Maybe it's time for the US to grow up, sexually, and stop judging people for consensual, adult situations. He wasn't even paid. Just a thought, but... I'm a true, classic Liberal. And it's sad how even so-called 'Progressives' would label him a 'sexual predator,' or anyone who defends him. And this is why we as a society, sadly, don't differentiate between the real, sexual predators and these harmless adults in our society.
Maybe it's time for the US to grow up, sexually, and stop judging people for consensual, adult situations. He wasn't even paid. Just a thought, but... I'm a true, classic Liberal. And it's sad how even so-called 'Progressives' would label him a 'sexual predator,' or anyone who defends him. And this is why we as a society, sadly, don't differentiate between the real, sexual predators and these harmless adults in our society.
I am not really seeing why he should have been fired either, but a little unsure why you are blaming progressives for this. Nothing in that article says anything about progressives or conservatives or him being a sexual predator.
I'm a sexual libertarian. I don't care who you frack, as long as it is consensual, you don't mess with kids (this automatically roils Hollywood and the Left, especially Joe Biden, since he molested his daughter), and I don't have to hear about it.
If you're gay, I don't care. I don't look at you as either a hero or a villain. But when you start shoving that stuff into the public sphere and when you want to push that stuff on kids, you become my enemy (and most gay people agree with me on this, too).
Same for guys I work with that hang out at the titty bars. If you're married and fool around with a stripper in that place, that is your business. But keep it to yourself and don't tell me all about it.
I'm not blaming Progressives. I'm just tired of the Progressivism shift away from Liberalism where they are equally as 'outraged' as Conservatives, and some even want that 'label' assigned.
No, it does not. But we're at the point where we're labeling all sorts of people sex offenders ... and not differentiating. You just wait. There will be lawsuits over this.
Eric Beyer Jr., of Hutchinson, Kansas, is accused of child pornography. He faces up to 70 years in federal prison.
reason.com
I'm not excusing the kid -- as a minor himself -- for paying for pictures, but he didn't take them, and the young ladies were sending them to many others. But for some reason, we're going to f' him over. All because he basically said what a lot of guys say at that age.
Welcome to the new world order. Liberalism is dead. We are regressing.
I believe whatever somebody does in the privacy of their home is their own damn business as long as what they do is consentual, legal, and isn't hurting anybody.
But television - radio - podcasts - social media and -- yes, webcams -- are NOT private forums where people can freely express themselves. The OP link about the local TV weather guy makes that very clear. If an employer discovers the actions of an employee has embarrassed the company he or she works for and created bad PR, why the hell shouldn't the employer be allowed to fire that employee?
I strongly believe people in this country shouldn't be discriminated against in the workplace based on their gender, race, age, or sexual orientation. But that doesn't mean that stupid decisions don't have consequences, regardless of the employee's gender, race, age, or sexual orientation.
I believe whatever somebody does in the privacy of their home is their own damn business as long as what they do is consentual, legal, and isn't hurting anybody.
And this is why I cannot stand Americans like you.
You consider private webcam sessions -- between two people -- to be different than your own house, and don't see the need for a 'digital bill of rights.'
You are literally the mass PR for Meta, and Facebook, et al.'s right to turn on your camera whenever they feel like, and share what they want.
My point was about public webcams. But be it considered public or private, once technology is involved, there's no guarantee of privacy -- as people long ago discovered with cellphone nudie pictures and videos.
My point was about public webcams. But be it considered public or private, once technology is involved, there's no guarantee of privacy -- as people long ago discovered with cellphone nudie pictures and videos.
It sounds like he was on a public Webcam site, not sure how you can argue privacy when it was a site anyone could access. If it was a private thing someone leaked or something like that you'd have a point, but if it's a site anyone can access then not sure why you keep bringing up the privacy issue.
It sounds like he was on a public Webcam site, not sure how you can argue privacy when it was a site anyone could access. If it was a private thing someone leaked or something like that you'd have a point, but if it's a site anyone can access then not sure why you keep bringing up the privacy issue.
