Log in  
Sign up

Play online chess!

From	Message
softaire 09-Feb-13, 07:58	Thoughts on the 4th Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated... I imagine most Western countries have something similar to this already established, or codified into law, so this thread is for everyone. It will be interesting to hear your perspectives. Just what does this mean? It is meant here to be a limitation against abusive government. But does it apply to other areas of our lives? This is one area of our Constitution that may need "updating" or further clarification, bring it into the modern world. Our modern technological world has allowed all sorts of invasion into our personal privacy, most of which we are not even aware about. For example, is it an "unreasonable search and seizure" to browse through our on-line documents (like these threads) and copy (seize) the content which might reveal many things about us? Is it an invasion of privacy for companies to allow search and seizure of our on-line postings in Google, Facebook etc. Is it an invasion if companies collect and then sell data collected about our purchases, websites usage, and predicted patterns of behavior? Is it OK for companies to use this type of commerce to generate targeted advertisements? Is it OK for the government to know that much about us and assign predicted behavior to us, based on 3000 different categories of behavior? What do you think? What are your concerns?
dmaestro 09-Feb-13, 09:20	It is a question of expectation of privacy and what is unreasonable. Unless there is a clear contractual relationship or law that puts limits on use, in practical terms you relinquish much privacy.
softaire 09-Feb-13, 10:29	dm Exactly. I have some examples that will astound you with what is collected, distributed, and known about us. Some of it we expect, like when we post here or at Facebook, etc. But most of it is collected unknown to us, without our permission, and then sold or distributed without our permission. The question is... is this right? Should we make laws against it, or is it ok?
aussiespud 09-Feb-13, 13:15	Softy You've hit the nail on the head when you say " without our permission", which can be implicit or explicit.....in my mind that's the line which determines the rightness or wrongness of other people collecting this stuff
softaire 09-Feb-13, 15:09	aussie There has been legislation proposed that would make it mandatory for Internet companies to let the person "Opt-In" and be part of the whole data mining thing, but if they do not "opt-in" they are automatically "opt-out". Currently it is the other way around.
aussiespud 09-Feb-13, 15:13	Softy Sounds to me that this would be a good way to go...it's puts the responsibilty back on the individual
changeling 09-Feb-13, 17:42	softy I believe that in Australia a 'government' organisation such as ASIO or even a police force still has to get permission from the courts (warrants) to access electronic personal data such as emails etc. However there is some concerns over whether these bodies do this anyway without warrants. I believe in these cases evidence gathered cannot be used in court similar to other types of evidence gathered 'illegally'. Of course the organisations can use evidence to further inquiries I suppose! The myth of privacy is simply that, a myth. As far as the 'war on terror' goes I also believe (if memory serves) that anyone in Australia can be arrested and held without trial for a certain period of time, to further 'investigation'. This came in some time ago. The opt in or out issue is an across the board one and has been with us for quite a long time now. As an example during the seventies insurance companies had to 'ask' customers if they wanted to increase their insurance (coverage and premiums), nowadays rises in premiums and coverage are automatic unless the customer contacts the insurer and says no, usually with a fight (all in the small print!).
softaire 09-Feb-13, 23:24	change It sounds like Australia is ahead of the U.S. again (I'm not surprised). But, I'll bet your government is collecting that data and probably using it... you just don't know it yet. And, I'll bet that if you did an experiment: use two different browsers on your computer after clearing all cookies. Then with one browser, pretend you are a Democrat, Liberal and browse those sites. Buy a few things (a magazine subscription for example) that a liberal democrat would buy. Then, use the other browser to pretend to be a Republican, Conservative and go to sites that a Republican would go to, but things a Republican would buy. After a few days, sign-on to each browser and start doing your "normal" things. Notice the advertisements that show up. Notice that on the one browser, you will get ads tailored to the Democrat and on the other you will get ads tailored to the Republican. The Internet companies are tracking your movements and buying history to predict what you will do. They are selling this information to companies who place ads on the web pages. Everybody knows LOTS about you.
changeling 10-Feb-13, 02:51	I don't disagree with that softy. Still, there are ways to keep things moderately private if one cares to circumvent your own IP address, I just can't be bothered. I'm not hiding from anyone, I have no wish to anyway.
softaire 10-Feb-13, 08:42	Right to Die? I include a "right to die" question here because it can be considered within the 4th Amendment about illegal searches and seizures. (a medical procedure or drugs can be considered an "unwanted touching, invasion and possibly seizure"). Right to die laws seem to be all over the place here in the states. I wonder what they are in other countries and what your views are about them. We have two broad general classifications: decisions for and by those that are competent adults, and decisions for those who are not competent to make their own decision. And, we also have two broad, general categories with each of those: the decision to simply withhold treatment which will end in death for the patient and/or the decision to proactively provide some treatment that will result in death. There seems to be no clear federal law in the states and the states seem to be able to make their own decisions about the topic. There are questions like: WHO is to make the decisions when somebody becomes incompetent? How can they prove that it is the patients wish? Can doctors, hospitals, states make their own decision and override the family? Can a patient refuse treatment? Can a patient receive doctor assisted suicide?
changeling 10-Feb-13, 20:41	That is a whole different issue softy, worthy of its own thread on Euthanasia! I suggest putting it up on its own for comments.
softaire 10-Feb-13, 21:55	change I include a "right to die" question here because it can be considered within the 4th Amendment about illegal searches and seizures. (a medical procedure or drugs can be considered an "unwanted touching, invasion and possibly seizure").

GameKnot: play chess online, chess clubs, chess teams, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.