Hey, if you want to be angry at Snapchat, be my guest. I have never used it so I don't know for sure what they claim. I do assume that they never explicitly say your DMs can't be read by them, because lawyers exist.
There is no victim here. The student teacher did say she was going to shoot up a school. There were no charges filed, and she rightfully lost her job for poor judgement.
If she wanted a truly private conversation, there are plenty of options. Hell, even Facebook encrypts DMs by default, iirc.
People need to learn the difference between "feels private" and "is private".
we must make the implied right to privacy explicit
I would be interested in reading more about how you imagine this might work.
To be up front, I don't consider unencrypted messages on someone else's server to be "private" at all; Snapchat can obviously see everything anyone sends unencrypted on their app. So, that's where I'm starting from.
I wholeheartedly support a shift in our representatives such that they actually represent our interests instead of big corporations' and billionaires' interests, but those kind of changes come from the bottom up, not the top down, and even if that weren't the case, even an imperfect democratic president would have been better than Trump.
While I could believe you when you imply that Trump got voted in by voters lashing out, that's hardly a good way to repair a failing democracy. How many deaths can we lay at this administration's feet, just this term? I hope these voters are aware that their vote for Trump made that happen, when it comes time for votes in the future.
This isn't a bar. This is too people joking in their living room. Or at least, that's how Snapchat conditions you into treating the space.
Your final sentence shows that you know that the first part of your comment is misleading, so It's curious that you didn't correct it.
"How they condition you" is irrelevant. You may be "conditioned" to think your little corner of the bar is your private space, but that doesn't make it so.
This story isn't a tale of an invasion of privacy, or even a tale of mass surveillance; it's a tale of people being unable to determine what is private and what isn't.
I can't help but wonder if people would be messing this up so badly if it were Snapchat automatically forwarding an alert to the police because they detected an adult soliciting a non adult for sex, or if the police arrived and the teacher was making plans to shoot up a school.
In any event, I'll save my outrage about invasions of privacy and mass surveillance (both very real concerns) for actual instances where one or both occur.
If she was in a bar and she was venting to her friends about shooting students or shooting up a school and the bartender heard her and contacted the police, would you call it an invasion of privacy?
The real story is that people consider unencrypted messages on Snapchat "private".
All they know is what metadata is attached to the file. If you tag your home movies with metadata for the new Odyssey movie, you haven't broken any laws.
Well, that's a different take than the one I responded to. You seem focused on age limits, which are not the same as term limits.
As the other person noted, term limits won't keep old people from being elected, if they're old when they're first elected.
Not that they both can't be problems worth addressing, but we should take care to define what it is we're trying to solve, and solve it as directly as possible.
Term limits are a double edged sword. You lose experience when you kick people out just because they have experience, not to mention taking away voter choice.
It might be better to limit consecutive terms to a low number, based on the length of the term of office. For example, no more than 2 consecutive terms as a US Senator, or something.
I agree with you that there's a problem that needs solving.
I noticed. Maybe that would have been a good place to start?
So, if you're not using the dictionary definition, which does not imply consent, why are you pretending it does imply consent? Better, what makes you feel justified in claiming someone is wrong for using a dictionary definition, instead of your seemingly made up personal definition?
Well, a quick look at a dictionary doesn't support this definition you're using, but it does maybe provide me a path to showing you where I'm coming from. The relevant definition I have here is "sexual intercourse". Are you saying that consent is implied in that definition? If yes, which word is providing that implication: "sexual" or "intercourse"?
What are you even talking about? I didn't "come at you" nor is your semantic argument "defending" anyone lol. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not just virtue signalling. I think I'm about done with that now.
Please don't get me wrong, I do think using the word "rape" (when combined with the obligatory "allegedly") is a better title, and a better way to describe the situation, but I don't think using "have sex" is wrong or inaccurate, let alone defending anything.
Hey, if you want to be angry at Snapchat, be my guest. I have never used it so I don't know for sure what they claim. I do assume that they never explicitly say your DMs can't be read by them, because lawyers exist.
There is no victim here. The student teacher did say she was going to shoot up a school. There were no charges filed, and she rightfully lost her job for poor judgement.
If she wanted a truly private conversation, there are plenty of options. Hell, even Facebook encrypts DMs by default, iirc.
People need to learn the difference between "feels private" and "is private".