Privacy

Facebook proves that the erosion of privacy is inevitable

TechRepublic member dcolbert discusses his experience with Facebook's frequently-changing privacy settings, and how his increased exposure was actually somewhat liberating. Do you agree that the erosion of privacy is inevitable?

Recently, TechRepublic’s Editor in Chief posted a tweet:

jasonhiner thought my opinion of Facebook honestly couldn't sink much lower, then I saw this: http://bit.ly/cFoi81

This link leads to an article about Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder of Facebook, who had a conversation with a friend at Harvard about how the students are "dumbf**ks" for trusting him with their private information. Keep in mind, at the time, Zuckerberg was an arrogant, 19-year-old, Harvard-educated douche bag.

Today (seven years later), Zuckerberg is probably worth a bajillion times the net worth of Hiner, myself, and all the other writers on TechRepublic combined. Of course, that doesn't mean he’s entitled to act like an arrogant turd, but it does point to the fact that he might be a lot smarter than the people who spend their time writing about him. As brilliant as Mark may be, however, my guess is that he isn't man enough to fill the shoes he’s found himself wearing.

The article went on to discuss the brutal, aggressive approach that Facebook has toward privacy. Here’s the first point, which I found to be quite accurate:

"And this does appear to reflect Mark's own views of privacy, which seem to be that people shouldn't care about it as much as they do – an attitude that very much reflects the attitude of his generation."

This statement resonated with me. When I was younger, I had "friends" that used to call me up and use black boxes, war dialers, and tone generators to play all kinds of illegal games with the telco companies. These guys could set up party-line calls when party-line calling was supposedly "unavailable," and that was just the tip of their iceberg.

My wife worked for Chip Gracey, CEO of Parallax and inventor of the IcePick, a memory-dumping device that existed solely to pirate Commodore video games. Because of the generation we grew up in, we’re uber-paranoid and nuts about being locked down and having the strictest application of security possible. Mark Zuckerberg's generation, though, basically resigned itself to the fact that the erosion of privacy is the future – it’s as inevitable as death and taxes.

The thing is, as an early adopter of MySpace, I’ve felt driven to Facebook because it provided me privacy and security and a sense of well-being that MySpace was sorely lacking. Early on, I had Facebook locked down so well that no one could find me, and that was nice – not because I had anything to hide, but simply because Facebook worked on my terms. I was in control of my own personal privacy on Facebook.

And then Facebook changed their privacy settings. I didn't lock it down in time, so people found me and sent me friend requests. Now, in general, this hasn't caused a lot of problems – and in fact, it has reconnected to some people I’d lost touch with (and we'll get to how I feel about that later) – but at the time, the loss of control bothered me. I actually prefer the way it used to be.

Facebook lost a little bit of freedom the minute it became so open that I had to behave, for lack of a better word, "professionally" on it. It wasn't a private space where I could kick back, relax, and fully be myself. Instead, it became a place where I had to often mind my opinions and consider if I was releasing TMI.

And that is really what it comes down to. Jason Hiner, Mark Zuckerberg, Donovan Colbert – all of us have public, professional faces but also personal faces that we share only with our closest friends and in appropriate situations. Mark Zuckerberg’s e-mail correspondence with his friend was his personal face, the face he doesn't disclose to the public. The fact that his private e-mail is now coming back to haunt him illustrates both Zuckerberg's own point (ironically) and the concern of privacy advocates.

But Zuckerberg grew up in a generation that seems to be implicitly better at accepting that sometimes your private face becomes public, and that’s just how it works, especially if you chase fame and fortune – or if fame and fortune find you.

And here’s the kicker for me. When a previous round of Facebook privacy erosions took place and my wife found me, and my wife's family found me, and my own family found me, and I found people – some of whom I was embarrassed to ask to be my friend and others of whom shocked me when they ignored my friend requests – at some point, I resigned myself to a fact, similar to what Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg said about Mark Zuckerberg’s attitude toward privacy:

"Mark really does believe very much in transparency and the vision of an open society and open world, and so he wants to push people that way. I think he also understands that the way to get there is to give people granular control and comfort. He hopes you'll get more open, and he's kind of happy to help you get there. So for him, it's more of a means to an end. For me, I'm not as sure."

If this is really Zuckerberg's philosophy, then his goal of granular privacy leading to transparency has been successful with me, at the very least. As I suggested above, I grew up in a world that considered George Orwell's 1984 a very real possibility. I’m distrustful of corporations and government, and I’m wary of the potential abuses of technology.

When Facebook first "exposed" me with "enhanced privacy" that made me visible to the world, I felt betrayed, naked, and vulnerable. But in time, I came to find it somewhat liberating, rewarding, and empowering. Once everything was out there, I found a certain ability to "just be myself."

When the last round of security erosion on Facebook came out, all of my professional friends on TechRepublic and in the IT industry posted Facebook warnings of the impact of these changes and how to correct the issues. My sister in Sacramento called, asking me for help. I gave her links to articles on TechRepublic, but I told her that I couldn’t walk her through the steps.

"Why can't you help me," she asked, knowing that I’m an IT professional and do these kinds of things for a living.

"Because," I said, "I haven't done them myself, so I'm not sure what the steps are. I just don't care enough to worry about things like these."

[Editor's note: See the gallery "Tour Facebook's new privacy settings"]

I don't want to become a victim of identity theft, or phishing, or any other criminal invasion of privacy – but at the same time, I'm not going to hide myself from the future, which is clearly arriving here today.

I’m not suggesting that you should give up all privacy, expose your entire life to the Web, or trust Facebook, Google, Microsoft, or Apple with the most intimate details of your life. Rather, use caution and common sense when dealing with any source that publishes your personal information on a public forum.

And at the same time, maybe we should all relax, open up, and trust a bit. The rewards may very well outweigh the risks, if we can just learn to let our guard down every now and again.

About

Donovan Colbert has over 16 years of experience in the IT Industry. He's worked in help-desk, enterprise software support, systems administration and engineering, IT management, and is a regular contributor for TechRepublic. Currently, his profession...

126 comments
dcolbert
dcolbert

I've been "burned" on having personal information disclosed on the Internet. In a debate on an online forum at a retro gaming site called "Atari Age", a user dug up public information about me, not relevant to the actual discussion at hand, and used that information to launch an ad-hominem attack against me. It made me realize how easily I was "stalked" by someone I had angered on the Internet, and how easily they could gather and use that information, out of context, to try to damage my credibility. I've certainly made posts that are now out there, floating around in Cyberspace, that I wish I could retract. My very nature as a "devil's advocate", means that I've written many forum posts defending beliefs, stands or positions that I didn't necessarily even agree with. Some perspectives that I held, on the other hand, have changed as I aged - and looking back, I may be embarassed by positions I embraced when I was younger. And it took Sonja quite awhile to get me to come out of my "privacy shell" at all, because of those things. One of my FIRST experiences was having some joker I had upset online sign my private e-mail up for countless list-servs, as well as sending threatening messages that had forged headers to look like they were from my e-mail. My sense of privacy was finely honed after that experience. So - I do *understand*... I'd rather use a pen name here. But that is the thing. If you're truly concerned about your privacy, then even posting here on Tech Republic is a bad idea that could eventually come back to haunt you. But followed down that road, you end up living in a shack in Montana. I don't get someone like George Clooney, who chases down fame and fortune in a high profile industry, and then complains about the lack of privacy that he is afforded. No one forced him to become a rich, Hollywood star. Same thing here, right?

pjwvieviwdhy
pjwvieviwdhy

All I can say, if you're willing to trust someone with your data, be aware of the risks. You go on a social network, you take your chances

derithc
derithc

I'm sick of FaceBook. There's a difference between "friends" and "contacts." But not on Facebook. I would like to be able to post different content to my friends than I do to my contacts. My friends might want to see pictures of my kids, but my work partner, not so much! I laugh when I hear people call it "social media." There's very little "social" about it. It's like a bunch of preschoolers having parallel play and the subject is "I, I, Me." while we stare at other people's "I, I, Me." It's like being a peeping tom at a borefest. May 31, I'm clicking "delete."

