Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Tue 12th Jun 2007 00:39 UTC
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."
Thread beginning with comment 247250
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: not enough info
by sbergman27 on Tue 12th Jun 2007 19:22
in reply to "RE[7]: not enough info"
Member since:2005-07-24
"""
Laws and moral are equally random.
There is no such thing as an objective standard.
How exactly do you define "limit" and "harm"?
"""
It's all quite simple, really. You appoint a cult of priests and priestesses. Let them invent their own impenetrable vocabulary. Give them time to generate a huge body of documents which one must understand before one can become a practitioner. And, oh, I almost forgot: Robes. You've got to have robes.
Once that's done, the problem is quite solved. It doesn't matter if you are dealing with ethics, religion or law. The same formula works quite effectively, regardless.
Edited 2007-06-12 19:28
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
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 ;-)