(04-26-2011, 05:06 PM)shitstorm Wrote:

(04-26-2011, 04:26 PM)Duchess Wrote:

I've been randomly asking people I know how they feel about this & it's been unanimous, no one cares. Hahaha. The most common reply is, why would anyone care about them & I admit to feeling the same way.

It's a mistake not to care. It's just that people don't see where this tracking of people can lead. A few years ago, this technology would have been laughed off as something that never would happen and it WILL get more intrusive. A lot of people don't care that they get irradiated and molested by TSA agents, either. Some would probably consent to a monthly search of their homes, too. Some will gladly have a chip implanted when it's sold to them as something that makes life more convenient. Let me ask you this, Duchess: How would you feel if you thought that Apple might sell your info to a govt that wanted to know how many times you've been to the gun store to buy ammo? That happening is no more impossible than a phone that tracks your every move. It's those kinds of possibilities that anyone who cares about their rights needs to consider.

On the FLIP side, part of the tracking is to supposedly better serve the customer being tracked. The idea being, if your phone knows where you are, it can better offer up services, maps etc. specific to your location, right? It's not all some nefarious plot

As quoted from the "For those with an Iphone" thread...

(04-23-2011, 06:08 PM)AriGold Wrote: How narcissistic do you need to be to think someone cares about your location data? Unless, there is a reason you should be worried about people knowing where you have been, who gives a fuck? Are YOU a criminal? If a criminal has access to this file, that means they have access to your phone or computer. That should be the major concern. If a criminal somehow only got a hold of your iPhone's consolidated.db file, what is he going to do with it really? Wait for you at your favorite Thai restaurant and mug you? Lets get real, people.

Companies have been collecting location based data for years now. Not to mention, most (if not all) websites collect just as much (if not more) data that could be abused far easier than someone taking physical possession of your iPhone (which should be password locked anyways).

Case in point -- the following info was obtained from just my IP address:

----
General IP Information

Hostname: pool-74-96-219-145.washdc.fios.verizon.net
ISP: Verizon Internet Services
Organization: Verizon Internet Services
Proxy: None detected
Type: Broadband
Assignment: Static IP

Geolocation Information

Country: United States
State/Region: Virginia
City: Herndon
Latitude: 38.9266
Longitude: -77.3936
Area Code: 703
Postal Code: 20171

-------

Is this still an actual discussion?


Why?

(04-26-2011, 11:48 PM)shitstorm Wrote: No, Methusala, this is not the same as the carrier having a record that is only available with a warrant. In the case of Apple, it's unencrypted data stored on the device. Apple may "may collect, use, and share precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device."

This is new to you? I admire you for taking the time to read and study the U.S. Constitution, and that tells me that you are also cautious enough to read and study your cell phone contract with your carrier, and the shrink-wrap contracts enclosed with any piece of hardware and software, including the one from your cell phone maker.

You did read that, didn't you? Including the part in every shrink-wrap contract which gives you the right to return the product for a full refund within (X) days if you don't agree with its terms after opening the package and finding therein the contract and reading it?

And what does this have to do with worrying about the government taking away your guns? These are private contracts entered into by you, a private citizen, with a private corporation!

You're not advocating that the government should issue more regulations against these private corporations, are you? Have you become an advocate for more government regulation?

Shitstorm.

The US government doesn't give a fuck what you do, where you go or what you say.

Relax, you are a nobody spouting shit on a Mock forum.

It is also pretty amusing when a "strict constructionist" claims they have a constitutional "right to privacy!"

Look through your copy of the Constitution and show us where the Founding Fathers gave you or me or anyone else a "right to privacy."

You aren't going to let those big bad Supreme Court Justices "construe" the Constitution to give you a right that you can't find written there in the original words, are you? What would the Founding Fathers think?

I don't have a cell phone, Methusala. You've established your contempt for all things Constitutional, and I accept that. I don't share that POV and when you ask about a right to privacy, I would point out that the Michigan State Police have been d/ling the contents of people's phones. Why, I don't know, but it most certainly is a violation of the 4^th amendment when no warrant has been issued (your not valuing such rights is not what I'm addressing).