Dr_Zinj
Dr_Zinj

It's not just the GenXers, but they are the worst. "if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide" may be true; but what nobody seems to understand is that nobody is innocent. With 2 foot stack of new laws being added each year by Congress alone, not counting state and local regulations, it hasn't been possible to NOT break a law since the Vietnam War. Everyone is a criminal. Smoke before 18? Have a single alcoholic drink before 21? Speed? Even the President has admitted to doing illegal drugs. Now what this means is that because you are a criminal, any law enforcement agency can make your life a living hell just by investigating you. You only have 28,563 days to live, and you already used up 6,574 of them getting to your 18th birthday. Do you want to waste any of that time dealing with the cops? YOU HAVE EVERYTHING TO HIDE!

Ray Baker
Ray Baker

I find Facebook invasive and gestapo-like. Latest example, Facebook wanted to link my profile to numerous (32 to be exact) applications based on my interests, likes, hobbies, etc. The only response for me was to accept all or indiviually, (no decline option). Well I decline each individually. Well, Since I didn't want to "join" all these applications, Facebook eliminated most of my profile entries. So I deleted the rest or entered bogus info, so Facebook now has nothing but my name. I am considering dropping it altogether.

dkoch
dkoch

Zuckerberg is still an arrogant, Harvard-educated douche bag. His attitude toward peoples' privacy is completely understandable if you simply view him for what he is: an opportunist who will do anything to anyone to make a buck. He doesn't care about youl he doesn't care about me, but he does regularly worship at the altar of the Almighty Dollar. that is why I don't have a Facebook account, or a MySpace account, or a Twitter account, or a LinkedIn......you get the idea. The erosion of privacy is only inevitable if WE allow it, and if we do then we deserve whatever dysfunctional, Nazi-esgue world that we get. Just look for me carrying the biggest gun I can find and working for the resistance.

gsveeb
gsveeb

Hey, this is the Internet ... once you put it out there it's fair game. Wake up people!

santeewelding
santeewelding

As opposed to wearing your heart on a sleeve at Facebook, if instead you rely on the cryptic, misdirection, dissimulation, and the downright duplicitous, how would you fare?

jkameleon
jkameleon

not even with borrowed 10ft pole. Period. My daughter's friends needed more than a week to convince her to open Facebook account. I needed about 10 minutes to convince her to close it. All it took was to show her picture of Facebook's server farm, and explain ToS in plain language.

Jaqui
Jaqui

I fixed facebook. de-activated my account [ since they are to stupid to know how to delete an account ] and I have no intention of ever going back to facebook, or in ever subscribing to twitter.

outamoney
outamoney

We're not talking about embarrassing posts you made somewhere, everybody says stupid things. You're more concerning about sounding stupid and giving excuses for why you sounded stupid than the very title of your article, our erosion of privacy, the elimination of the personal life, the loss of power of the individual. Information is power, right? The information you hold about yourself is power over others, nobody can take that away from you. That is why you give it out to only the closest people. You can also choose to give it face book. It felt liberating, right? Giving up control of your personal life. Man, all that weight of my shoulders. Just hand off your responsibilities to someone "bigger" than you. Facebook's erosion of privacy is the degradation of individual power.

dcolbert
dcolbert

Are the parents that are *complaining* about the privacy invasions of Facebook. The face of Gen X is the lady with Salon hair getting out of the Minivan at Soccer practice. Increasingly, the guy in a shirt and tie on the other side of the desk when you're getting your annual performance review is the face of Gen X. If Gen X makes you think of people with multiple piercings and tats working at the coffee shop - you're dating yourself. Gen X is your kid's music teacher. You're talking about Gen Y or Z. Just so we can get clear on that. Gen X is middle-class, middle-America. There is *nothing* edgy or counter-culture left about Gen X - unless Billy Idol with a facelift doing Christmas Carols is "hardcore". You can return to your regular scheduled argument. Just get the right generation in there. :)

ScarF
ScarF

No. This is not the Internet. The Internet as I know it, is a media for sharing information with who I want and when I want. In the previous sentence, please remark the letter "I" because it is very important. It is related to MY willingness to share and MY privacy. When I go outside for a walk, I am in the eyes of everyone sharing that area with me. But, I haven't seen anyone yet trying to look into my a$$. More than this, there isn't any business on the sidewalk trying to give others the possibility to look into my a$$. I have used the Internet since its inception, and I am as stealth as one may be for the normal users. This doesn't mean that I have something to hide. I am just a shy and private person. Compris? And, I don?t like people ? friends or foes ? looking into my life. Facebook and family don't give a rat's a$$ for my privacy. Fortunately, my government does, so I will see Facebook in court. And, something else: "He, who mixes himself with the barley, will be eaten by pigs."

dcolbert
dcolbert

I have a Facebook friend, Rik. He is a good friend of mine IRL. He is also a joker. He sent me a request, on Facebook, to post that we were "in a relationship". He also has himself posted as my "brother". See where this is leading? I of course, being unorthodox, irreverent, and a bit of a jackass myself, accepted. Facebook routinely sent me advertisements for gay cruises after this relationship was made public, despite the fact that I am hetrosexual and happily married. The effectiveness of Facebook's "invasion" of privacy is all contingent on how honest you are with Facebook, and it is very easily misled - because it is just an formula looking at your profile and trying to figure out about you. Computers are literal, so sarcastic, wry humor is always going to leave a computer confused. That is *certainly* a tool any Facebook user can use to wage a bit of Corporate Anarchy. I highly recommend it. I think you would fare quite well.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Twitter? Hmmmm...oh right, that place where "peeps tweet"! Yeah, social networking I don't need, I have a single business networking site I frequent and that's it. They are pretty quick to nix idiots and spammers in a hurry and they strictly adhere to Canadian privacy laws, which are more stringent than their US based network originates. Facebook, no thanks never set up a profile there, Twitter I just laugh at. At least Canada's courts stood up to Facebook over a lack of security that breaches our rights. Under Canadian law companies are bound to give consumers full control over how their personal data is used, facebook was warned, said they had changed and met the Canadian criteria and then were found to have fallen short. Now they are off to court over a breach of privacy law. The regulatory body will be VERY closely scrutinizing Facebooks privacy options and say they will see Farebook in federal court by teh end of the year for not adhering to previously cited regulations. It's gonna get real ugly and VERY expensive for all!

NexS
NexS

I also hate Facebook. But I am forced to occasionally look at it due to incompetent friends who don't know how to contact me directly... Sigh...