You're saying even a private library that has cameras, or anyone who uses it, is allowed to disclose what you were doing, or even share what you wrote, while there.
You're saying even a private library that has cameras, or anyone who uses it, is allowed to disclose what you were doing, or even share what you wrote, while there.
You keep using the word private, and I dont think you know what that word means. Going on a public website and jerking off is not private. If this was a one on one thing with someone he knew, then I would 100% agree with you, but that isnt what we are talking about. Companies have long fired people for their behavior in public, so I dont really understand your point. If you are just arguing that in your opinion you dont think he shouldve been fired, then ok, but your whole privacy argument makes no sense when it wasnt done in private. If Tucker or Hannity were jerking off in camrooms for the world to see do you not think Fox would at least discipline them, if not fire them? Of course they would. Most companies arent going to keep employees on who they feel reflect poorly on their company, that is simply capitalism.
Never challenged #1. But it's funny to see people say 2016 was rigged by Russia.
Of course you go for a #2 'generic.' People like you were asserting that not being vaccinated was increasing spread and causing new variants. No expert -- especially when censored or rebuked (including our top 2 at the FDA) -- was ever arguing against what you said. They were arguing that what the US Media, CDC and even FDA leadership was stating -- which people like you repeated -- was fraudulent! And guess what?!
You support fraud by the US gov't! You are the sheep! All while calling us idiots! I rest my case there!
And #3 is why you're anti-American. It's why we need a Digital Bill of Rights ... like yesterday! But you see no need for it. You're a Progressive now, Soviet-like tendencies.
The Liberals, Libertarians even many Conservatives are too 'pro-freedom' for you. That's why! You like unauthorized people ... especially politicians ... having access to such! That's why you see noting wrong with the abuse in the FISA Courts too, and even justify it with the whole 'Russiagate' false narrative too.
Point out where the hell I said there's no need for one. What I have pointed out in this thread is that when people are stupid enough to assume privacy with stuff like webcams and cellphones, they shouldn't be surprised when it comes back to bite them in the butt.
Never challenged #1. But it's funny to see people say 2016 was rigged by Russia.
Of course you go for a #2 'generic.' People like you were asserting that not being vaccinated was increasing spread and causing new variants. No expert -- especially when censored or rebuked (including our top 2 at the FDA) -- was ever arguing against what you said. They were arguing that what the US Media, CDC and even FDA leadership was stating -- which people like you repeated -- was fraudulent! And guess what?!
You support fraud by the US gov't! You are the sheep! All while calling us idiots! I rest my case there!
And #3 is why you're anti-American. It's why we need a Digital Bill of Rights ... like yesterday! But you see no need for it. You're a Progressive now, Soviet-like tendencies.
The Liberals, Libertarians even many Conservatives are too 'pro-freedom' for you. That's why! You like unauthorized people ... especially politicians ... having access to such! That's why you see noting wrong with the abuse in the FISA Courts too, and even justify it with the whole 'Russiagate' false narrative too.
You arent looking at this from the right perspective. The question, is do private companies have a right to fire someone for their behavior away from work? Especially when that behavior is essentially public (and yes, a webcam site is not a private site) For some reason you are making this a progressive thing, or govt thing or whatever, when in reality it is simply a private company thing. You can disagree with their decision, but I dont know why you are bringing up all of this other nonsense that has nothing to do with it. Do you think a private company should be allowed to fire someone for their public behavior, or not? That is all that really matters in this case.
You arent looking at this from the right perspective. The question, is do private companies have a right to fire someone for their behavior away from work?
No, they have no right to people's private lives in their bedrooms, including in a private chat that is not public. That's what this is about, and ... more importantly ...
The whole argument for a Digital Bill of Rights -- we need it codified!
If I'm single and I make love to someone and someone films it without my permission, or ... the person I have sex with films it and releases it without my permission, that's a violation ... especially in a 2 consent state.
But even if a 1 consent state ... that's a major privacy violation. Companies do not have a right to tell me what I can and cannot do in a private -- let me repeat that -- private setting. This was a private, digital medium, and I'm tired of ...
