Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: It's OK to Not Tolerate Inteolerance (Score 1) 553

If you surveyed how many citizens would support law against hate speech, it would probably be a significant number. And prospective citizens as well. So I don't think the problem with your proposal has anything to do with people in favor of shari'a law. It would not work with plain Judeo-Christian European European-descended folks.

Comment Re:Why do people care... (Score 1) 77

If a person wants or expects privacy, I believe that the onus is upon them to take measures to sufficient degree

They do. They beat the crap out of glassholes

This is assault, and illegal. Your so-called "right to privacy" does not extend to the right to beat up anybody who you think may be infringing upon it. If someone is breaking the law to infringe on your privacy, your course of action should be to report the crime, not to beat the person up.

Comment Re:So basically... (Score 1) 553

I've met Godwin and he'd be horrified that you are trying to shield Trump by invoking his name. The world doesn't need an automatic method to suppress discussion of atrocities, and Mike never meant what he said to be one. In fact, this is a quote of Mike directly:

If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician.

Comment Re:It's OK to Not Tolerate Inteolerance (Score 1) 553

Your next move, should you choose to make it, is to decry that if we actually had standards for citizenship (like every other goddamn country on Earth) we'd have to kick out all existing citizens that don't meet those standards, which is ludicrous. No one handles birthright citizenship the same way they handle citizenship through naturalization, and the lack of options for stateless citizens makes that idea cruel and untenable.

With all due respect, you're talking to yourself now. I wasn't thinking of this point at all.

Comment Re:It's OK to Not Tolerate Inteolerance (Score 1) 553

The actual statement is "support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States". Now, obviously, you personally do not approve of every law, nor could anyone even know them all. If you swear "true faith and allegiance" to them you are swearing to follow and uphold the law, not to refrain from opposing it in a peaceful political manner as is supported by that very text. The only way as a citizen that you could actually break the first amendment would be if you were in a government position, because it's directed toward congress rather than the people. So, the typical prospective citizen can swear allegiance to that amendment with complete confidence that they will never be in a position for that to matter.

Comment Re:They didn't tolerate intolerance (Score 1) 553

Some people call that "democracy.

Yes, but democracy doesn't mean that you have a right not to be criticized, shunned, fired, boycotted, and abused in any other lawful manner for your speech. However, this wasn't speech. It was deliberate spreading of falsehood and cheating the moderation system. Who in their right mind would not deplore such corruption?

Comment Re:Why do people care... (Score 1) 77

Just because one is a "public" place doesn't mean everyone should have everything they do and say documented for all time

The people who take exception to this should note that they,. like most other people around them, are not likely to be interesting enough for other people to even *want* to document everything they do or say in a public place for all time in the first place.

The brain is a recording device too... the fact that we happen to consider it fallible is immaterial... you can record something using a device with lossy compression too.

Reasonably, the objection to being recorded in a public place logically reduces to objecting to other people paying attention to them when they don't want to be. Trying to govern it with laws is trying to control what people are even allowed to *THINK*, and that is something I consider infinitely more morally objectionable than somebody eavesdropping on a conversation that was none of their business or even if they were recording it (as long as it was for their own personal use, just as whatever they have remembered in their own head would be).

Comment Re:Why do people care... (Score 1) 77

It doesn't matter if wetware is not coming as soon as I supposedly think... I mention it to point out that if it were even hypothetically a thing, our existing objection to being recorded with devices should mean that it would be equally objectionable to simply have people *observing*... clearly this is absurd, even in an age where mind-machine interfaces are viable, and so by extension, it must be equally absurd to object to the idea of being recorded in the first place when you are in an area where someone might incidentally be observing you. Again, the fact that no such technology exists right now is irrelevant, since we would not object to simple observation even *IF* that observation were being permanently recorded, so there is no real reason to object to permanent recording in the first place.

If a person wants or expects privacy, I believe that the onus is upon them to take measures to sufficient degree that the only way that people will be able to infringe on that privacy is to violate laws allowing people to control who and what is on their own personal property.

