|
|
Sure, some feminist groups are anti-sex-work, though not for the reasons you state, but it really doesn't matter. Those groups have no power, money, or lobbying groups. Religious groups have all three and are not afraid to use them.
Jesus once refused to judge a sex worker. Too bad his followers refuse to follow his example. They seem to believe that they have more wisdom than he did.
To paraphrase George Carlin, it's nonsense that something is illegal to sell that you can legally give away for free.
Like your vote?
Sure, so you pick no account at all, then add other accounts as desired. Just like my iPad needs an iTunes account or none at all, and the Windows phone I used a years ago needed a MS account or none. It's not much of a shackle if you can say "nah, no thanks" and still have a perfectly usable device.
Unless your goal is to use google personalized services (mail, storage, phone backup, etc) without creating a google account, which seems unlikely to end well for anyone involved.
Odd. I was able to log in with an apple icloud account on my android to read email. And I'm pretty sure you never need to log in with a google account if you don't want to use google services.
What are you trying to do, and what is happening such that you cannot do it?
This is the perfect use of government money: projects which are promising (though they may not pan out in the end), which will help many people, and which will not be subsidized by industry because they will not make money in the next three quarters. I don't expect any real results from this study for many years, but I think it's a very important study to do.
If the health insurance industry only wasted a billion dollars a year, we wouldn't care about Obamacare. I'm assuming you meant "trillion dollar a year boondoggle", and even that is low.
An excellent idea. I love the idea that you can read the mail I sent to you, but only if you are in the US! Or only if your email reader was made by Sony! Quite a brave new world that you are working towards.
Note that your argument work equally well against anti-spam systems. Mr. Spammer certainly didn't knowingly consent to allow his message to you go through spamassassin. Quick, send in the lawyers!
And a good thing. My wife wants her ads to show up in her email, I want them gone, and spam filters can figure that out and (mostly) do the right thing.
Wow, you truly have no idea how anti-spam algorithms work. Please read up on bayesian networks. They are used by anti-spam software, and they (or something similar) are used by Google's ad systems.
They are exactly the same system. Exactly.
You're right. If you send me a letter, and I show it to my wife, well, you didn't consent to that. Hell, I can show it to the New York Times, and you didn't consent to that, and tough shit to you. Once you send it to me you cannot control who I show it to.
Please stop trying to tell me what I can do with MY email. You sent it to me, so you no longer control it. Stop trying to control me.
Or are you trying to say that gmail users didn't consent to Google having access to their email? Despite the text they saw when they signed up, the contents of the first letter in their inbox, and Google's greatly simplified privacy policy that was all over the news a year ago for months on end? Hell, I applied for this credit card but didn't realize I had to pay it back, pretty please mister judge fix that for me!
In other words, if you want private contact between you and another party you shouldn't be using a service like gmail.
If you want private contact between you and another party, well, good luck enforcing that from your end. You can send them an actual letter, which they can keep secret or they can show to their spouse, their lawyer, or the New York Times.
This whole thing seems to be "I want the courts to let me determine what you are allowed to do with the email I sent to you". I am amazed that anyone thinks that this is a good idea. I have a gmail.com and a
The law says you can't steal or open my mail in route, or sitting in the post office, sitting in my mailbox, or sitting in my house.
You are missing a very critical bit: "without permission".
There are companies who will receive all of your mail (or send people to your house to read it) so that they can pre-sort it, toss the junk, handle the mundane and pass through the important stuff. You or I don't care much about this, but a celebrity who gets thousands of letters a week does. This is legal, because the celebrity has given permission and the celebrity "owns" the mail they receive. The people sending the letters don't get any say in this, no matter their "expectation of privacy".
If you send mail to my personal
You mean that you expected tech companies to lobby congresscritters about something which they were not allowed to talk about and which neither the public nor the congresscritters knew about (or particularly cared about)? Gee whiz, that does seem likely to help. Were you writing letters to your representative during Jan-April about the warrantless wiretapping that Bush started and Obama continues, known publicly for years now? But you're happy to whine "Oh why won't Google protect my rights when I can't be bothered, boo hoo".
Those who like facts over rhetoric and "being right" might consider the various transparency reports, including the fact that Google started reporting NSLs (as much as they legally could) long before all this came to light. But for most people, thinking is too hard, so they'll keep on complaining and not thinking.
Fixing our problems is hard, but if you demonize the few folks trying to help, you're doing the NSAs work for them. Blame those who deserve blame, not the easy targets.
Now, do you want to split hairs and argue that "maybe Google isn't a 'telecommunications company'" or "maybe the orders they got weren't for 'bulk phone records'," or do you want to maybe acknowledge that the industry in the US doesn't give a flying fuck if nobody is looking (or is even allowed to look)?
So you don't even know what a telecommunications company is, but that's okay, you'll spew your "facts" anyways. The best defense against the government is an informed populace. Sadly, we've mostly got people like you who refuse to educate yourself. Be proud, you're part of the reason the NSA got this far and hasn't had to back down.
As far as I can tell, the internet companies have done more that any others is trying to hold back the NSA. They're not perfect, but they've tried, and deserve recognition for that. The telecommunications companies, on the other hand, seem to have been happy to help their government. Well, except for Qwest, and we know how that turned out.
(The funny thing is that, with Google Voice and Google Fiber, Google is a better telecommunications company than the actual telecommunications companies.)
I'm assuming that TFS reads differently in your world? But I agree, it's best to make up your mind before deciding which facts to ignore.
I'm assuming, from your quote of Eric Schmidt, that you disagree with him. In what way? If you don't want people knowing that you go it a DUI, for example, what do you suggest:
1) Passing laws forcing people to not talk about things you don't want them to talk about. Should work well with the Bill of Rights.
2) Use telepathy to remove the knowledge from peoples' brains.
3) Call a cab.
Really, now. Think, and take some responsibility for your actions.
The Macintosh is Xerox technology at its best.