"Oh, you have no right to privacy in the 21st Century"
Tech is not a valid excuse when there is a clear expectation of privacy. That's the legal reality, and ... no ... it sickens me that everyone thinks tech means no rights. I hope this guy wins, and it goes to the SCOTUS and they finally 'bring the hammer down.'
No, no and no! It is private! Stop saying anything on-line is not private!
That's like saying someone who looks into your house has a right to watch you make love to your wive, film it and release it!
This entire attitude is what is wrong with the US today. Same with police procedures and so many other things ... you don't care until it happens to you!
No, no and no! I cannot believe Progressives have dumped on the Liberal concept of right to privacy and employers not having rights to take anything private and terminate. No, no and no ... it doesn't work that way!
The litmus test is if it would be the same, when you have an expectation of right to privacy, especially when the company even says that! And they do! But ... oh, 'not really.'
Not private behavior, no! Especially when they are unmarried and single and many other things, but even if they were. I'm so tired of this 'Progressive embrace' of the worst thigns about 'Conservatives!' Where have the Liberals gone?! Seriously!
So private companies can fire me because I have a 3-way in a setting of expected privacy?! What's with that?!
This is why I cannot stand Americana attitudes, and the Franco world is much more free and liberal. Not shocking, they have much lower STD infection rates and other issues versus us too.
No, they have no right to people's private lives in their bedrooms, including in a private chat that is not public. That's what this is about, and ... more importantly ...
The whole argument for a Digital Bill of Rights -- we need it codified!
If I'm single and I make love to someone and someone films it without my permission, or ... the person I have sex with films it and releases it without my permission, that's a violation ... especially in a 2 consent state.
But even if a 1 consent state ... that's a major privacy violation. Companies do not have a right to tell me what I can and cannot do in a private -- let me repeat that -- private setting. This was a private, digital medium, and I'm tired of ...
"Oh, you have no right to privacy in the 21st Century"
Tech is not a valid excuse when there is a clear expectation of privacy. That's the legal reality, and ... no ... it sickens me that everyone thinks tech means no rights. I hope this guy wins, and it goes to the SCOTUS and they finally 'bring the hammer down.'
No, no and no! It is private! Stop saying anything on-line is not private!
That's like saying someone who looks into your house has a right to watch you make love to your wive, film it and release it!
This entire attitude is what is wrong with the US today. Same with police procedures and so many other things ... you don't care until it happens to you!
No, no and no! I cannot believe Progressives have dumped on the Liberal concept of right to privacy and employers not having rights to take anything private and terminate. No, no and no ... it doesn't work that way!
The litmus test is if it would be the same, when you have an expectation of right to privacy, especially when the company even says that! And they do! But ... oh, 'not really.'
We have to codify this ... like now!
Because it's utterly lack of any privacy, even when privacy is expected. "Oh, just kidding!"
Not private behavior, no! Especially when they are unmarried and single and many other things, but even if they were. I'm so tired of this 'Progressive embrace' of the worst thigns about 'Conservatives!' Where have the Liberals gone?! Seriously!
So private companies can fire me because I have a 3-way in a setting of expected privacy?! What's with that?!
This is why I cannot stand Americana attitudes, and the Franco world is much more free and liberal. Not shocking, they have much lower STD infection rates and other issues versus us too.
Dude, he was on a website where people clicked on it to watch him jerk off, that isnt private. ANd you try to make this a progressive thing is complete nonsense, this was a decision by a corporate entity, you equating that to progressive politics is complete nonsense.
He wasnt in a 3 way in a setting of expected privacy, he was on a webcam site that anyone can click on. Your idea of what is or isnt private, is simply wrong. If I post a video of me jerking off on this site, you think I have a valid argument to say that you are invading my privacy if you look at it? THat is essentially what you are arguing. If you or I put something on a public site that anyone can view, then I have no clue how you have decided that its somehow private.
The fact you are using a bunch of different examples that are different than actually what happened shows how weak your argument is. Yes, if someone filmed you having sex without permission that would be an invasion of privacy. You willingly putting sexual acts on a public site that people view, is not an invasion of privacy.
