searches
[...]
From there, police are able to expand the warrant and look
deeper into specific accounts and addresses to get identity
information.
The Supreme Court is making it harder or even impossible to get
them. The justices ruled that these warrants could constitute
an unreasonable search and seizure, because oftentimes
citizens' data is scooped up and investigated even if they have
no connection to the crime.
"I don't believe my cell number being found in a particular
location is particularly troublesome to me if I haven't
committed any crimes," McDonald said.
But just because someone else committed a crime, it doesn't
mean that there is no longer a right to privacy, Benza said.
On 2026-07-07, Flocked Up <noreply@mixmin.net> wrote:
[...]
From there, police are able to expand the warrant and look
deeper into specific accounts and addresses to get identity
information.
The Supreme Court is making it harder or even impossible to get
them. The justices ruled that these warrants could constitute
an unreasonable search and seizure, because oftentimes
citizens' data is scooped up and investigated even if they have
no connection to the crime.
"I don't believe my cell number being found in a particular
location is particularly troublesome to me if I haven't
committed any crimes," McDonald said.
But just because someone else committed a crime, it doesn't
mean that there is no longer a right to privacy, Benza said.
Enough with this "right to privacy."
Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> writes:
Enough with this "right to privacy."
We seal envelopes not because the letter contains a conspiracy,
but because the contents belong exclusively to the sender and
the receiver.
The "nothing to hide" argument is pure corporate/state
propaganda. Privacy isn't about hiding a crime; it's about
deciding who gets access to your life. It's a boundary of
power, not a shield of guilt.
On 2026-07-14, Schlomo Goldberg <schlomo.goldberg@mailinator.com>
wrote:
Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> writes:
Enough with this "right to privacy."
We seal envelopes not because the letter contains a conspiracy,
but because the contents belong exclusively to the sender and
the receiver.
That argument appears to be question-begging. Why do we seal the
envelope? For one, to keep the paper from falling out. But you
say, additionally, that it's because of /exclusive ownership/,
not merely of /physical/ property (the letter itself) but of
/intellectual/ property (what's /written in/ the letter).
The claim of /intellectual/ property just reduces again to the
claim of a right to privacy -- thereby begging the question of
why such a right to privacy exists.
If someone opened the letter, read the contents, put it back in,
and sealed it, the harm wouldn't so much be in the intercipient's
knowledge of the letter as it would be in the tattered, crumpled
envelope that had to be resealed, which would give the letter an
ugly appearance.
The "nothing to hide" argument is pure corporate/state
propaganda. Privacy isn't about hiding a crime; it's about
deciding who gets access to your life. It's a boundary of
power, not a shield of guilt.
"Access to one's life," "power," and "guilt" are, at best,
incomplete concepts. The concept of /guilt/, additionally, has
signification only within a system of /retributive/ justice
(where the "guilty man" is stomped on by a bigger, more
attractive male for the amusement of the public) and may
disappear, and disappear entirely, in a system of /restorative/
justice (where instead we just solve the problem).
You say, "Privacy isn't about hiding a crime." Here, "about" is
an obfuscating term. Privacy /enables/ hiding a crime. It also
/disables/ the obtainment of information that is potentially
useful in the socioeconomic problem-solving process (such as who
starves from lack of food, where, and why).
"Power," and the boundary thereof, inheres not only in the
possessor of private information, but in those who have the power
to know. Removing the right to privacy grants you the power to
know who "accessed your life" in his commission of a crime
against you.
That doesn't mean we should just stick a camera in everyone's
bathrooms on day one. It just means that in an /ideal/ society,
we would have nothing to fear and nothing to hide. No discovered
misfortune or act would be "humiliating" or "embarrassing"; we
would just candidly know about each other.
Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
On 2026-07-14, Schlomo Goldberg
<schlomo.goldberg@mailinator.com> wrote:
We seal envelopes not because the letter contains a
conspiracy, but because the contents belong exclusively to
the sender and the receiver.
