CDZ Privacy, does it exist anymore, and why is it not protected anymore ?

[beagle9]

Updating the Mozilla Firefox browser gives another example of some companies fighting for consumers or citizens privacy rights or expectations, and thus realizing how important people view privacy as being in this nation. They (Mozilla)even equates privacy with freedom as it is explained in their words written.

 

[beagle9]

It's funny listening to the driver tell me about the things the drivers are saying regardless of the device, but it also makes me think that there might be retributions in which will be deployed in secret, and therefore might lead to the drivers dismissal or him or her quitting depending on what the retributions are. The sad thing is that it probably won't have anything to do with performance or safety, but just that the boss may be offended by a driver not taking any crap off of them. Hey the boss isn't always right either in life, so good luck with listening in is what I told the driver friend in which he agreed with me on. So many ways for such a thing to be abused that it ought not be allowed (the audio version of it). The video pointing out the window is enough to control the risk involved.

 

[Hiryuu]

That's only because a driver can turn it off, but not sure if he will get in trouble or not for that one. He hasn't crossed that bridge yet.

Okay, speaking of the driver being able to turn devices off. Modern vehicles are equipped with technology that assists all sorts of activities. They are internet capable, GPS adapted, low jacked and driver assisted. The government or a hacker can hack your vehicle, accelerate it, turn the steering wheel and slam on the brakes causing it roll ... And you are worried about a voice recorder in the cab.

How about we just step back and agree that it would be better to drive a 1970 Nova and take your chances?

It isn't hard for some of us to understand, they have had the capabilities to hear what you are saying for a long time. So the onus is on the person speaking, and how much they trust who is listening. It isn't a matter of whether or not they can hear what you say as much as who wants to hear what you have to say. Think about all those computer savvy folks out there with video cameras and blue tooth devices hooked up to their computers, phones, cars, tablets and freaking watches.

If you ever did have any imaginary privacy, you don't anymore. They were just really poor salesmen and should have sold the drivers on the idea it was for their own safety and convenience.

 

[beagle9]

That's only because a driver can turn it off, but not sure if he will get in trouble or not for that one. He hasn't crossed that bridge yet.

Okay, speaking of the driver being able to turn devices off. Modern vehicles are equipped with technology that assists all sorts of activities. They are internet capable, GPS adapted, low jacked and driver assisted. The government or a hacker can hack your vehicle, accelerate it, turn the steering wheel and slam on the brakes causing it roll ... And you are worried about a voice recorder in the cab.

How about we just step back and agree that it would be better to drive a 1970 Nova and take your chances?

It isn't hard for some of us to understand, they have had the capabilities to hear what you are saying for a long time. So the onus is on the person speaking, and how much they trust who is listening. It isn't a matter of whether or not they can hear what you say as much as who wants to hear what you have to say. Think about all those computer savvy folks out there with video cameras and blue tooth devices hooked up to their computers, phones, cars, tablets and freaking watches.

If you ever did have any imaginary privacy, you don't anymore. They were just really poor salesmen and should have sold the drivers on the idea it was for their own safety and convenience.

. The audio part of the technology isn't needed, nor does it have anything to do with performance or safety. I will stand with my original stance on the issue, and like anything regardless of what goes on around it all, everything has specifics, and everything should be judged independently as based upon the circumstances surrounding each case. People think that grouping things together, somehow gives blanket permission for everything when it shouldn't. This nations laziness to judge each case independently is costing us all big time.

 

[pismoe]

Recently a trucking company decided to place cams in their trucks, and to hardwire them in so that the cams will come on when the trucks start up (says a driver who works for the company who has done this). He said that the cam is no problem as it points outward or looks out the window for the purpose of recording the actions of motorist who are operating in and around the vehicle, and for the company to assess the truck drivers driving habits or skills for the purpose of risk management and/or for it to act as a recorded witness to a possible accident taking place. All good right ? Yes (Good).