I dont have a problem with you arguing that you dont think he shouldve been fired, thats fine, and I dont personally think what he did is a big deal. Your reasoning isnt good though, because no matter how much you want to say otherwise, posting stuff on public sites is not private. So let me ask you, should anyone ever be able to be fired by what they do online, or does a private company, have no right to fire anyone for anything outside of work? Arguing a company shouldnt be able to fire someone doesnt seem very libertarian to me.
And you try to make this a progressive thing is complete nonsense, this was a decision by a corporate entity, you equating that to progressive politics is complete nonsense.
Yes, if someone filmed you having sex without permission that would be an invasion of privacy. You willingly putting sexual acts on a public site that people view, is not an invasion of privacy.
That is simply not true. When did everything on the Internet nuke all expectations of privacy? Does my employer have a right to my e-mails with individual parties? You are literally over-stretching reality here!
ANd you try to make this a progressive thing is complete nonsense, this was a decision by a corporate entity, you equating that to progressive politics is complete nonsense.
It's not just a Progressive thing! it's Progressives have joined the worst of Conservatism, and literally shed their Liberal roots! They think corporations are entitied to override individual civil rights property!
Sigh ... I cannot believe you're arguing this. It's like saying everywhere on the Internet has no expectation of privacy. This is what the problem is ... right there!
Your idea of what is or isnt private, is simply wrong. If I post a video of me jerking off on this site, you think I have a valid argument to say that you are invading my privacy if you look at it?
If you DM'd/PM'd it to someone individually ... yes, that would be an expectation of privacy! But because we have made 100% of the Internet 'public' in the minds ... we have ****ed ourselves and our freedom!
The fact you are using a bunch of different examples that are different than actually what happened shows how weak your argument is. Yes, if someone filmed you having sex without permission that would be an invasion of privacy. You willingly putting sexual acts on a public site that people view, is not an invasion of privacy.
I dont have a problem with you arguing that you dont think he shouldve been fired, thats fine, and I dont personally think what he did is a big deal. Your reasoning isnt good though, because no matter how much you want to say otherwise, posting stuff on public sites is not private.
Yes it is, there is an expectation of privacy when we're not publicly posting, and it's time we started asserting that. We need those rights, and until we get them, we're ****ed.
So let me ask you, should anyone ever be able to be fired by what they do online, or does a private company, have no right to fire anyone for anything outside of work?
Arguing a company should be able to fire someone over the right to privacy and basic civil rights is what scares me about Progressives as much as it always has Conservatives, and they are no longer Liberal.
It's amazing how much we've destroyed people in the claim that companies can do what they want. It's why and how the US gov't is even now censoring people on Social Media too!
"Oh, the private entity did it." Oh yeah, but you told them to! Total 1st Amendment violations ... repeatedly.
So in the phone network! So private phone calls are not private either?! And before you say anything else, the Internet and Phone -- even before VoIP -- were packet switched the same! That all happened decades ago! Before VoIP at home!
Geez, you literally just asserted that all personal phone calls are public because they travel over the same networks as everything else! Do you realize that?! Do you realize that?! It's not my fault you're ignorant ... I mean, you really ****ed up there Hamlet!
Because suddenly, becauseif it's not a packetized voice datagram or segment 'blessed' by a major carrier (corporation), it's public ...?! That's literally 100% what you just asserted! Geez you just made my entire point! (and why we need a Digital Bill of Rights ... so we get the same protections)
Furthermore ...
Even if I GnuPG encrypt and sign my e-mail ... all parties have the right to publish my e-mail without my approval?! Do you see what I'm getting at?! Why we need a Digital Bill of Rights?!
"Oh, you didn't use corporation product X services, and because you used Y ... you're not protected!"
So DMs/PMs are not private, and have no expectation of privacy? Everything on-line is public?!
If it's not through a Phone Carrier, it's not a private conversation or video?! If it's not at work ... my work still has access?! Did you literally just support everything I said without realizing it?!
If you want to compare the way the internet operates to phone service, it's akin to a group phone chat.