It's not that I think if you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide, either... everyone has things that they would rather be private, and I believe everyone is entitled to that... but people should deal with the things that they want to be private in environments that *ARE* private... not in places that are public, which is, you know... the very *opposite* of private. Your privacy when you aren't trying to be in a private place is ultimately dependent not on what you might believe or want, but solely on how much other people want to pay attention to you in the first place, and so worrying about it in such circumstances even at best represents what is probably an inflated opinion of oneself, believing oneself to be far more important to other people that they don't know than is realistically likely to be the case.

So when the premise that might otherwise make one care about it is based on a falsehood (that other people are as interested in them as they are), there's no rational basis to be worried about it.

When I want privacy, I go somewhere private. I step outside, however... and it's fair game.

Comment Why do people care... (Score 1, Interesting) 77

... whether or not somebody else records them in a public place? For fuck's sake, if they are within earshot, they are recording your audio and if they are in eyeshot, they are recording your video... the only difference is that the device that is doing the recording is their brain. When wetware becomes a thing, even that distinction to external devices such as cameras or microphones will be irrelevant. The *only* thing that really protects your privacy when you are in a public place is whether or not people are interested enough in paying attention to you.

Obviously,. you could still prosecute people that distribute content that was recorded without permission of the subject, but I see no point to the outcries against people who might record for their own personal use, and in all honesty, are probably not actually *that* interested in you in the first place to notice you, specifically, among everything else they might be recording and actually *are* interested in.

The only caveat to this I would suggest is that without clear signage to the effect that states that an area is being monitored or recorded, a person doing the monitoring or recording must be physically at the location the recording is occurring... I do not think it should necessarily be externally obvious that they are recording anything, however... any more than it should be required that if a person is simply observing people as they go by should be carrying sign saying that they are watching you.

Communications

The Verge's Deputy Editor Chris Ziegler Was Secretly Working For Apple For Two Months (gizmodo.com) 70

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: Late this afternoon, Nilay Patel, the editor-in-chief of The Verge, published a post detailing the circumstances around the departure of Chris Ziegler, a founding member of the site. As it turns out, according to Patel, Ziegler had been pulling double duty as an employee of both The Verge and Apple. "The circumstances of Chris' departure from The Verge raised ethical issues which are worth disclosing in the interests of transparency and respect for our audience," Patel wrote. "We're confident that there wasn't any material impact on our journalism from these issues, but they are still serious enough to merit disclosure." According to Patel, Ziegler, whose most recent post was published in July, began working for Apple in July but didn't disclose his new job; The Verge apparently didn't discover he'd been working there until early September. Patel noted that Ziegler continued to work for The Verge in July, but "was not in contact with us through most of August and into September." What's not clear is how The Verge leadership went six weeks without hearing from their deputy editor or taking serious action (like filing a missing person's report) to try to find him. Patel says they "made every effort to contact him and to offer him help if needed." Patel noted the obvious conflict of interest, and added that Ziegler was fired the same day they verified his employment at Apple. "Chris did not attempt to steer any coverage towards or away from Apple, and any particular decisions he helped make had the same outcomes they would have had absent his involvement," Patel wrote. However, it's still unclear how exactly the team at Vox Media, The Verge's parent company, ascertained there was no editorial consequences from the dual-employment. You can read Patel's full statement here. Vox Media's Fay Sliger followed up with a statement to Gizmodo: "Chris is no longer an employee of The Verge or Vox Media. Chris accepted a position with Apple, stopped communicating with The Verge's leadership, and his employment at The Verge was terminated. Vox Media's editorial director Lockhart Steele conducted an internal review of this conflict of interest, and after a thorough investigation, it was determined that there was no impact on editorial decisions or journalism produced at The Verge or elsewhere in Vox Media. We've shared details about this situation with The Verge's audience and will continue to be transparent should any new information come to light."

Slashdot Top Deals

"More software projects have gone awry for lack of calendar time than for all other causes combined." -- Fred Brooks, Jr., _The Mythical Man Month_

Working...