Now here is the rub in which the driver or drivers are complaining about with this new idea. They are all livid because the thing is also recording voice or conversations that are taking place amongst the drivers in these trucks. Now I ask why would a company want to do this ? The drivers are in an uproar about it now, but the answer towards them are "If anyone doesn't like what's going on, then hit the road". Wow, wait really? Why does there need to be audio recording of drivers conversations in order to protect the companies interest in recording what is going on outside the vehicle ? Shouldn't that be their only concern, and not what's going on when a driver is having a conversation that is expected to have some semblance of privacy involved ?

I thought when told about this "Wow", that is just crazy. So are we now living more and more in a police state, and why is this happening now ? Are there people in offices listening to these conversations, who might take such conversations, and then abuse the right of privacy in order to hurt or fire the individual in which they might not like (i.e. not pertaining to his or her job or job performance) ? Otherwise so they would take the information learned and use it to do harm to an individual ? What guarantees should a company have to give in writing, that the information gained in no way will be used in ways to cause harm or how long will such information be held by the company & by whom is the information being held by ? A company should be held liable for any damage that might occur to a driver or individual if such information is found to be gained for political or hateful purposes, and/or is abused, or is used inappropriately right ????....

The inside of a truck cab is a driver's personal space, and it should be respected by any company as just that, and not to become liken to an office in order to bug and eavesdrop on a driver right ????. Shouldn't a company have to have an agreement drawn up by a lawyer in which the individual/driver, and the company should have to sign off on ??? I thought a warrant of suspicion has to be ordered up, and then signed off on by a judge before someone can record private conversations between individuals ???

The whole thing stinks to me, and it sounds disgusting enough of a situation for sure, but what do you all think ? Some concerned drivers would like to know. I will give them your assessments.

------------------------------ just a comment on privacy. In the truck driver situation the drivers better be careful if they want to keep their jobs . I just saw a report on FOX talking about driverless semi trucks and driverless cars are also really , really being developed . So either put up with the recording and video as I am sure that trucking companies would love to replace you . On the general idea of privacy . It has always been some peoples thinking that they will enforce their own privacy as much as possible . Look at all the people that voluntarily give up their privacy with their words and keyboard typings on electronic communication devices and by not being careful of the things that they say and doin verbal conversation . ----------------------- OFF TOPIC PERHAPS but like I said , just a general comment on PRIVACY .

 

[Hiryuu]

The audio part of the technology isn't needed, nor does it have anything to do with performance or safety. I will stand with my original stance on the issue, and like anything regardless of what goes on around it all, everything has specifics, and everything should be judged independently as based upon the circumstances surrounding each case. People think that grouping things together, somehow gives blanket permission for everything when it shouldn't. This nations laziness to judge each case independently is costing us all big time.

You give them permission when you buy the products, install the technology or decide to work for a company that does. We are not required to hold everyones' hand and ensure they approve of every measure we may take to provide the service we want, from employees we want representing us. Their job is to deliver the cargo, not to talk on the phone or listen to the radio. There is no need to attempt to coerce people into believing they have rights they don't. If they cannot abide by the general acceptance that the business owner has the obligation to ensure their products are delivered, and the wherewithal to see that it is done in a manner they approve of, then the drivers are more than welcome to start their own business as an independent trucker and talk on the phone all they want.

 

[beagle9]

Recently a trucking company decided to place cams in their trucks, and to hardwire them in so that the cams will come on when the trucks start up (says a driver who works for the company who has done this). He said that the cam is no problem as it points outward or looks out the window for the purpose of recording the actions of motorist who are operating in and around the vehicle, and for the company to assess the truck drivers driving habits or skills for the purpose of risk management and/or for it to act as a recorded witness to a possible accident taking place. All good right ? Yes (Good).

Now here is the rub in which the driver or drivers are complaining about with this new idea. They are all livid because the thing is also recording voice or conversations that are taking place amongst the drivers in these trucks. Now I ask why would a company want to do this ? The drivers are in an uproar about it now, but the answer towards them are "If anyone doesn't like what's going on, then hit the road". Wow, wait really? Why does there need to be audio recording of drivers conversations in order to protect the companies interest in recording what is going on outside the vehicle ? Shouldn't that be their only concern, and not what's going on when a driver is having a conversation that is expected to have some semblance of privacy involved ?