Back when I was growing up, I lived out on a farm. Our family's phone service was a single party line that was shared by 10 to 12 other families. One busy-body old lady loved to spend her time quietly picking up her phone and listening in on her neighbors' phone conversations in hopes of hearing some good gossip.
No it's not. We're done. Honestly. You're part of the ignorant-as-**** Media sheep cabal.**
You believe no privacy exists, and even condone it! Not even with encrypted peer-to-peer, among other things. The PSTN is the Internet, and has been for a long, long time. That's why the Telcos were against the ARPANet, as they'd lose 'circuit switched' control. But then they embraced it, as it saved money.
**WAKE-THE-****-UP CALL:
You do realize some of my personally and professionally authored Phone/VoIP code over the last 20+ years is still in everything from Google's Android OS to
Senior Linux and Primary Platform Engineer on the embedded Linux (Montavista HardHat, RHEL-based) “backpack” of the industry's award-winning IQ/Max 'turret' communication product. Also 'field supported' as an engineering lead on any related embedded and distributed networking hardware, infrastructure and software via the IPC Alliance platform and earlier IQ series of products -- including global platform and network integration at Deutsche Bank.
Heck, IPC is a huge reason why Red Hat's FSI (Financial Services Industry) division finally hired me directly, because I already worked with Goldman Sacs and Deutsche Bank on their core, high speed trading and communication networks! HP later hired me away form Red Hat as their most senior field engineer for their DevSecOps at all major carriers.
I might actually know what the **** I'm talking about, unlike yourself.
Shuck is stating more of a fact here not necessarily what he believes. It's more or less a fact if you do dumb shit on the internet with video and then expect it to remain private then you're a fool. That's very different than believing in the need that we have a right to privacy on the internet..
I think we should have the 4th and 14th amendments apply as it were but you would need a law stating hey of you share something considered private then you are open to a liable kind of law suit. You would need to hold folks legal accountable in civil court and or make it a crime of some sorts.
Having an Internet bill of Rights keeps who held accountable? I am not against it but if a kid takes a picture of his naked girlfriend and it's shared all over who are you going after ? Granted if the subject is under the age of consent ,you got child porn laws that kick in here.
My point is I suppose I believe in the right to privacy and I would love to think that ideal would be applied to the Internet but if we go down that path do we then not invite the camels nose of the government under the tent here ? You would need Internet police of sorts to enforce privacy law breakers .
Actually, no, that's a grossly inaccurate over-simplification and why you wrongly think the Internet is different than the PSTN for the past three-plus (3+) decades!
Using an app is no different than a phone! It's the same damn tranmission protocols right down to it! Which is why you guys keep pusing'Oh, only official whatever owned by corporation X is valid' in everything you talk about ... and the problem!
There is an entire movement in the digital world dedicated to educating people like yourself in this regard, and this 'Assumption-based Compliance/Knowledge' bullshit you sheep push.
For the last ****ing time ... I'm not an IT Windows/Desktop guy. That has tripped upall of you in the cabal.
I wrote some of the broadband (some cell and frame) and baseband (e.g., 802.11), real-time and other kernel and support code in Linux, as well as both GPL and proprietary services around RTSP, RTP, UDP and various SIP and other services decades ago that are still used. I then moved on to integration, especially financial and 'public sector.'
In fact, the only non-hands-on IT certification exam I've ever failed was Windows Vista because ... tada ... I'm a desktop idiot!
In-a-nutshell: I'm an infrastructure and compliance expert, and definitely a controls and protocol guru. I get called in for the 'flexible SME' stuff, things that have to be written from scratch, or things that are utterly broken -- code-wise, documentation-wise -- that need to be fixed or, again, created!
KEY POINT: When an general IT person tries to explain what I do, it's akin to when a Computer Scientist tries to explain that Digital Logic and Instruction Sets are the 'low level' of a computer ... it's just dead wrong, and any Electrical Engineer will tell you that! Same concept, I don't 'manage' and 'integrate' known services ... I ****ing create new ones and do things for the very first time.
Define 'dumb shit?' In this case, I think this guy 100% deserved privacy protections.
