Assuming that admins will use "common sense" and not misuse information is the main reason why people are negligent about their privacy.
Hmph. Putting it all together sounds like you're saying you can't use the web at all without surrendering all
sorts of privacy... How very NSA logic of you. And you manage to hide it all under basically, didn't you know this was necessary for any business to agree to host you. Brilliant.
Whether one is negligent or not in a matter of privacy, is often a question decided after
the fact when people find out what is actually going on and whether it reasonably stretches generally accepted community notions of umm, privacy. Policies don't tend to cover such scenarios as these exactly, or they may cover it in ways that are either not in keeping with the spirit of the laws they claim to cite, or with more fundamental parts of the Constitution etc.
Contrary to what you said, business owners routinely collect and aggregate large stores of data for marketing and revenue purposes. Why does the Facebook app need permission to read my text messages?
You're saying aggregate
data, not personal data there. The Brits and where applicable, quite possibly the NSA, have been concerned with locating individual
identity data for purposes of policing.
Private businesses are not bound by many of the provisions of the Constitution - 1st and 4th Amendments do not apply.
Sounds like a very broad, sweeping statement. Could you provide some documentation to elaborate on just what you mean there? I would be very surprised if none of it applies. I google and see some pages that say things like on an internal corporate network one might not expect the same 4th Amendment protections that apply to say, your home. But I have no idea really what the scope of what you are trying to say there would be.
Even if you were right, there may come a point -- as there has, to a limited extent -- where even politicians begin to acknowledge that the existing laws may have failed to anticipate the relationships that technology has enabled. When those relationships have moved beyond the original spirit of the law and we sense likely violations of that spirit, it's time to amend stuff and update the technicalities of the law.
And no amount of saying something was "legit" under some technical disclaimer will make people believe it was ethically acceptable. Particularly when you have the organizations in power blaring on in their own internal documents about how powerful they have made themselves and how activists, citizens and techies are to be treated in the process as opposition and with contempt.
The ACA/Obamacare legislation was also not completely read by legislators. That does not make it any less legitimate. [Until the Patriot Act is repealed, it is as legit as any other piece of legislation.
Since you're bringing it up, you know full well there is a whole bevy of people who disagree with that. But much as Alex has discussed, I'm not really hanging my hat simply on what has passed a court or not -- but on what, if people were consistent with first principles, I think should. But then many of the people who think ACA has not been properly discussed, seem to overlap with those who think "a well regulated militia" means owning paramilitary hardware in private homes with no
organizational control whatsoever. So I'm a little skeptical about how pertinent their arguments would be, even by analogy. Surely you've already covered your view of those details in some other thread(s!).
Really... I know you love to say in effect, only deal with what is immediately practical to change and it's "naive" to complain about anything without a magic bullet. Therefore anyone who is not a dictator is rather naive to expect any social justice that hasn't already been accomplished, isn't it. And you often seem to think it's much more important to protect business from all sorts of inconvenience than to be well imo, fair to everyone trying to survive. But trying to draw an equivalence here is still kind of a cheap shot imo. Maybe the Clean Air Act should be taken more seriously and not diluted, too. But I don't need to argue that in this thread to make the point. Or umpteen other things.
I really wasn't saying anything about Yahoo saying that. It shows that they are aware enough of the potential political and perhaps even legal backlash to attempt to remove themselves from possible blame. It shows that they
know someone may soon rule that was against first principles, no matter how many neat little disclaimers they may have had which you like to focus on so much.
Yes, yes I do know Yahoo and Facebook and whoever collect oodles of generalized networking patterns and aggregate marketing data. But unless they actively assisted the government in means to select individual data without being forced to, I am much more concerned that governments are doing that themselves for clearly political and punitive aims, and now increasingly reaching into private visuals (people thought phone calls were bad?) without having to show real cause. There may be some cases where it's questionable whether the tech companies should have forwarded "threat" info to the government at all -- but in this article, it's really about a government agency starting from scratch with the notion of finding pictures of individuals and what happens when you start to actually attempt to search through troves looking for particular people.
Maybe you got a little too distracted by my amusement at all the porn they can't extricate themselves from. A fun opener but... If you really think that's all I cared about, you didn't catch it all.