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I clicked the spam link, probably not the only one either. I often walk that razor's edge too, but carefully. That post was simply the senseless ranting of a child who was just kicked out of his online game for being a tool.

boxfiddler
boxfiddler

Avoid that which I don't enjoy as much as possible. :D

dcolbert
dcolbert

One of the things about Facebook is that it allows everyone to step into the public eye. I mentioned somewhere that I don't have a lot of sympathy for George Clooney, who spent his entire life chasing the fame and fortune of Hollywood, and then complained once he achieved superstar status about how his personal privacy had evaporated. No one told you to become a movie star, George. No one forces anyone to post on Facebook - so, if you think your personal information is power, and that keeping control of that information is the key to that power, no one is forcing you to do otherwise. I think I described it as "almost" or "somewhat" liberating. It was a qualified liberation, to be sure, and not without concerns and misgivings. The point was more about the fact that Zuckenburg's vision of the value of privacy seems to be the future that seems inevitable at this point - and the benefits of a more open society do, to me, at this point, seem to counter-balance the risks. Does openness lead to a new McCarthyism, or does it prevent McCarthyism from occuring in the first place? Isn't it privacy and secrecy and the like that lead to problems like that? I could be wrong. I very well could be. I don't know - these are just my thoughts on the matter.

dcolbert
dcolbert

That there is much differenc in "social networking-IRL". Why do people buy bigger houses, buy expensive cars, watches and clothes, and do countless other things, but for the same narcissistic motivations that your veen diagram outlines. Most social interactions are about looking at your circle of friends and judging how you're doing in comparisson. Call me a pessimist about human nature - but it is hard wired into us as a species to compete for status, and we display status by trying to be the center of attention, and by observing how we're doing against others. Which, is basically how most of the animal kingdom operates. The next time you see a nature show with a bird collecting all kinds of shiny things for his nest, and checking out the nests of the other neighborhood birds to see how he is doing - be assured, that if that bird had a computer, eventually he would be on the avian alternative to Facebook. It is *what* *animals* *do*. Facebook is a *great* avenue that allows me to share quickly with friends and associates what is going on in *my* life at the moment, where I am, and what I am thinking and what I am doing. Likewise, I can keep in touch with what they are doing. It has helped me reconnect with people I lost touch with. It is like a big, ongoing "high school reunion" party, isn't it? That is what the "high school reunion" really amounts to, and is about. Now, if you just don't subscribe to this kind of social interaction - that is fine. If you're the kind of person that always spurned the social B.S. of real life - skipped the prom, had no time for reunions, then Facebook isn't for you. If you saw the social cliques as shallow and transparent, you're not going to find anything to interest you in Facebook or Myspace. If you are anti-social by nature, do not fool yourself that you'll find anything redeeming about online social networking. :) But the rest of the world operates on social games, and there is more than a grain of truth to, "it isn't WHAT you know, it is WHO you know". I keep hearing about how this digital, Apple driven, socially networked paradigm is somehow more narcissistic, more self-absorbed, than anything that came before it. I doubt it. Explain to me what the difference is between the "I" generation and the ME Generation, except that the ME generation started in the 70s... well before Facebook... or even AOL. I'm not disputing your basic claims - just that I think it is living in denial to suggest that Facebook and MySpace are somehow "worse".

dcolbert
dcolbert

You know, Oz, this is a great example of hurricanes from butterfly wings in a global economy. While I respect the political, social and philosophical views that are unique to Canada in retrospect to the United States - or at least Canada's right (and the right of Canadians who agree with their Government) to hold different views... The idea of the Government of "Most Restrictive" policies setting the bar for a service (in this case social networking) internationally, is troubling to me. The complexities of having a social networking site that has different bars for different nations is clearly overwhelming. If you set for the policies of the nation that is MOST restrictive, you end up with the entire world "enjoying" Facebook For China or Facebook For the UAE... If you don't, you end up getting dragged into Canadian courts for violating their more restrictive privacy laws. Effectively as a business, you have to customize your service for each place where you want to offer it - but then how do you reconcile allowing people from one of the MORE restrictive versions of your site to connect and interact with people from a LESS restrictive version of your site? I suppose you can just say, "Canadian Facebook and US Facebook are not compatible, and US Facebook users cannot friend Canadian Facebook users, until the US gets fed up with Canadian regulations and just decides to annex Canada". What a mess. In my mind, if you're in Canada, but you're coming to a site in America - Tech Republic, for example, you're governed by the rules and regulations of the *host* site's country. That is, you shouldn't enjoy Canadian privacy protections on Tech Republic (provided it is operating inside the US). You should be covered under US privacy policies.

ejowitch
ejowitch

I think, you are not forced, you just want to... The choice is always there.

Jaqui
Jaqui

I just have no use for it. nothing about their version of social networking interests me. that's why every similar social networking site I've looked at, I've deleted my profile.

boxfiddler
boxfiddler

that we haven't been free for at least 60 years. We set some stuff in motion ages ago... Anyone who thinks you're [i]insulting, raging or barely hindged at all[/i] must be projecting. etu tag

dcolbert
dcolbert

Don't be so sensitive. It wasn't you that I was implying were ranting, insulting, or barely hinged. Sorry if you felt like I was targeting you. As usual, your responses are well reasoned, rational, and pretty level headed. Which doesn't mean I agree, only that I respect that you are civil and polite - and I am sorry if I offended you - you were not the target.

JamesRL
JamesRL

Some people would call allowing gay marriage and decriminalizing marijauna use socially liberal. Others, including some libertarians see these steps as reducing the nanny state and letting people chose their own fate. BTW in a three party system(three national parties, the Greens and the Bloc Quebecois which mathematically could never govern), we have never ever elected the "socialist" party, the NDP or their predecessor the CCF. They have been the government in some provinces, but never the federal government. Even the prospect of a Liberal NDP coalition was too scary for many Canadians. Just to rub it in, even those provincial governments that had the NDP in power managed to eliminate their deficit and start to pay down the debt(pre 2009 banking crisis), something that no Federal government in the US has done since...well...Max help me here.... I often hear these rants from right wing American media sources about how we are Canuckistan. There was the issue of how one of our journalists(Mark Steyn) was being brought before a human rights tribunal because he said some unflattering things about Muslims, and how we didn't have a free press. No one cared to know when the tirbunals threw out the case before the hearing was held. Don't believe all you hear. If I were to rely solely on US media, I'd be thinking that Canadians were dying in the streets by the droves for lack of health care, and its clearly not the case. And frankly looking at the provisions of the Homeland security act, I don't think that the US can claim to have greater privacy rights than Canada. I don't think I'm insulting, raging or barely hindged at all, but hey if you want to see anything I've written as an attack on the greatest, most free country in the world , I guess you will see it that way. James