I thought when told about this "Wow", that is just crazy. So are we now living more and more in a police state, and why is this happening now ? Are there people in offices listening to these conversations, who might take such conversations, and then abuse the right of privacy in order to hurt or fire the individual in which they might not like (i.e. not pertaining to his or her job or job performance) ? Otherwise so they would take the information learned and use it to do harm to an individual ? What guarantees should a company have to give in writing, that the information gained in no way will be used in ways to cause harm or how long will such information be held by the company & by whom is the information being held by ? A company should be held liable for any damage that might occur to a driver or individual if such information is found to be gained for political or hateful purposes, and/or is abused, or is used inappropriately right ????....

The inside of a truck cab is a driver's personal space, and it should be respected by any company as just that, and not to become liken to an office in order to bug and eavesdrop on a driver right ????. Shouldn't a company have to have an agreement drawn up by a lawyer in which the individual/driver, and the company should have to sign off on ??? I thought a warrant of suspicion has to be ordered up, and then signed off on by a judge before someone can record private conversations between individuals ???

The whole thing stinks to me, and it sounds disgusting enough of a situation for sure, but what do you all think ? Some concerned drivers would like to know. I will give them your assessments.

------------------------------ just a comment on privacy. In the truck driver situation the drivers better be careful if they want to keep their jobs . I just saw a report on FOX talking about driverless semi trucks and driverless cars are also really , really being developed . So either put up with the recording and video as I am sure that trucking companies would love to replace you . On the general idea of privacy . It has always been some peoples thinking that they will enforce their own privacy as much as possible . Look at all the people that voluntarily give up their privacy with their words and keyboard typings on electronic communication devices and by not being careful of the things that they say and doin verbal conversation . ----------------------- OFF TOPIC PERHAPS but like I said , just a general comment on PRIVACY .

. What people bang out on a key board in a public forum, does not meet the same threshold in which suggest that ones privacy would be violated if such words were read by someone who disagrees with them. A "PUBLIC FORUM" is just what it states, a public forum. Now conspiring behind the scenes in order to trash someone, and this by learning information that was tricked out of the individual from within a Public forum, could be another thing in this altogether.

 

[Holos]

A "PUBLIC FORUM" is just what it states, a public forum. Now conspiring behind the scenes in order to trash someone, and this by learning information that was tricked out of the individual from within a Public forum, could be another thing in this altogether.

How is the thinking process relevant to the privacy debate?

 

[pismoe]

my point is that people , usually young people do not hold their privacy in high regard to begin with . I only visit message boards and stay away from places like 'facebook' where all kinds of private info and photos is put out in public by dummies [imo] . Besides my reasoning and as I said in my one comment , I might be totally OFF TOPIC Beagle .

 

[Holos]

my point is that people , usually young people do not hold their privacy in high regard to begin with . I only visit message boards and stay away from places like 'facebook' where all kinds of private info and photos is put out in public by dummies [imo] . Besides my reasoning and as I said in my one comment , I might be totally OFF TOPIC Beagle .

What is the benefit for young people to hold their personal data and information as privacy priority, considering young people could all get to know each other and communicate with each other in improved ways if their information is available and accessible?

Whatever social media (in which privacy is relevant) is used, I usually assume it's purpose is to know and communicate with people in improved ways, therefore making information altogether more valuable if shared.

 

[pismoe]

not very smart in my opinion but its a free county so let people do as they do , it's just not very smart in my opinion Holos .

 

[Holos]

not very smart in my opinion but its a free county so let people do as they do , it's just not very smart in my opinion Holos .

Gestures are smart, agree?

In contrast, any use of a social media is small_art.

 

[beagle9]

A "PUBLIC FORUM" is just what it states, a public forum. Now conspiring behind the scenes in order to trash someone, and this by learning information that was tricked out of the individual from within a Public forum, could be another thing in this altogether.

How is the thinking process relevant to the privacy debate?

