Google Inc.'s privacy practices are the worst among the Internet's top destinations, according to a watchdog group seeking to intensify the recent focus on how the online search leader handles personal information about its users. In a report released Saturday, London-based Privacy International assigned Google its lowest possible grade. The category is reserved for companies with "comprehensive consumer surveillance and entrenched hostility to privacy."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-10-02
Greed is never morally right, but it is not necessarily legally wrong.
Moral is relative and as such subjective. KKK claims interracial marriages are wrong. Does that mean we should make a law against it? Some people claim homosexuality is wrong. Should we make it illegal? Some people claim freedom of speech is wrong. Should we remove free speech?
The legal right to do a moral wrong is an essential right. Legal right and legal wrong should only be based on whether or not it limits or harms other individuals. Ethic standards are irrelevant for laws. Only objective standards are useful.
Member since:2006-07-30
Legal right and legal wrong should only be based on whether or not it limits or harms other individuals[...]
Only objective standards are useful.
Laws and moral are equally random.
There is no such thing as an objective standard.
How exactly do you define "limit" and "harm"?
Isn't it quite harmful if you die because you cannot afford medical treatment while somebody else has billions of Dollars to spare?
When is it justified to limit an individual's freedom and put him into jail?
Which freedom is more important, my neighbour's freedom to listen to crappy music or my own freedom to enjoy silence and think about stuff?
The way I understood your post you seem to think that laws should somehow be the lowest common denominator of everybody's morals.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing!
Or are you aiming at the majority?
If yes, how big a majority would be enough to justify a law? 99.9%, 99%, 90%?
No matter which number you pick, it will be equally random.
Hmm, maybe this discussion should be continued as an OSNews conversation - that's up to you to decide.
This thread is screwed, anyway ;-)
Member since:2005-07-08
People don't agree on morality, and (sub)cultures neither. Law makers face an increasingly complex task of defining broadly accepted rules for a country. In a perfect world, laws wouldn't be needed, but as it is, they function to protect people, while (ideally) trying to preserve everybody's freedom as much as possible. Ethic standards are the only conceivable guideline for laws. One such moral is preventing harm to other individuals -- or would you say that is an objective standard? I might agree.
Member since:
2005-07-08
[OT] Laws are (or at least should be) ALL about morals -- principles of right and wrong behaviour. We agree that greed often isn't 'right' (and I don't want to go into capitalism, too complex).