The issue of a manufacturer putting in hidden software in order to collect and "share" your information has nothing to do with the Constitution. Last I checked, Apple is not part of the govt. They will do as they want. Initially, Apple was not up front about this. Now that it has become a topic on computer sites, people can decide if they are cool with such corporate data collection and, if not, they can d/l the encryption app. Someone like username who likes the idea of being a targeted consumer will probably leave it as it is. Not everyone thinks that way. Some of us even go to the trouble of d/ling software to block ads, spam, spying and to protect our personal info.

My conversation with Duchess was merely an example, a what if. When you give up your personal info to a corporation, it is no longer yours and they can share or sell it. Cyber info can also be hacked, as just happened with PlayStation. Protecting ones personal info in this day and age is getting more and more difficult and may be a hopeless cause. For you, it's a non issue. I understand that. For others, it's important enough that industry sites are writing and warning about it.

(04-27-2011, 12:13 PM)Methusala Wrote: It is also pretty amusing when a "strict constructionist" claims they have a constitutional "right to privacy!"

Look through your copy of the Constitution and show us where the Founding Fathers gave you or me or anyone else a "right to privacy."

You aren't going to let those big bad Supreme Court Justices "construe" the Constitution to give you a right that you can't find written there in the original words, are you? What would the Founding Fathers think?

I have no interest in the conversation but I feel like cutting and pasting...

The Right To Privacy

The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9^th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3^rd, the 4^th's search and seizure limits, and the 5^th's self-incrimination limit.

Carry on.

(04-28-2011, 03:06 PM)shitstorm Wrote: You've established your contempt for all things Constitutional, and I accept that. I don't share that POV and when you ask about a right to privacy, I would point out that the Michigan State Police have been d/ling the contents of people's phones.

You're very mistaken. I believe in the Constitution just as everyone else in the discussion here does, and I also believe in the portions of the Constitution which vest the courts with the duty and power to interpret the Constitution, which sometimes means going beyond the original words to find meaning in light of the existing real world. Such as finding a "right of privacy," when no such language exists in the Constitution.

You've gotten yourself entangled in contradictory positions from which you cannot escape by pontification or sarcasm.

You insist on your "right to privacy" which I enthusiastically support and agree exists, but you won't and can't explain how it sprung from the U. S. Constitution so long as you adhere to your theory of "strict construction" of the Constitution, a theory which forbids the very interpretation you reply upon.

You attempt to assert this "right of privacy" against private corporations entering into a contract with private citizens which provides for them to collect data from cell phone use, but you won't and can't explain how this conduct is illegal or a violation of your rights as a private citizen. You attempt to obscure the lack of logic in this position by jumping to the completely separate issue of how and when a governmental authority can obtain that information.

You claim surprise and betrayal about the fact that cell phones record and collect location data when, by definition, a cell phone system divides the service area into "cells" which rely on the location of numerous towers to send, receive and relay packets of data. Perhaps you would be surprised to learn that taxi drivers keep a log of where they pick passengers up and where they drop them off? And that government bodies can follow lawful but rather routine procedures to obtain this information?

And you worry that this necessary and contractually permitted collection of location data can somehow lead to the U.S. Government taking away your guns, but you won't and can't explain the connection, because none exists.

Methusala, please re-read what I have said. Please post where I said that your beloved Apple is constitutionally constrained from data mining and collection. I didn't. I have advocated for the importance of keeping personal information private and given my opinion about the potential dangers of abuse of said information. That's it. I did not attempt to explain how that is "illegal" because it isn't. It's a case of buyer beware. I think you got a bug up your ass when I posited a future scenario involving gun ownership (let me guess - you're not a fan of the right to bear arms? ). Duchess has made several posts about guns and knowing how to use them. I used the gun example for that reason. If she were an anti war activist in danger of being targeted under the PATRIOT Act, I would have tailored my future case scenario to that. Possibilities like those aside, not wanting to be tracked for marketing purposes is enough for me. It's not for you. *Shocker* - we have a difference of opinion.