That argument appears to be question-begging. Why do we seal
the envelope? For one, to keep the paper from falling out. But
you say, additionally, that it's because of /exclusive
ownership/, not merely of /physical/ property (the letter
itself) but of /intellectual/ property (what's /written in/
the letter).
The claim of /intellectual/ property just reduces again to the
claim of a right to privacy -- thereby begging the question of
why such a right to privacy exists.
Because none of your business, thatrCOs why.
If someone opened the letter, read the contents, put it back
in, and sealed it, the harm wouldn't so much be in the
intercipient's knowledge of the letter as it would be in the
tattered, crumpled envelope that had to be resealed, which
would give the letter an ugly appearance.
The "nothing to hide" argument is pure corporate/state
propaganda. Privacy isn't about hiding a crime; it's about
deciding who gets access to your life. It's a boundary of
power, not a shield of guilt.
"Access to one's life," "power," and "guilt" are, at best,
incomplete concepts. The concept of /guilt/, additionally, has
signification only within a system of /retributive/ justice
(where the "guilty man" is stomped on by a bigger, more
attractive male for the amusement of the public) and may
disappear, and disappear entirely, in a system of
/restorative/ justice (where instead we just solve the
problem).
You say, "Privacy isn't about hiding a crime." Here, "about"
is an obfuscating term. Privacy /enables/ hiding a crime. It
also /disables/ the obtainment of information that is
potentially useful in the socioeconomic problem-solving
process (such as who starves from lack of food, where, and
why).
Pretty sure there is way to find out who starves from lack of
food and where without sticking a camera in everyonerCOs butt.
"Power," and the boundary thereof, inheres not only in the
possessor of private information, but in those who have the
power to know. Removing the right to privacy grants you the
power to know who "accessed your life" in his commission of a
crime against you.
No, people already should have power to know rCLwho accessed
their liferCY. If itrCOs private citizen, then herCOs committing a
crime, and should be prosecuted by a state. If itrCOs not private
citizen, then there nothing rCLprivaterCY about their actions, thus
there is no expectations of rCLprivacyrCY. ThatrCOs why things like
FOIA requests exist.
That doesn't mean we should just stick a camera in everyone's
bathrooms on day one. It just means that in an /ideal/
society, we would have nothing to fear and nothing to hide. No
discovered misfortune or act would be "humiliating" or
"embarrassing"; we would just candidly know about each other.
No, in rCLideal societyrCY people wouldnrCOt feel the need to rCLknow
about each otherrCY because they would be living among other
people just like themselves.
On 2026-07-14, D Ray <d@ray> wrote:
Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
On 2026-07-14, Schlomo Goldberg
<schlomo.goldberg@mailinator.com> wrote:
We seal envelopes not because the letter contains a
conspiracy, but because the contents belong exclusively to
the sender and the receiver.
That argument appears to be question-begging. Why do we seal
the envelope? For one, to keep the paper from falling out. But
you say, additionally, that it's because of /exclusive
ownership/, not merely of /physical/ property (the letter
itself) but of /intellectual/ property (what's /written in/
the letter).
The claim of /intellectual/ property just reduces again to the
claim of a right to privacy -- thereby begging the question of
why such a right to privacy exists.
Because none of your business, thatrCOs why.
Points for effort.
If someone opened the letter, read the contents, put it back
in, and sealed it, the harm wouldn't so much be in the
intercipient's knowledge of the letter as it would be in the
tattered, crumpled envelope that had to be resealed, which
would give the letter an ugly appearance.
The "nothing to hide" argument is pure corporate/state
propaganda. Privacy isn't about hiding a crime; it's about
deciding who gets access to your life. It's a boundary of
power, not a shield of guilt.
"Access to one's life," "power," and "guilt" are, at best,
incomplete concepts. The concept of /guilt/, additionally, has
signification only within a system of /retributive/ justice
(where the "guilty man" is stomped on by a bigger, more
attractive male for the amusement of the public) and may
disappear, and disappear entirely, in a system of
/restorative/ justice (where instead we just solve the
problem).