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I know quite a few Liberal Canadians, they ALL work in the medical industry in one way or another, par for the course. The type of people who feel sorry for the seal that the killer whale catches to sustain life. The 'awww it's so cute, BAD, NASTY whale! crowd', emotion without reality. Most people that are out of the loop politically support Liberal government in Canada, but we have a CONSERVATIVE government in power, not a Liberal one. I don't know this from asking friends about their political beliefs though but it is pretty clear in the solutions they support. They actually view conservatives as being US republicans. Politics in central Canada may be a little more 'in the news', as Ottawa based national TV networks seem to like talking about capital hill a lot, but to them that's just local news and few pay attention to the political side of Canadian news anyway. America breeds Liberalism in Canada, many Canadians are actually scared of a Conservative government because they say they ACT like the American government, they see Bush in anything 'Conservative'. As for regulation, this isn't some nanny state, regulatory issue we are discussing, it is the Canadian Bill of Rights. You would pass out if your government started to let Canadian companies ignore your constitutional right to bear arms, your freedom of speech etc. It's the same scenario here, a US company is trying to conduct business in Canada and it ignores the Canadian Bill of Rights. It's not simply a "fine line" in any way, it's no different than being told they have to obey by your constitutional rights. If facebook breached YOUR constitutional rights would it be some little left leaning issue? Not bloody likely, it would be call the army in and impeach the president for not stopping it. Consumer protection vs accountability which you also brought up, is a completely different issue. Yes, there are many left leaning people who think they should be protected from walking off a cliff in their own stupidity. They aren't having the Bill of rights changed though, just getting local legislation to throw up a few ropes and signs and move the viewing area back from the edge. Is it overreaching and potentially damaging to business? Not at all. I run businesses here without ANY form of restrictions that impede my ability to conduct fair business, I just can't swindle customers and use their personal information for unrelated gains, as easily as I could if my business were in the US. The one part that I don't' care for is the insistence on French and English labels on everything, especially out west here where French speaking is so rare and those who do speak French usually speak equally as good English. Again though, that's not overprotection, it just an antiquated law that doesn't impede on anyone's freedoms or quality of life. This NOTION that Canada is a socialist, or even liberal 'Government nanny" country is factually false. It is just a common view many Americans have of Canada. Socialism in medicine, public welfare etc. 'Must be like communist Russia or Nazi Germany, that's what the media said anyway. They don't have real freedoms like we Americans have, they even have to wait a couple of weeks to buy a gun?!' There is a fine line and when it is crossed people stand up to be counted. We gain the best of both worlds, a free nation with the freedom to grow as individuals a very fruitful business quarry that allows business to grow and flourish while protecting it's workers and customers from fraud and bad business practices. A nation which projects it's citizens as 'the people' (not the government) deem necessary. But we actually have more social and political freedoms than Americans, Canadians FEEL more free and less repressed by government, Canadians are not infatuated with government as it leaves them to live their lives as they choose. In America I found that every day, day in and day out, the government is in the forefront of people's lives, the media is ALWAYS focused on politics too, people's political affiliations will dominate their views of others and their willingness to accept them as friends or foes. The US government will simply ignore people's rights and pass new legislation so taht companies can abuse citizens and they pass it off as a scurity measure for the people's 'safetey'. People in the US CARE about the political affiliations of the people they know, they discuss it, it MATTERS to them. In Canada nobody gives a toss what government you support, they REALLY don't care or even want to hear about it, it is completely irrelevant. Our moral compasses meet in the middle, no matter who you support. In the US, the moral compass can offer extreme opposites based on the government you support, the old ' no middle ground' issue again. It is important to know what people support, as their moral compass is most likely aligned with their political views. In Canada, bring up politics or say one of the three big bad words, Socialist, Liberal, Conservative and you clear the room in a heartbeat. Nobody cares or wants to discuss your political preferences; voting here is like going to the bathroom, something you do in private and don't talk to people about.

dcolbert
dcolbert

I'm certainly a moderate on issues like these. I believe in a free market - and allowing consumers to vote with their patronage - which I allude to in other portions of this thread where I suggest that a savvy Social Network service would leverage this into an opportunity to be "The Social Network that respects personal privacy". But I also believe that most consumers are shepple who have low standards and will settle for far less than what is ethical - which is why we need a certain amount of regulation in any industry. This is purely selfish - I know that if unregulated, the automotive industry would be selling dangerous cars at outrageous prices and stupid consumers would be buying them none-the-less. I think this "privacy" issue is a similar fine line. I'm inclined to believe that socially liberal and majority left-leaning Canada probably leans toward the Nanny State end of the spectrum in any kind of legislation they pass regarding consumer protection versus consumer accountability. I think some privacy protections are probably a good idea - but my gut feeling is that any privacy laws coming from Canada are likely to be over-reaching and potentially damaging to business. (que insulting, raging, barely-hinged rant in response to my measured, reasonable and calmly presented opionion in 3, 2, 1...)

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

...then the bank doesn't have to obey privacy laws either and call sell your personal details for a profit? They are only providing a free service after all, why should they be treated differently for offering a service that you chose to use?

dcolbert
dcolbert

I link my tweets, blogs, and other posts to Facebook, so I get a lot of banter, conversations, and discussion going on that ignites through my Facebook page. In *fact*, I try to encourage my Facebook friends to engage in these discussions OUTSIDE of my private, walled gardens of discussion - because I'm chasing after conversation and discussion that takes place *in* the public eye. It is counter-productive for me to have a heated discussion about privacy among 150 of my closest friends on Facebook. I'd rather have them join thousands of readers on Tech Republic and add to that volume. But, I've also gone over to a friend's house and spent the better part of an evening looking through their photo-book of their last trip, discussing with them how their trip went. How are Facebook photo galleries fundamentally different than that? Actual human interaction? Fine... but I can't do that with my friends who are all over the globe. Facebook allows me to do this virtually to post comments, "Wow, your kids are getting so big! I remember when they were just toddlers. Your son must be breaking lots of hearts now, huh?" "Love that new Jaguar, and the addition to your house looks FANTASTIC. Glad you're doing so well!" And thus keep in touch in the same shallow, superficial, and competitive ways that people do so in real life. Facebook to me is just another way to nurture relationships - nurturing relationships means enaging in social activities which includes some social "gamesmanship". I just don't get the "Social networking is narcissistic" argument. *ALL* social activity is narcissistic. Here in Ohio, High School football is as big as the NFL - and there is social pecking order going on at *every* game, from the students all the way up through the adults. It is a big orgy of the "self". "My kid is the star linebacker", "My kid is the lead cheerleader", "The company I own paid for the stadium scoreboard". "Did you hear about what John and Sally have been doing?" Human nature. Facebook is another face on the same old game. Not trying to sell you on anything, though. There is no doubt that Facebook can become a time-sink when you could be spending that time on far more productive pursuits. I think that is the danger, managing Facebook (or any other social network) effectively - if it becomes solely a "ME" show, or consumes all your time chasing down virtual friendships as opposed to actual ones, it isn't a benefit.

jfuller05
jfuller05

than narcissistic human nature in the past. In my opinion, the social media sites show the "look at me" attitude that is in human nature. I had a Facebook account for a while. I enjoyed prom, had a large circle of friends in school, etc. I'm a person that enjoys the company of others, that isn't what I disliked about Facebook. What I didn't like, is when I spent close to half a hour looking at other's pictures, realizing that I wasn't dialogging with anyone. That is what I didn't like about Facebook: the time I wasted. Now, one could argue that spending time on TR talking is wasting time, but I disagree. If you're conversing with another, I don't consider that wasting time. In my opinion, I was wasting time when, the only thing I was doing on FB was checking out photos and/or checking status updates. A time killer to me. So that's when I deleted my FB account (which can be done) after I realized the time I was killing. I think it's a great resource for talking with friends/family. It can also be a way to show the egotism of man too! :^0 Of course, that can also be viewed in history too.

dcolbert
dcolbert

Here we go, indeed. Did you read the Wiki article? It illustrates *exactly* my concerns with the complexity of international trade and "global regulation treaties". It is a giant tit-for-tat round-about, international pissing contest over Cuba. I love the European perspective that America is somehow acting poorly behaved for flexing the same sort of economic and diplomatic muscle that caused 2000 years of warfare in the old world. I'm not saying that they're necessarily wrong to be upset - but it must be twice as bitter because it is certainly a taste of their own medicine, falling victim to a play out of their own play-book. I'm somewhat on the fence about this. It looks like in effect - what this law says is, "if you've been doing business with our enemy, don't come doing business with us - and you're not welcome as a guest in our house". What is so wrong with that? They're not looking to get anyone extradited or telling you have to do it their way. They're saying if you want to play with THEM, you have to do it their way. By the way, just so we're clear, until you renounce Canada and proclaim America the greatest nation on the planet, (and me the greatest PERSON on the planet, American or otherwise) - you're not invited to any parties I'll be hosting in the future, OK? Go to whatever other parties you would like, embrace whatever wrong-headed belief you like, but until you accept my truth, you're not on my invite list. Even after reading this, it seems like this is about more than what you read on the surface. But then again, it also looks like the kind of iron-fisted, unflinching, conservative lawmaking that often alienates American conservative Republicans from much of the rest of the world - I get you on that aspect of it. I just think your summary conclusion of this particular example may be a little bit over-simplified and lacking recognition of the various shades of gray that may be involved here. I'd like to do a lot more research into the specifics of this topic before I came to as adamant of a conclusion as you seem to have on the topic.

dcolbert
dcolbert

EXACTLY, Oz... Australia is part of the heritage of WESTERN society. And if Australia is part of the WEST, then so is England, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and - you know, the rest of the usual suspects. I'm glad you finally see it my way. You're too damned pedantic, literal, and inflexible in your discussions. I understand the structural differences between the EU and the US - and I'm certain that you're just splitting hairs because you're a troll and because you're insecure - but it makes it worthless to try and hold any reasonable discussion with you. Inwardly, I think you're well aware of this flaw in yourself, though, Oz. That is perhaps the saddest part of dealing with you.

dcolbert
dcolbert

In either case, you may want to go back on your meds.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Our medication is covered by our insurance premiums, not free medical either as you seem to believe. And if you really want to split hairs, America provides Canada with low cost meds, which you pay for with your own exorbitant premiums, cheers on that!

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Man you ae so slow, or else just stupid and don't know any better. Your attempt at being whimsical with your senseless reply is pathetic and offers the logic of perhaps a 4th grade debate, if that. As far as WE are concerned, if you look at your compass, Europe is EAST of us and we are the new world to their WEST. Before they knew teh world was round, they thought the French coast was a West as you could get, but seeing as that was several hundred years ago, and WESTERN CULTURE merely refers to a shared religious and cultural views. "Western culture" is a broad term which includes Australia too but that doesn't suddenly make us and Eastern continent. Look at an atlas and perhaps you'll also realize that the EU is also not even a nation, as your original comment also states. You are such a waste of space though, have a good chat by yourself, I am sure you can argue with yourself as you'll soon run madly in circles anyway.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

which actually has been answered alreadt, both James and myself have stated that they must obey a country's laws where they operate a business. They should have portals that yuo can load by country, as most multinational websites do, where the signup process is available by country (unless they want to make it sitewide). They should then clearly state any such possible breaches in their privacy statement (whether people actually read it or not) and indicate that each country's laws may be different and provide a link to the privacy statement and a link to how they can register using their nations portal, which would afford the visitor such legal complaince. As they offer so many pages and so much code already, building national portals with registration that abbides by a particular country's laws wouldn't actually be that much of a task. If the visitor chooses to ignore the 'minisites' (portals), ignore the indication of international legal applications, ignore the privacy statement and link to their own country's sign up pages, then the user is at fault. HOWEVER, it should be an option, which is all teh Canadian courts are asking for. They simply say teh user must have a clear opt in system for selecting what information can be shared and if so, who it will be shared with. They use braod verbage, the same as many ISP's do (carefully), and it simply allows them far too much freedom of users data. Might be okay for Americans (which makes no sense, what with you all being so paranoid and fearful of identity theft) but it isn't okay by the most basic Canadian privacy laws. There, so if you didn't figure it out by now, there it is in detail.

JamesRL
JamesRL

Turns out that Obama is looking at lifting those restructions: "Due to his determination to stick it out for over a decade in a variety of lucrative businesses in Cuba, Sherritt's chair and CEO Ian Delaney, along with his spouse Catherine ``Kiki'' Delaney, have been barred from visiting the U.S. since the imposition of the Helms-Burton Act 13 years ago. Ian Delaney, who has been friends with Fidel Castro for nearly 20 years, told the Toronto Star in a 2007 interview: "I think it's highly personally offensive. I think it's extraterritorial in only a way that the U.S. in its arrogance can dream up. It's nonsensical." From http://www.thestar.com/business/article/617878 More general stuff on Helms Burton. "International Sanctions against the Cuban Government. Economic embargo, any non-US company that deals economically with Cuba can be subjected to legal action and that company's leadership can be barred from entry into the United States. Sanctions may be applied to non-U.S. companies trading with Cuba. This means that internationally operating companies have to choose between Cuba and the US, which is a much larger market." From wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms%E2%80%93Burton_Act Mr. Colbert you seem to enjoy lumping all us Canadians together, and then complaining when Oz does the same thing. I'm not Oz, we agree on many things, disagree on others. I studied political science including US government, been to a Republican convention, travelled extensively in the US, speak with American coworkers on a daily basis. As for your premise, again Ron Jeremy is not Facebook, and pornography isn't privacy. I'd be real tickled, the Canadian government would be too if Facebook just simpled warned Canadians during the sign up process that the way Facebook defaults its settings and shares data with others is in contravention of Canada's privacy act. If Canadians chose to continue after that, then let them. See Facebook is happy to make money selling our personal information. They are "doing business" in Canada by extension. James

dcolbert
dcolbert

Really? Truly-duly? Well, since we found that the world isn't flat, and we now know that the Earth is a SPHERE, that whole "absolute East/West" thing is kind of out the door, isn't it? Depending on which direction you head out, everywhere is EVENTUALLY east/west/north and SOUTH of EVERYWHERE else. So there goes THAT argument of yours... as pointless as it was... If I'm in San Francisco, and I fly my jet in a western direction, the *first* place I'm going to come to is the far EAST. Wow. Dude. Mind Bender. Furthermore, if I CONTINUE to fly West, I'm eventually going to come to England, which you just claimed is EAST of North America. How does THAT work?!? Do you disagree with me? Therefore, we're clearly talking about something more relative, more ambigious, less absolute. In that sense, European culture, is commonly refered to by the majority of people with active brain-cells as "Western Society"... i.e., "The West". I hope you're a troll at this point, because if you're not... the alternative is just sad. (One last one. If I head out from San Francisco in a straight line in ANY direction, and travel long enough... I'm going to end back in San Francisco. There we go, we've proved conclusively that San Francisco is the center of the universe. You crack me up, Oz).

dcolbert
dcolbert

Ok... Seriously, James? I mean, I wouldn't put it *past* our government, but can you provide a reference source - a credible one, to this claim. Extrapolating this charge, it would be akin to America arresting Canadian tourists visiting America if we found they had vacationed in Cuba and smoked a couple of Cuban cigars. In both cases, (your real example, and my hypothetical one) those seem like over-broad application of the intent of America's embargo against Cuba. I think there must be something *else* going on there - because lots of companies do lots of business with Cuba and we don't threaten to arrest the CEOs of those companies if they come to America. I think there is more going on with this example than what you've explained here. Did this CEO have an affair with the American prosecuting Attorney's wife? :) Seriously - this sounds more like an "Al Capone" charge - "We can't get you for what you ARE doing, but we can get you for THIS, and that makes us happy enough". I don't know that I agree with that kind of "if you can't get him for what he is doing wrong, figure out what you CAN bust him for" legal action - but something just doesn't add up with what you are explaining. Beyond that, neither you nor Oz seem willing to directly confront the question I've asked of you - If Facebook is held accountable to the privacy laws of Canada, should it also be accountable to the morality laws of a place like the UAE? Should Facebook comply with the *most restrictive* laws of nations that it plans on being available in? With the global nature of the Internet, then - if you put up a site, it becomes your obligation to either meet the most restrictive laws of any potential nation where a surfer may arrive from, or, at the very least, according to you, to disclose to surfers arriving from those nations that the site might not be in compliance with local laws and regulations? I'm not convinced of this - at all. It seems like an opportunity for lawyers to create pages and pages of fine-print and disclaimers that users will just click through, anyhow. I'm still looking for that response. Are meeting Canadian Privacy laws on Facebook = Meeting UAE morality laws on Facebook? Should any public-faced, global Internet app be required to either meet the most restrictive laws and regulations of any nation that might connect, or to at least disclaim to those nations that the site may be violating the laws of the nation from which the surfer is arriving? Here is the irony of this. Canadians are coming to an American site, because they *want* to, and then complaining that this American operated site doesn't adhere to the laws and regulations of Canada? Make your *OWN* Canadian Facebook... Right? Am I missing something here? No one else sees how ridiculous this demand is? Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too. (Did I get that right, also, Oz. Give two points to me, too... look at me go! Look at the effect that this is affecting there. They're doing it all for you, because is is their pleasure. Getting your different forms of "to" in the right place is a little more tricky than consistently spelling "the" correctly, regardless of HOW fast you type). Really - state clearly and broadly your position as to what obligation a web-site host should have to the laws of other countries where surfers may connect from. Cherry picking *Facebook* and *Canadian Privacy Laws* is a cop-out. What about "Pornocopia" and Iranian morality laws? Let's focus specifcally on THAT example, instead, as a kind of "benchmark". Should the owner/operator of a Porn site located in Orange County, California be legally accountable to the laws of Iran for morality? Yes or No answer, please. If Iran presses charges against Ron Jeremy for morality crimes transmitted over the Internet into Iranian homes, should the U.S. extradite Ron to face charges?

dcolbert
dcolbert

You should look into that, Oz. Or perhaps stop smoking the legal marijuana. You're manifesting paranoid psychosis. You literally just wrote at least 1500 words in three posts that were almost identical, paranoid, rambling rants. Although you did find a new was to misspell "the". "eht" is a new one for you. Thanks for mixing it up and keeping it interesting. And hey, be careful when you're out clubbing with the A-List... Oz... I hear LinLo burns the candle on both ends. You're like an angry, Canadian, Digital Fonzie..... Aaaayyyyyyyyyy

JamesRL
JamesRL

Had nothing to do with his pot selling business. It was the precedent that the US can and will prosecute people from other countries who violate US laws, even if they commit those acts in foreign countries. Another example then, unrelated to drugs, but still relevant; The US has laws about doing business with Cuba. A Canadian mining company has done business with Cuba, helping them open up a mine. US law (and a judge) says the president of this company is to be held liable, even though he committed no acts that were illegal in Canada or Cuba. He can't be extradited, but if he steps foot on US soil he can be arrested and tried. By the way he has appealed unsuccessfully as far as I know. So if you want to say Facebook is immune because it is hosted in the US, then why are they different from other entities the US goes after? Facebook can and does have the option of stating up front that users from country X should be aware that they don't comply with Country X's privacy laws. This isn't about freedome of speech or Nazi Symbolism, this is about what they do with our personal data. James

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

What the hell do you know abotu character? You are just another American, no character or individuality or life to speak of, just more of the same...uneducated, arrogant, ignorant as all hell, completely clued out to the world around you, while barely existing in a fear filled, danger zone. Anyhow, I have to be at the beach in a half hour for volleyball with a group of friendly, happy muslims and then out to the track for night racing. Enjoy your work day then go home and flick on the news to see if its safe to go outside, what a loser's life Americans lead.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I don't know about you but since we learned eth Earth was not flat, standing in North America and looking at your compass would make Europe EAST of North America, the nation you were trying to lump it in with as "The West". So, in your wee mind, the Wild West includes Finland and Germany, I see. WESTERN EUROPE! (What a 'kin dummy), not to be lumped in with North America being 'The West'. And yet you are a graduate of at least high school and possibly even a college or some sort? As for being irrelevant, PERHAPS, just perhaps that is the best way to be seen by Americans. However, we are important enough to feed you, supply the resources for the homes you can't pay for, the cars you can't afford to drive, the food you can't afford to eat, we power your computers, we feed your children, we cure your sick, we forward your space program (damn, you can't even afford to properly outfit your own soldiers!). Irrelevant enough to not be the target of terrorists worldwide. Irrelevant enough to have the largest military support network in the world (lets get back to the annex Canada BS and see how many real 'friends' you have in the world that find you SIGNIFICANT enought to fight for). The only person that would not see how significant Canada is to America's own survival as a nation would be...an American, a typically uneducated and completely clueless American, such as you have proven yourself to be here over and over again. BUT....please don't tell anyone else. Keep parroting your mindless thoughts and false beliefs, the last thing we need is more Americans trying to become refugees in Canada, we don't need to become an overpopulated and incapable toilet, like that cesspoool you live in.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Like any other business operating in any other nation on Earth, in order to operate a business in another nation your business must abide by that nations laws. WalMart does, Microsoft does, why not Facebook? Is it because they are online and that just doesn't count? Is it becaus ethey are american and shouldn't have to obey another nations laws, even though they will conduct business there? What about the Facebook services that are SOLD into other nations and not provided as a free service, Same rules? No wonder I don't take you seriously, with such laughable questions as those you have just asked how would you expect anyone to regard you as having a logical thought process?

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

And not the focus of other nation's attacks and terrorists. Dull and boring enough to fight at your side in wars you begin and dull and boring enough to stay and work toward finishing the fight when you leave to atack someone else. Dull and boring enough to live in the most desired place to live on earth. Dull and boring enough to simply get on with our lives and LIVE instead of worrying about what other nations are doing and how we can change them to suit our end needs. Dull and boring enough to supply the daily necessities that Americans need to survive each day. Dull and boring enough to sit back and watch Americas actions of daily fear with regards to their own nation. Did I say the war on drugs was focused on Canada? Nope, not once. Dull and boring enough to listen to uninformed Amefricans spew irrelevant BS that they have no clue about. When Chavez kicked the DEA out of Venuzuela and tagged them as spies, the first action that did was aim to arrest who THEY LABEL the "Canadian drug kingpin". Important enough to the US that they had hundreds of agents buying his seeds and growing them for 9 years before they finally pushed for his arrest and extradition. Just because you KNOW you haevmuch bigger drug smuggling issues in Pehonix, just because you know your borders are so insecure that tons of marijuana and cocaine warehoused and shipped through your own nation daily, that doesn't mean that the DEA doesn't seem to feel Marc Emery is important to them. I agree they SHOULD have bigger fish to fry, Emery is small time. BUT..the DEA has labelled him a drug kingpin and spent years working on his arrest, for the second time. Just because, as always you are kept in the dark unless it is to fill you with fears, it doesn't mean your government doesn't care, as you so wrongly suggest. In fact it is ONLY your government agents that care. They care enought o spend millions of yoru tax dollars on their quest and not tell you about it. Sometimes being boring and left to enjoy life is exactly what people want. Boring, LOL, last weekend I went swimming in the morning, an hour later I was mountain biking in the world\s most famous bike park, a couple of hours later I ate lunch while watching people (snow) ski by, then I had a BBQ for dinner while watching wind surfers before heading to an A-List club full of celebs and two of America's hottest DJ's. All without driving anywhere. Pretty boring living in the most livable city on Earth. Sure wish I could do nothing wallowing in fear in America, scared of what the rest of the world might to do me at any minute. I sure wish my government wasted my tax dollars putting me in harms way instead of staying out of my life. I see America, fared so well too, coming in with two cities barely scratching the bottom of the list, kinda like Bagdad. Why you even bother trollign with such BS is beyond me, what's wrong with listing a few facts instead? Couldn't find any "facts" to support your lies? Such is life for Americans, a life of lies with no facts to support them, just some hogwash teh media keeps telling them to keep them fighting proudly. Like I said, America is the world's laughing stock. You stand alone, by choice, and expect eth world to think you are their saviours, while you simply increase the danger for anyone standing around you. It's like you are the world's most clueless nation or something, you just don't get it and have no moral fibre to speak of or supoprt yoru ridiculous actions. People give Iraq more credit for standing fast for what they believe in than they do America for invading them. A nation of born losers that needs the world to live and breath for them each day. Like a baby that just doesn't stop crying no matter what it is given.