Huh ?

 

[Holos]

A "PUBLIC FORUM" is just what it states, a public forum. Now conspiring behind the scenes in order to trash someone, and this by learning information that was tricked out of the individual from within a Public forum, could be another thing in this altogether.

How is the thinking process relevant to the privacy debate?

Huh ?

Do you think a "behind the scenes conspiracy to learn information tricked out of another individual" is anything other than a one person act like your self or mine pondering carefully how to approach political publicity before actually making themselves expressively and effectively public?

 

[beagle9]

my point is that people , usually young people do not hold their privacy in high regard to begin with . I only visit message boards and stay away from places like 'facebook' where all kinds of private info and photos is put out in public by dummies [imo] . Besides my reasoning and as I said in my one comment , I might be totally OFF TOPIC Beagle .

What is the benefit for young people to hold their personal data and information as privacy priority, considering young people could all get to know each other and communicate with each other in improved ways if their information is available and accessible?

Whatever social media (in which privacy is relevant) is used, I usually assume it's purpose is to know and communicate with people in improved ways, therefore making information altogether more valuable if shared.

. All good, but it's when someone tracks or uses the information in a harmful way is when it all gets crazy. Like pismoe says, these kids these days are hap-hazzardly doing this stuff with what seems to be little to know guidance involved. But that's another story.... Let's say that a person is using the privacy functions on their Facebook, and then they get hacked or a friend let's their friend who has another friend that might see the information that was not intended for that person to see, and the unwanted friend used the information to do damage to the person. This would constitute (IMHO) a violation of the person's privacy along with the intent to do harm with the information gained, and the attempt to assassinate ones character with the information gained. All such things are protected under the law, if a person misuses information gained in which was gained and used against a person's permission and/or will for such a person to do so, then a violation occurs. However, harm and intent to do harm must be shown and proven in a court of law when a claim or case is therefore brought against another. Remember, this is only if information gained by someone, is then used in an illegal manor by that someone who had gained the information for such illegal purposes.. Hey we can listen or gain as much information as we can muster, but it's what we do with the information or how we gained the information that could be found as a criminal act if use it for destructive purposes that would cause harm against another.

 

[beagle9]

A "PUBLIC FORUM" is just what it states, a public forum. Now conspiring behind the scenes in order to trash someone, and this by learning information that was tricked out of the individual from within a Public forum, could be another thing in this altogether.

How is the thinking process relevant to the privacy debate?

Huh ?

Do you think a "behind the scenes conspiracy to learn information tricked out of another individual" is anything other than a one person act like your self or mine pondering carefully how to approach political publicity before actually making themselves expressively and effectively public?

. Once information is made public, there is no issue, but if information that was not made public, and was therefore made public by someone against the person's wishes who had the private information stolen from them for destructive purposes, then I'd say Houston we have a problem.

 

[Holos]

my point is that people , usually young people do not hold their privacy in high regard to begin with . I only visit message boards and stay away from places like 'facebook' where all kinds of private info and photos is put out in public by dummies [imo] . Besides my reasoning and as I said in my one comment , I might be totally OFF TOPIC Beagle .

What is the benefit for young people to hold their personal data and information as privacy priority, considering young people could all get to know each other and communicate with each other in improved ways if their information is available and accessible?

Whatever social media (in which privacy is relevant) is used, I usually assume it's purpose is to know and communicate with people in improved ways, therefore making information altogether more valuable if shared.

. All good, but it's when someone tracks or uses the information in a harmful way is when it all gets crazy. Like pismoe says, these kids these days are hap-hazzardly doing this stuff with what seems to be little to know guidance involved. But that's another story.... Let's say that a person is using the privacy functions on their Facebook, and then they get hacked or a friend let's their friend who has another friend that might see the information that was not intended for that person to see, and the unwanted friend used the information to do damage to the person. This would constitute (IMHO) a violation of the person's privacy along with the intent to do harm with the information gained, and the attempt to assassinate ones character with the information gained. All such things are protected under the law, if a person misuses information gained in which was gained and used against a person's permission and/or will for such a person to do so, then a violation occurs. However, harm and intent to do harm must be shown and proven in a court of law when a claim or case is therefore brought against another. Remember, this is only if information gained by someone, is then used in an illegal manor by that someone who had gained the information for such illegal purposes.. Hey we can listen or gain as much information as we can muster, but it's what we do with the information or how we gained the information that could be found as a criminal act if use it for destructive purposes that would cause harm against another.

Using information for harmful purposes has nothing to do with policy or technology, nothing to do with privacy.

Using information for harmful purposes is about health.

Hackers and other violators aren't healthy people.

Healthy people thrive from lawful measures and do not need to adopt subversive and substandard tactics to achieve personal fulfillment, nor do they need to worry with the possibility of unhealthy intrusions.

 

[Holos]

A "PUBLIC FORUM" is just what it states, a public forum. Now conspiring behind the scenes in order to trash someone, and this by learning information that was tricked out of the individual from within a Public forum, could be another thing in this altogether.

How is the thinking process relevant to the privacy debate?

Huh ?

Do you think a "behind the scenes conspiracy to learn information tricked out of another individual" is anything other than a one person act like your self or mine pondering carefully how to approach political publicity before actually making themselves expressively and effectively public?

. Once information is made public, there is no issue, but if information that was not made public, and was therefore made public by someone against the person's wishes who had the private information stolen from them for destructive purposes, then I'd say Houston we have a problem.

I think the conclusion to take from your analysis is that destructive purposes associated to Information Technology aren't in any way or form a conduit of personal fulfillment, although they may be useful emergency releases for information that has been unhealthily and unnecessarily retained and possibly refrained from being carefully and considerately examined.

 

[beagle9]

my point is that people , usually young people do not hold their privacy in high regard to begin with . I only visit message boards and stay away from places like 'facebook' where all kinds of private info and photos is put out in public by dummies [imo] . Besides my reasoning and as I said in my one comment , I might be totally OFF TOPIC Beagle .

What is the benefit for young people to hold their personal data and information as privacy priority, considering young people could all get to know each other and communicate with each other in improved ways if their information is available and accessible?

Whatever social media (in which privacy is relevant) is used, I usually assume it's purpose is to know and communicate with people in improved ways, therefore making information altogether more valuable if shared.

. All good, but it's when someone tracks or uses the information in a harmful way is when it all gets crazy. Like pismoe says, these kids these days are hap-hazzardly doing this stuff with what seems to be little to know guidance involved. But that's another story.... Let's say that a person is using the privacy functions on their Facebook, and then they get hacked or a friend let's their friend who has another friend that might see the information that was not intended for that person to see, and the unwanted friend used the information to do damage to the person. This would constitute (IMHO) a violation of the person's privacy along with the intent to do harm with the information gained, and the attempt to assassinate ones character with the information gained. All such things are protected under the law, if a person misuses information gained in which was gained and used against a person's permission and/or will for such a person to do so, then a violation occurs. However, harm and intent to do harm must be shown and proven in a court of law when a claim or case is therefore brought against another. Remember, this is only if information gained by someone, is then used in an illegal manor by that someone who had gained the information for such illegal purposes.. Hey we can listen or gain as much information as we can muster, but it's what we do with the information or how we gained the information that could be found as a criminal act if use it for destructive purposes that would cause harm against another.

Using information for harmful purposes has nothing to do with policy or technology, nothing to do with privacy.

Using information for harmful purposes is about health.

Hackers and other violators aren't healthy people.

Healthy people thrive from lawful measures and do not need to adopt subversive and substandard tactics to achieve personal fulfillment, nor do they need to worry with the possibility of unhealthy intrusions.

