- Thread starter
- #81
. Regardless we must up hold the law at all cost.. 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.. 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.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.
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.
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.