dcolbert
dcolbert

That is what I've been *asking*, to everyone who seems to be proposing that they think they have some sort of answer. Clearly you think that if Facebook wants to deal internationally with users in Canada, then Facebook's privacy policies should meet the criteria of Canada's electronic privacy acts and laws. So then, if Facebook wants to be a global presence in the UAE, should it have to meet their morality acts and laws? If Facebook wants to have a presence in Germany, should Facebook have to meet Germany's laws regarding Nazi images? Except, if the servers are in America and Canadians, or Arab Muslims, or Germans - are coming to Facebook - why should Facebook have to accomodate the laws of *those* nations? And there are obvious conflicts caused in situations like this. The "draw muhammad day" controversy is just one example of this. As far as I am concerned, Facebook is private property and users are there as a guest, and they can arbitrarily censor or allow whatever they want, in whatever way they want to allow it, as far as content goes, so long as it is "legal" (by the definition of the location where they operate out of, either physically or as incorporated). Although again, this is where it gets sticky. We get down to basic "Freedom of Speech" issues, one way or another. If Facebook operates in California, but their content is visable in Florida, and a county in Florida has very strict obscenity laws - can a post that is LEGAL in California end up being part of obscenity litigation in Florida (Federal, because you're now transferring obscenity across State lines)? Likewise, can a person's Holocaust denial page with Nazi symbols be legal in Idaho, but end up being part of litigation in Germany where such speech is not protected? If the UAE requests that a Canadian be extradited to face Sharia law for uttering blasphamies against Islam, should Canada accomodate that request? Your insistence that Facebook should respect Canadian privacy laws sounds great on the surface, but it is *far* more complex of a legal web that this opens up. You just don't want to acknowledge that, you're only concerned with Facebook and Canadian privacy laws - but that is just the first flood-gate. Stop trying to paint it as if I'm insisting that this is some sort of "Do it the way America does it" issue. I'm personally of the opinion there is *no good answer*. There has to be some rule of law, it has to be international, but I certainly don't want the bar set by whoever has the stricted interpretation of an issue. The "California/Florida" obscenity thing is a real world example, by the way. It happened fairly frequently in the 80s. Too Live Crew and Jim Morrisson both found out that Florida's Deep South obscenity laws had far more teeth than California's laid back morality - but in both cases those artists had physically travelled to Florida. It is far more disturbing when someone does something from their house in California and finds themselves charged with interstate obscenity charges in a State they've never even been to.

dcolbert
dcolbert

All apologies, eh? :) I'm just trolling as good as I am being. It did cross my mind that I might inadvertently drag other South-Americans (that is where Canada is, right? Vive Ca-na-da!) into this while baiting Oz. Please forgive me, I just can never resist so many invitations to sink to someone else's level.

dcolbert
dcolbert

I wanna see this. This is like Mike Tyson at his peak versus an unknown featherweight. It isn't going to be very fair, but it is bound to be incredibly entertaining.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

Your coming close to "all american's are ignorant rednecks" territory. Don't assume the rest of us Canadian's are remotely represented by Oz.

dcolbert
dcolbert

On every post - it is a literal race to the bottom, with you. Oz, if you could sit about in white wigs with powdered face and a fake beauty mark, regarding yourself in a mirror the entire day, I think you would find that to be heaven. It is good you're having such a rabid love affair with yourself, because no one else has the time. Very rarely do I not read a post the entire way through, but yours, Oz, I make an exception for. It isn't TL:DNR, though. It is "NWI:DNR". You are not only borish, you're boring as well - I can't believe how many character flaws are wrapped up in a single, tidy package with you.

dcolbert
dcolbert

The European Union is now the EAST. You have a fundamentally different understanding of common conventions that the rest of the world have agreed on for - well, in this case - modern history. You see, back in the old days, people thought if you sailed too far in any one direction you would fall off the edge of the world. At that point, the U.K. was pretty much the far western tip of the world, and Japan was the far Eastern tip at the opposite side. Because of this, a custom has arisen of referring to everthing that derives of European culture as "Western", everything of Asian heritage as Eastern, and stuff in the middle as "Middle Eastern". Now, because of your almost pathological misunderstanding of language, Oz, I'm sure that it makes sense in your world that the United States is "Western", which would make Europe "MidWest-Eastern", the Middle East would become "MidEast-Eastern", and Asia would remain "The Far East". That explains why all those movies with John Wayne and Clint Eastwood are called "Westerns", right? Notice how in almost any scenario, Canada remains irrelevant?

dcolbert
dcolbert

Pot seeds from Canada are *not* where the war on drugs is focused. It may seem like a big deal to you as a flappy-headed Canadian - but that doesn't mean it is. We stop college kids, house-wives and tourists at both borders all day every day trying to smuggle in all kinds of contraband items, and we bust most of them and charge them with whatever crime they've comitted. It is routine. And it sounds to me like the pursuit of this guy is just that - routine, procedural enforcement - nothing special or extraordinary about it at all. You know the other thing about you Oz, you're a "bottom of the thread" dweller. Threads you get involved in ineivtably go on to the point where you've got a huge, hard-to-follow, flat thread of responses and replies - because you are so full of yourself you just go on and on and on. It really isn't worth the effort. You're absolutely a troll. As far as Canada - the thing about Canada is that it is so... dull. It isn't even like there are good stereotypes or insults to hurl at Canadians - simply because *no one cares*. If it were Italy, or Polland, or the UK, or Russia, or Japan, or any other *interesting* country, I'd have some choice insults to hurl at you. As it is, all I can observe is that you and Canada are well suited to each other. Dull, routine, boring, and with a well-deserved and blatantly displayed inferiority complex.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

As your witless reply has no relationship to the term at all. As for going in circles, I too find that I must keep backtracking and explaining the root of the discussion with the likes of you as you so easily forget what is being discussed. Again, get a life, go find someone else to play your childish games with.

santeewelding
santeewelding

Particularly when I encounter one who rows with one oar in the water, going in circles...

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

So modern, common terminology loses you? Never heard the term 'sticking your oar in'? Tell you what, you obviously don't enjoy conversing with me, as I don't you, leave it be and move on to a part of the discussion where your input is welcomed, relevant, appreciated then.

santeewelding
santeewelding

[i]...the cryptic, double talk people use on here...[/i] Is that invitation to a free-for-all, or what?

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

No mission. You were asking me to justify my choice to respond, as if you had some relevant/important reason for your own responses. I was already talking to someone else when you stuck your oar in, as if you had a need for someone to talk to.

santeewelding
santeewelding

No more an important mission than your own, Oz. And, that would be?

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I am just kicking around today, something to do. What important mission are you on that brings you here?

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I am just hanging out today, after a late night last night. I have a bunch of time, just beinv pazy and not in a rush to do anything today. I certainly wouldn't credit you by your comments warranting reply.

santeewelding
santeewelding

Not a letter out of place, and only one or two questionable pronouns. You must be [i]replying to a comment that warrants[/i] [you] [i]taking time[/i]. I guess that must mean mine. I feel important.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Santee, you are such a living, breathing farce. Certainly worth a laugh, or worth laughing at anyway. Was someone talking to you or did you just feel you needed to add your irrelevant, unqualified babble for the hell of it? Were you able to comprehend that? And who the hell are YOU to even begin talking about communicating or comprehending! Santee and communication is an oxymoron (moron being the operative there). As for communication, it's paid my bills for many years now. Perhaps this is like that comedy segment on This Hour Has 22 Minutes-"Talking to Americans" which simply displays how blatantly ignorant and clueless so many Americans are about the world around them. Only America can make something like 'Hooked on Phonics' a multi-million dollar industry! It may bother you and make Americans defensive that your nation and education, or lack thereof, is the laughing stock of the world, however that's not my problem but yours. Even people that use English as a second language laugh at your hideous grasp of a language you have all but destroyed but again, that's not my fault nor my problem. I honestly just sit here and laugh at you clowns and I am not alone, you are simply a laughing stock, what a bunch of Muppets! One good thing though, your posts and comments make for good laughs with friends when we are out at the track or having beers by the ocean, a lot of head shakers and eye rollers there.