. I think me and you are speaking the same things, where as technology is great, but where it can go wrong is when good technology is used by criminals to do bad things with it. Then it's not the technologies fault nor the person's fault for creating the technology, but the acts of criminality fall squarely upon the criminal themselves once they do something wrong that causes harm to another with it. It's the same with a gun, where as it's not the gun that is a problem, but yet the person holding it, and then using it to do harm is definitely the problem. The unwillingness these days for us to go after the people doing the damage, and instead blaming guns, technology or other has become a major problem in this country now. To many excuses are made for crooks and criminals these days, and they are a direct threat to everything good in this nation. Holding a gun or having access to sensitive information, and then using both of them in a criminal manor or way, should be prosecuted by this nations justice system everytime it occurs. The looking at any information or listening to any conversation, and then using such in a destructive criminal manor should be quickly prosecuted in order to allow creativity and invention or information to flow freely in a nation, but when we refuse to do the right thing then we all lose.

 

[Holos]

my point is that people , usually young people do not hold their privacy in high regard to begin with . I only visit message boards and stay away from places like 'facebook' where all kinds of private info and photos is put out in public by dummies [imo] . Besides my reasoning and as I said in my one comment , I might be totally OFF TOPIC Beagle .

What is the benefit for young people to hold their personal data and information as privacy priority, considering young people could all get to know each other and communicate with each other in improved ways if their information is available and accessible?

Whatever social media (in which privacy is relevant) is used, I usually assume it's purpose is to know and communicate with people in improved ways, therefore making information altogether more valuable if shared.

. All good, but it's when someone tracks or uses the information in a harmful way is when it all gets crazy. Like pismoe says, these kids these days are hap-hazzardly doing this stuff with what seems to be little to know guidance involved. But that's another story.... Let's say that a person is using the privacy functions on their Facebook, and then they get hacked or a friend let's their friend who has another friend that might see the information that was not intended for that person to see, and the unwanted friend used the information to do damage to the person. This would constitute (IMHO) a violation of the person's privacy along with the intent to do harm with the information gained, and the attempt to assassinate ones character with the information gained. All such things are protected under the law, if a person misuses information gained in which was gained and used against a person's permission and/or will for such a person to do so, then a violation occurs. However, harm and intent to do harm must be shown and proven in a court of law when a claim or case is therefore brought against another. Remember, this is only if information gained by someone, is then used in an illegal manor by that someone who had gained the information for such illegal purposes.. Hey we can listen or gain as much information as we can muster, but it's what we do with the information or how we gained the information that could be found as a criminal act if use it for destructive purposes that would cause harm against another.

Using information for harmful purposes has nothing to do with policy or technology, nothing to do with privacy.

Using information for harmful purposes is about health.

Hackers and other violators aren't healthy people.

Healthy people thrive from lawful measures and do not need to adopt subversive and substandard tactics to achieve personal fulfillment, nor do they need to worry with the possibility of unhealthy intrusions.

. I think me and you are speaking the same things, where as technology is great, but where it can go wrong is when good technology is used by criminals to do bad things with it. Then it's not the technologies fault nor the person's fault for creating the technology, but the acts of criminality fall squarely upon the criminal themselves once they do something wrong that causes harm to another with it. It's the same with a gun, where as it's not the gun that is a problem, but yet the person holding it, and then using it to do harm is definitely the problem. The unwillingness these days for us to go after the people doing the damage, and instead blaming guns, technology or other has become a major problem in this country now. To many excuses are made for crooks and criminals these days, and they are a direct threat to everything good in this nation. Holding a gun or having access to sensitive information, and then using both of them in a criminal manor or way, should be prosecuted by this nations justice system everytime it occurs.

The problem seems to be in how to approach those who are doing damage, and not so much in deciding to neutralize them with their damaging social incongruities.

I think it has already been concluded through democratic discussion that blaming guns, technology, or workers isn't a problem anymore, and that instead we face a dissociate and impulsively reacting behavior when capturing perpetrators and moving them to rehabilitation facilities.

That sort of unnecessary, even delusional, defensive behavior found in captured criminals is what makes the situation difficult, since even if the threat they impose in being so impulsively reactive doesn't escalate to create a greater direct risk to the population exposed, their prolonged imprisonment eventually becomes costly to the facilities and also to the population that is indirectly affected by their extended, static, absent and dissociate relational ability to communicate and work efficiently into social reintegration.