, or to any central database. It can also take hours to scan through a hard drive worth of information because its designed like this.

    Facebook's tool however combines this desktop feature with the online feature. Adding biometric facial profiles to a centralized database that facebook uses to improve its general "hey thats a face" and its "hey, thats bob, lets tell bob, all of bobs friends, and all of your friends we found bob."

    The issue isn't the tagging, never was and thats obvious when reading through the OP links. The issue is where and how this biometric information is being stored and how its being provided, used, and stored without consent.
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    I don't see (yet) what the difference between Facebook able to recognise who you're posting and Google being able to recognise what you're searching for.
    Google's analytics, which is used to help localize search results, has also come under fire.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-12-2011 at 08:43 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  26. #56
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Its not my responibility to hold someone's hand
    i.e. "I think I know something, I think you don't, I will therefore act like a smug asshole." This is a public forum. If you can't bring yourself to address that person, address the rest of us who aren't familiar with the topic and don't know the differences.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  27. #57
    King of Ellipses...
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Tagging someone who doesn't have a Facebook account is no different than posting anything else on the Web with someone's name next to it. If the New York Times posts a photo with someone's name in the caption it's a problem, but if the Iowa Dispatch does the same thing it's not?
    Well this is an easy question to answer. Who would you rather have be able to see pictures of you drunk? An audience of millions or an audience of hundreds? The number isn't so much a problem, but instead it is representative of the possibility/probability that someone you know/may not know, who can affect your life, is going to be part of that audience.

    Free speech is about having the most universal standard possible. You don't ban a pretty well-established feature just because a company of a particular size is taking advantage of it.
    You don't ban it. What would be nice was if you could opt out without being part of the service, and not be auto-opted in if you are a part of it. How would you feel if I wrote a server side script so that every time you posted, your current IP address was publicly appended to your post, along with your current GPS location (if available), claimed that you opted in with whatever you agreed to whenever you originally signed up for the forum, and that this feature was to make the forums more social and streamlined? I don't think you'd like that very much.

  28. #58
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    Well this is an easy question to answer. Who would you rather have be able to see pictures of you drunk? An audience of millions or an audience of hundreds? The number isn't so much a problem, but instead it is representative of the possibility/probability that someone you know/may not know, who can affect your life, is going to be part of that audience.
    Except that once images of Dread's drunken debauchery and hairy ball sac are uploaded to the internet, the audience is half the planet and growing, regardless of whether or not it gets touched Google's analytics or automatically tagged by Facebook's algorithms or what have you. In fact, you'd have to suspect that Facebook's facial recognition algorithms are unlikely to work on a picture of Dread's hairy ball sac, and that it's much more likely his "friend" who uploaded the pictures in the first place will provide the context, so that we know that this is Dread's hairy ball sac, and not someone else's hairy ball sac... like my hairy ball sac, of which I'm sure there are more than a few pictures floating around the interwebs.

    So, what to do? Impose a futile ban on Facebook using algorithms that are largely available to anyone who wants to employ them? Ban the algorithms themselves? Arrest Dread's friend? The problem is, once it's out there, it's out there, for anyone to use as they see fit. Going the Luddite route and banning one big company from using an automated tool doesn't put the genie back in the bottle... or do much of anything, except cause more problems. Such as, for example, creating a violation of German law by uploading vacation pictures taken in public places. Ultimately, if they go all Luddite on this, they'll get left in the past and only serve to stifle innovation in their countries for no good reason, while the rest of the world passes them by and codes automated tools to do whatever we damn well please. Reminds me of the self-defeating ban exporting on "strong crypto" under Clinton (by classifying it as military munitions)... ultimately, all that did was inspire people whose products were based on strong crypto to pick up stakes and go to another country (ironically, one of the best countries being Germany) where they were free to code their software and sell it to whomever they damned well pleased.

    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    You don't ban it. What would be nice was if you could opt out without being part of the service, and not be auto-opted in if you are a part of it. How would you feel if I wrote a server side script so that every time you posted, your current IP address was publicly appended to your post, along with your current GPS location (if available), claimed that you opted in with whatever you agreed to whenever you originally signed up for the forum, and that this feature was to make the forums more social and streamlined? I don't think you'd like that very much.
    And, of course, Dread is forced to post here, and has no ability to terminate his association with an organization whose terms of use he no longer likes? And, actually, isn't this very thing you propose an actual service offered in conjunction with social networking crap? FourSquare, or something like that... allows you to embed your GPS location into your FaceBook posts or tweets, or something, just in case you're worried that you're not encouraging stalkers enough with 80 status updates a day.

    Well, point being that the solution ought not to be a ban, or government interference in what consensual agreements can be offered or entered into, based on someone disliking one particular voluntary arrangement. Don't like it, don't participate. And if your objection is that someone's posting pictures of you without your consent, that's an issue between you and them, not the government and every internet company or user out there, so deal with it at that level, rather than imposing your particular tastes on the rest of the world through sweeping legislation.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  29. #59
    King of Ellipses...
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,515
    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    Except that once images of Dread's drunken debauchery and hairy ball sac are uploaded to the internet, the audience is half the planet and growing, regardless of whether or not it gets touched Google's analytics or automatically tagged by Facebook's algorithms or what have you.
    This is horrifically over simplifying it. Lets say in a hypothetical situation, Dread is going up for a job interview and HR is going to do a background check on the internet. Which are they more likely to find? His drunk pictures on the most popular social networking site Facebook, or on page 15 of Google's search results for David Naughtenberg, in Joe's Blog o' Drunk?

    So, what to do? Impose a futile ban
    Oh why look at that, I actually posted no to banning it, and offered a solution! And its the first sentence of what you quoted! Its almost like you don't read things and instead just slip into some alternate universe of horrible things ultra libertarians hate and start ranting about how awful that place is.

  30. #60
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,209
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Its not my responibility to hold someone's hand and force them to learn something new if they have shown clearly they don't want to learn to begin with.
    What if you were mandated to do so through government legislation?

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    i.e. "I think I know something, I think you don't, I will therefore act like a smug asshole." This is a public forum. If you can't bring yourself to address that person, address the rest of us who aren't familiar with the topic and don't know the differences.
    Glass houses, mate.
    The walls are coming down.
    All we need is one to fail, one to break, one to take it all away.
    What if we crumble, what if we fall? Where's the flame that torch the soul?
    Truth, when spoken, dies down to nothing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •