Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TTOSBT who wrote (133510)	6/19/1999 8:32:00 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 176387

Re: "right to privacy" TTOSBT, You might think that we have differing opinions, but I'm not clear as to what your opinion is to what should or should not have happened given the events that occurred or where we may differ on specific points. Perhaps, it's simply I'm making a point(s) and you're making a different point(s). Let's get to the detail! (note: the following text may seem rather abrupt and I hope that you take no offense through that construction, but I believe we need to drill down to the detail to establish where there is common agreement and where there are differences.) I might very well agree that we have a right to privacy. I won't argue over the point whether it is a God given right. If the only point that you wish to make is that [paraphrasing] "it is wrong when my privacy is violated" then I would agree. In fact, you'll get universal agreement I suspect. But as a God given right, I'm not well connected enough to take it up with God when my right is violated and expect some satisfactory resolution. <g> You clearly do seem to be saying what the technician did was "wrong"; I tried to say that I don't know enough to make that judgement from what was relayed in the article and that there could be circumstances that could lead me to make a judgement either way. I've said that whether the technician has done something wrong or not [or legal or not] has no bearing on the prosecutability of the case against the laptop owner. Your posts seem to imply that the laptop owner should not have been prosecuted, but is that your intended meaning? I've also implied that even if the technician did something illegal [though I doubt that there is a governing law] that they would not likely be prosecuted and even if indicted a jury would not likely convict. Is your opinion different in this respect? I've also said that we have less legal "privacy" than most people believe, e.g.,medical records, credit reports, etc. Is this something you take exception to? Re: To (a word you used six times in your opinionated post) "suppose" someone has the right to come into your house, go into your closet, take your property and use it for their benefit is far beyond the right to privacy in my book." I never said that any such right exists for the scoundrel...What I said was that the person could be prosecuted for theft and could be fired but that there wasn't necessarily any "right to privacy" law that was applicable. What exactly do you disagree with? On "opinionated". Yep, my post was opinionated...in the sense that it is my opinion and made a statement to that effect. What is your point? Your posts are not opinionated? I thought you were stating your opinion and that I might be allowed to state mine. How about the person that jumped the fence...when they looked over the fence, did they do something wrong? Ok, the person going into the closet did something wrong. I agree. Now what? Shoot them? Cut their right hand off? What do you think should happen from there? Or does it end with you and I agree that it is wrong and that is the end of it? Is it enough that we just vocalize that it is wrong? Re: "I view the "right to privacy" as a God given and inalienable right, where you seem to think it must be litigated, legislated and legalized before someone has it." I don't think so...What I would say, is that if a right is not Constitutionally or legally embodied, we have very few recourses when it is violated other than to make our objection known. If we want a recourse other than that then it needs to be legislated, (Constiutionally or otherwise). I see that as quite different then the characterization you have made. Best Regards, Jim