You say, "Privacy isn't about hiding a crime." Here, "about"
is an obfuscating term. Privacy /enables/ hiding a crime. It
also /disables/ the obtainment of information that is
potentially useful in the socioeconomic problem-solving
process (such as who starves from lack of food, where, and
why).
Pretty sure there is way to find out who starves from lack of
food and where without sticking a camera in everyonerCOs butt.
A conceptual distinction should be made between two senses of
"taking away the right to privacy":
1. Removing the /universal/ right to privacy, or
2. Implementing a correspondingly /universal/ right to know.
To clarify, the sense I intend is (1). A correspondingly
/universal/ right to know would be a straw man.
Such a universal right to know -- or, as you rhetorically
describe it, "sticking a camera in everyone's butt" -- does not
necessarily inhere in an ideal society, particularly if it
/limits physical freedom/, which I already guarded against in my
original claim. Literally sticking a camera in everyone's butt
would limit the physical freedom to walk with correct, upright
posture.
"Power," and the boundary thereof, inheres not only in the
possessor of private information, but in those who have the
power to know. Removing the right to privacy grants you the
power to know who "accessed your life" in his commission of a
crime against you.
No, people already should have power to know rCLwho accessed
their liferCY. If itrCOs private citizen, then herCOs committing a
crime, and should be prosecuted by a state. If itrCOs not private
citizen, then there nothing rCLprivaterCY about their actions, thus
there is no expectations of rCLprivacyrCY. ThatrCOs why things like
FOIA requests exist.
The problem of privacy isn't limited to citizens who "commit
crimes." It extends to anyone /collectively involved/ in
potential socioeconomic misfortune, including the "lazy liberals"
that conservatives scream about, liberals who are /supposedly/
lazy, but may in fact have reasons justifying their actions.
That doesn't mean we should just stick a camera in everyone's
bathrooms on day one. It just means that in an /ideal/
society, we would have nothing to fear and nothing to hide. No
discovered misfortune or act would be "humiliating" or
"embarrassing"; we would just candidly know about each other.
No, in rCLideal societyrCY people wouldnrCOt feel the need to rCLknow
about each otherrCY because they would be living among other
people just like themselves.
What you're describing is /perfect conformity/. Which, if a poor
little boy in a wheelchair were born, would require tossing him
into the fire.
Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> writes:
On 2026-07-07, Flocked Up <noreply@mixmin.net> wrote:
[...]
From there, police are able to expand the warrant and look
deeper into specific accounts and addresses to get identity
information.
The Supreme Court is making it harder or even impossible to get
them. The justices ruled that these warrants could constitute
an unreasonable search and seizure, because oftentimes
citizens' data is scooped up and investigated even if they have
no connection to the crime.
"I don't believe my cell number being found in a particular
location is particularly troublesome to me if I haven't
committed any crimes," McDonald said.
But just because someone else committed a crime, it doesn't
mean that there is no longer a right to privacy, Benza said.
Enough with this "right to privacy."
We seal envelopes not because the letter contains a conspiracy, but
because the contents belong exclusively to the sender and the receiver.
The "nothing to hide" argument is pure corporate/state
propaganda. Privacy isn't about hiding a crime; it's about deciding who
gets access to your life. It's a boundary of power, not a shield of
guilt.
https://dontgetflocked.com/
On 2026-07-14, Schlomo Goldberg <schlomo.goldberg@mailinator.com>
wrote:
Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> writes:
Enough with this "right to privacy."
We seal envelopes not because the letter contains a conspiracy,
but because the contents belong exclusively to the sender and
the receiver.
That argument appears to be question-begging. Why do we seal the
envelope? For one, to keep the paper from falling out. But you
say, additionally, that it's because of /exclusive ownership/,
not merely of /physical/ property (the letter itself) but of
/intellectual/ property (what's /written in/ the letter).
The claim of /intellectual/ property just reduces again to the
claim of a right to privacy -- thereby begging the question of
why such a right to privacy exists.
If someone opened the letter, read the contents, put it back in,
and sealed it, the harm wouldn't so much be in the intercipient's
knowledge of the letter as it would be in the tattered, crumpled
envelope that had to be resealed, which would give the letter an
ugly appearance.