Hence we need a Digital Bill of Rights protecting people from private corporations and private individuals from sharing anything without your permission in a setting with expected privacy. Especially powerful corporations, like Big Tech who makes money on it all!
Anything that is protected in real life should be protected on-line too ... 1:1. That's freedom. What I keep hearing is that is not possible. Sorry, no, wrong. In fact, 'automated destruction' of privacy is the problem!
Actually, it's not. He was in private chat rooms. He was using mediums that have an expectation of privacy. Big Tech loves to 'back away' from that when they are caught violating that too.
Facebook makes policies that they violate.
Google is even a bigger offender.
Twitter has gone so off-the-rails, it's not even funny.
We have a right to an expectation of privacy when it's stated to be private! "Oh, it's Tech so ... not really."
'TechCuckster' there even made my point on the 'party line' ... the Telcos were regulated and had to ensure privacy with increasing US FCC and other requirements. And we got point-to-point. Of course if you get in a public chat, you can expect things. But when you are in a private, encrypted chat ... you have an expectation of privacy and ... people to not violate privacy by sharing things.
And even though we've had packet switching for almost 40 years, 'TechCuckster' believes that it's all 'different.' Nope, nada, zip. It's all the same. Leased lines and dedicated lambas on fibre even have asterisks too.
I think we should have the 4th and 14th amendments apply as it were but you would need a law stating hey of you share something considered private then you are open to a liable kind of law suit. You would need to hold folks legal accountable in civil court and or make it a crime of some sorts.
And that's the problem. Do you know how many times Facebook, Google, Twitters and others get sued? They are 100-1,000x the revenue of traditional media, and consistently commit fraud ... and get away with it. So ... they don't care. They honestly don't.
That's why privacy doesn't exist. And it's time we changed that. A Digital Bill of Rights.
And that makes it criminal. We're so obessed with Sexting and underage stuff that we literally overlook the fact that we are seeing people commit privacy violations continually, and we need to change that.
Digital Bill of Rights, not just Internet. It makes things criminal like we already have in real-life, to keep people from disclosing things and actually enforcing privacy, when there is an expectation of privacy!
I also have a general problem with 60% of stadard police procedures (not police, but procedures) that also violate the right ot privacy ... home as well as vehicle (which is an extension of the home).
I don't understand this new age, "Oh, you have no right to privacy, so just get used to it."
I am not against it but if a kid takes a picture of his naked girlfriend and it's shared all over who are you going after ? Granted if the subject is under the age of consent ,you got child porn laws that kick in here.
But here's the thing ... that's not what I have a problem with.
We recently charged a kid for something he did at 17, with young ladies who were his age that were already sending pics to others, not just him ... he didn't even take the pics. We waited until he was 18. We're so focused in the wrong directions as a society.
It would be one thing if we were going to throw him in juvie or even adult jail for 3-5 years. But we're trying to given him a longer sentence than rapists and human traffickers!
It's kinda at the point we're not focused on reality and, worse yet, we're wasting serious taxpayer money on sh-- like this, instead of real child pornograph, real human trafficking, et al. It's kinda a joke at this point. I mean, we're a society of idiots.
As I said before, Franco society on libre and sexual realities makes us look like fools.
My point is I suppose I believe in the right to privacy and I would love to think that ideal would be applied to the Internet but if we go down that path do we then not invite the camels nose of the government under the tent here ?
Okay, now that's a valid point for once (thank you, sincerely)!
The government is already, massively involved. And they are literally self-defeating in approach, from police procedure to taking sexting to a whole new level of stupidity.
I'm arguing the government should be focused on protecting privacy and letting people do what they want in their homes, and in their private lives.
Ummm ... we already have that. That's the problem, the focus is just dead wrong. And it's about the courts ... what we should and shouldn't be prosecuting.
Thank you for at least engaging 'at the same level.' Even if we disagree, that's very nice to see. TechCuckster there just 'dug a whole' and I took him down to hell. He's an authoritarian and it doesn't surprise me he's a recovering conservative who loves government oligarchy.