(04-28-2011, 05:21 PM)shitstorm Wrote: Please post where I said that your beloved Apple is constitutionally constrained from data mining and collection.

Okay.

(04-26-2011, 05:06 PM)shitstorm Wrote: [Post: #65]
It's a mistake not to care. It's just that people don't see where this tracking of people can lead. A few years ago, this technology would have been laughed off as something that never would happen and it WILL get more intrusive. A lot of people don't care that they get irradiated and molested by TSA agents, either.
…
Let me ask you this, Duchess: How would you feel if you thought that Apple might sell your info to a govt that wanted to know how many times you've been to the gun store to buy ammo? That happening is no more impossible than a phone that tracks your every move. It's those kinds of possibilities that anyone who cares about their rights needs to consider.

I assume that you have not been recently "irradiated and molested by TSA agents" and therefore the inevitable conclusion is that you were talking about the subject of this thread, to-wit: the recording and collection of location data by both cell phone carriers and phone manufacturers.

In addition, you also wrote, in response to Fibonacci's humorous remark that it's "not apple's beezwax"

(04-26-2011, 05:33 PM)shitstorm Wrote: Nobody needs a reason to claim the right to move about without being tracked, other than it's a fundamental human right. Many argue, "if you're not doing anything wrong you shouldn't mind, etc". Well, then, why have a fourth amendment?

I rest my case.

Methusala, can you walk and chew gum at the same time? Your inability to comprehend that there can be more than one issue to be concerned about, when it comes to corporations collecting data on people makes me think not.

Yes, Apple might sell your data. They reserve the right to share it. Once acquired it is THEIR property. "...anyone who cares about their rights" refers to that data being sold, to be used against someone in a way that they did not anticipate. Same for the remark about the fourth amendment, in light of the issue with the Michigan State Police d/ling data from peoples' smart phones.

You failed to show where I claimed that corporate data mining and profiling is illegal. Though you asserted it, I never said any such thing.

You seem to have a rabid opposition to anyone even considering the issue of protecting personal information and I find that really strange. It's one thing for someone not to care, it's another to get bent out of shape over those who do. I really don't care what you do with your personal info. You can mail it to the entire list of the Fortune Five Hundred for all I care.

(04-28-2011, 08:04 PM)shitstorm Wrote: I really don't care what you do with your personal info. You can mail it to the entire list of the Fortune Five Hundred for all I care.

I already have. They won't hire anybody my age.

(04-28-2011, 08:22 PM)Methusala Wrote:

(04-28-2011, 08:04 PM)shitstorm Wrote: I really don't care what you do with your personal info. You can mail it to the entire list of the Fortune Five Hundred for all I care.

I already have. They won't hire anybody my age.

Nice to see shitstorm being knocked off her self delusional ivory tower again.

I always enjoy Methusala's posts, they are smart & thoughtful, I feel the same way about SS's posts so it's been fun for me watching them go back & forth.

(04-29-2011, 06:46 AM)Duchess Wrote:

I always enjoy Methusala's posts, they are smart & thoughtful, I feel the same way about SS's posts so it's been fun for me watching them go back & forth.

Watching Methusala pwning shitforbrains is like watching someone poke roadkill with a pointy stick.

(04-29-2011, 06:53 AM)Ordinary Peephole Wrote: Watching Methusala pwning shitforbrains is like watching someone poke roadkill with a pointy stick.

Jesus christ, the use of that term should be a bannable offence.

(04-29-2011, 10:39 AM)IMaDick Wrote:

(04-29-2011, 06:53 AM)Ordinary Peephole Wrote: Watching Methusala pwning shitforbrains is like watching someone poke roadkill with a pointy stick.

Jesus christ, the use of that term should be a bannable offence.

I thought you would be used to it, I do it to you here everyday.

(04-29-2011, 11:05 AM)Ordinary Peephole Wrote: [quote='IMaDick' pid='162542' dateline='1304087986']

I thought you would be used to it, I do it to you here everyday.

You're a stupid fucker, you couldn't get the best of me on your best day.

stand down little man.