The "nothing to hide" argument is pure corporate/state
propaganda. Privacy isn't about hiding a crime; it's about
deciding who gets access to your life. It's a boundary of
power, not a shield of guilt.
"Access to one's life," "power," and "guilt" are, at best,
incomplete concepts. The concept of /guilt/, additionally, has
signification only within a system of /retributive/ justice
(where the "guilty man" is stomped on by a bigger, more
attractive male for the amusement of the public)
and may
disappear, and disappear entirely, in a system of /restorative/
justice (where instead we just solve the problem).
You say, "Privacy isn't about hiding a crime." Here, "about" is
an obfuscating term. Privacy /enables/ hiding a crime. It also
/disables/ the obtainment of information that is potentially
useful in the socioeconomic problem-solving process (such as who
starves from lack of food, where, and why).
"Power," and the boundary thereof, inheres not only in the
possessor of private information, but in those who have the power
to know. Removing the right to privacy grants you the power to
know who "accessed your life" in his commission of a crime
against you.
That doesn't mean we should just stick a camera in everyone's
bathrooms on day one. It just means that in an /ideal/ society,
we would have nothing to fear and nothing to hide. No discovered
misfortune or act would be "humiliating" or "embarrassing"; we
would just candidly know about each other.
Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
A conceptual distinction should be made between two senses of
"taking away the right to privacy":
1. Removing the /universal/ right to privacy, or
2. Implementing a correspondingly /universal/ right to know.
To clarify, the sense I intend is (1). A correspondingly
/universal/ right to know would be a straw man.
Such a universal right to know -- or, as you rhetorically
describe it, "sticking a camera in everyone's butt" -- does
not necessarily inhere in an ideal society, particularly if it
/limits physical freedom/, which I already guarded against in
my original claim. Literally sticking a camera in everyone's
butt would limit the physical freedom to walk with correct,
upright posture.
Are you AI?
The problem of privacy isn't limited to citizens who "commit
crimes." It extends to anyone /collectively involved/ in
potential socioeconomic misfortune, including the "lazy liberals"
that conservatives scream about, liberals who are /supposedly/
lazy, but may in fact have reasons justifying their actions.
And yourCOre going with that exactly where?
No, in rCLideal societyrCY people wouldnrCOt feel the need to rCLknow
about each otherrCY because they would be living among other
people just like themselves.
What you're describing is /perfect conformity/. Which, if a
poor little boy in a wheelchair were born, would require
tossing him into the fire.
No, thatrCOs a lie. I guess I also should mention that boyrCOs
wheelchair during pregnancy would limit the physical freedom of
mother to walk with correct, upright posture.
rCLPerfect conformityrCY is what *you* call rCLideal societyrCY - with glass houses, where there is rCLnothing to fear and nothing to hiderCY.
[...]
Scott Hoge <nospam@nospam.com> writes:
"Access to one's life," "power," and "guilt" are, at best,
incomplete concepts. The concept of /guilt/, additionally, has
signification only within a system of /retributive/ justice
(where the "guilty man" is stomped on by a bigger, more
attractive male for the amusement of the public) and may
disappear, and disappear entirely, in a system of
/restorative/ justice (where instead we just solve the
problem).
And that "solving", of course, won't involve stomping by "a
bigger, more attractive male"?
You say, "Privacy isn't about hiding a crime." Here, "about"
is an obfuscating term. Privacy /enables/ hiding a crime. It
also /disables/ the obtainment of information that is
potentially useful in the socioeconomic problem-solving
process (such as who starves from lack of food, where, and
why).
You can try just asking people if they're starving. Or you
think they won't tell you due to privacy?
"Power," and the boundary thereof, inheres not only in the
possessor of private information, but in those who have the
power to know. Removing the right to privacy grants you the
power to know who "accessed your life" in his commission of a
crime against you.
No, it does not. I don't remeber Flock providing public access
to their cameras, even though they services are already paid
for by "public servants" such as law enforcement.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 47:44:01 |
| Calls: | 1,100 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 275,630 |