santeewelding
santeewelding

That you slip little anomalies in here and there so as to make your own communication less than what you may fervently hope it is. Comprehension may not be your bag, Oz, but neither is communication.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

How about you learn how to express your thoughts and beliefs a little better then. It's easy to blame someone else for not understanding you esecially when you ignore the fact it is your job to communicate your opinion. Comprehension is not my issue, communication is how I make my living but reading through the cryptic, double talk people use on here to sound a little more educated is often too misleading and, more often that not, not worth it.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

[i]"I've got a feeling that Canada, the U.K, the E.U., and just about every other "modern western nation" on the map..."[/i] The EU and UK are now western nations? What, did the continents move again? No wonder you keep mixing up Canada, the UK and the EU! P.S. NOBODY is on the same page with the US, the US is an independant nation that BELIEVES it is in partnership with others, while also BELIEVING it is independant and unique to others. But of course when you can make no sense and don't even understand the most basic geography, I suppose resorting to flaming someone and accusing someone of being on drugs is next in line. If you just don't get it a) it must be feared and repressed b) it must be wrong c) it must be due to drugs To say your true colours are shining through would merely offer credit to Cindi Lauper, as I don't feel you would understand that either.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

You state, with conviction, that the DEA and Feds don't care about Marc Emery? Proof once again you are completely lost and don't even understand your own governing bodies. It was the US DEA and Feds that implemented his arrest and made it national news on US networks, which I get and am all but forced to watch (most Canadian TV stations are US networks from East to West coast). In fact, I get more national news coverage from the US from coast to coast, here in Canada [i](which is not part of the EU, in fact we are North of you not East of you; check a globe, we are 'UP')[/i] than I see on the news when I am in the US, which pretty much restricts itself to local news or "National news" as presented by a local station. We get channels from US networks and local stations clear across America. Sorry to hear you are out of teh loop but the DEA has been urging the RCMP to arrest Emery for years, they have tried raids on his businesses several times. FINALLY the US DEA and FEDS actually came to Vancouver and, with Vancouver police support (not the RCMP), raided his business while he was not there, arrested his employees and eventually arrested Emery too. The same DEA and Feds that you say don't care...but actually do, in fact it was all their doing. "I don't think that is going to tip the war on drugs" Talk to your federal law enforcement agencies, THEY seem to feel it is making a difference.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

The laws of the counties they operate in. If they want one universal website, then they should be prepared to abide by the national laws of teh countries they operate in. A lot of code and regulation? Welcome to international business. If they want to abide solely by US laws, they should operate solely in the US, but that would see a huge loss in revenue, a choice the designer has to contemplate if he/she wants to run a global, social networking website. That doesn't mean that they should operate outside of our laws when serving lpages in our country though. I conduct business worldwide, I have to also have lawyers write individual contracts for the counntires they are applied in. is it a burned? yes. Is it expensive and time consuming? Yes, but that is what global buseinss requires. Why would every company operating globally, EXCEPT an internet based company, have to adhere to the nations laws where it conducts business?

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

So when someone disagrees with you and corrects you, that is trolling. Get a life and grow up. as for me typing fast, you are correct (give the man a cupie doll!) I have said countless times that I don't really pay attention to spelling here, unless replying to a comment that warrants me taking time. And no matter how well you type, you still don't seem to understand that TOO means 'as well, not 'TO'. Unlike some, I grew up learning to speak and work for a living, not type. I also didn't say anything about America being a lone evil empire being bought and sold by corporations. I merely said American rights are ignored in the face of corporate power or CAPITALISM, which I support until it gets out of hand, as we see there too often. You keep using the UK as an example, that's just a little bit irrelevant. This segue is regarding US vs Canadian laws, not the UK, no matter how often you keep referencing it. I am also not libertarian, I am far more conservative than you'll ever realize, if you absolutely MUST categorize people politically, like most Americans do as if it has any bearing on life at all. As for conclusions about Americans, I have lived (temporarily), worked and run businesses/offices in two American states, LONG after leaving Europe. I live less than 30 minutes form the US border and have run offices down the left coast. I deal with Americans and conduct business in America, with Americans, daily. I understand American culture and media brainwashing FAR better than you can ever hope to understand Canadian or European culture. As for your comments about Canadians and the EU, your ignorance proves itself clearly there. Why the hell would a North American country be part of a "European" Union anyway? Go buy a globe! And who is this WE that is going to count Canadians as honorary Europeans? I thought you claimed to be well travelled? Canada is an independant country, BY CHOICE, accepting themselves as a part of the British commonwealth. (which by the way has nothing to do with the EU at all). Man, you sure prove your global ignorance over and over again, especially while claiming other's ignorance of America! [i]"You assumed I am a back-woods, redneck American with no European experience "[/i] I did no such thing, that was YOUR assumption, and an incorrect one at that. I simply stated, as your posts confirm, that you have travelled the world with blinders on. [i]"What is clear to me is that you have less understanding about the U.S. than I have about Europe."[/i] and yet you feel Canda is Europe, LOL. How many companies have you operated in Canada/Europe? How many laws have you worked with in Canada/Europe? How many legal obligations have you had to meet in Canada/Europe? How many taxes have you paid in Canada/Europe? The list goes on. My character flaws? You don't have the foggiest clue who I am or what I am. You have absolutely NO concept of my character, just my online comments on a single forum, which I take as a complete joke due to it's participants, such as yourself. Get a life! Pot kettle black? I speak from first hand experience, not a trip to Europe and what my government tells me about another nation.

dcolbert
dcolbert

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collusion I've got a feeling that Canada, the U.K, the E.U., and just about every other "modern western nation" on the map... They are on the same page with "us". (The U.S.) In for a penny, in for a pound, Oz. If you're going to wear your tin-foil hat, you might as well wear it proudly. It isn't just Uncle Sam. It must be a global conspiracy. If you're in as far as this, you might as well swim in the deep end. Otherwise, it just makes no sense. Either it is a global corporate conspiracy and Canada is right in line with all the rest - or it is... poppycock. I'll let you pick. Making you hate *America* is just how "they" distract you and keep you occupied and distracted. Isn't it? Take your meds, and you'll feel better in the morning. But which pill is it... the red one, or the blue one?

dcolbert
dcolbert

Isn't even on our national RADAR in the US... Oz, this is EXACTLY my point about you being completely ignorant of the US while constantly claiming that Americans are ignorant about the world. Seed banks, synthetic marijuana, and everything you're all worked up about are only important to the most die-hard, Woody Harrison/Sean Penn, NORML advocates. In the U.S., we're much more concerned about the narco-trafficos in the Southern border states who are now sending crews up to farm in national forests. (Side note, we're (the U.S.A.) claiming a victory on the war on drugs because we confiscated more marijuana at the border than ever - except we're ignoring the fact, more marijuana than ever got THROUGH as well, even with the massively increased captures. Go Drug War! Way to waste money and resources America!) Some guy selling Canadian seeds out of Canada is small time, bro. Not even news-worthy for us. I don't doubt someone went after this guy, and nailed him to a cross, all in the name of the "war on drugs"... but that song and dance was for YOUR benefit, my Canadian brothers. It wouldn't even be a blip on the radar of American interest in the "drug-war". Here is the thing... I don't even smoke pot, and I know this - because I'm an *American*. No one here except people who live and breath weed knows anything about this guy you're talking about (and then, only the most rabidly pro-legalization advocates in the weed community probably know what you're talking about). But EVERYONE here knows about the things going in in Juarez and Jalisco and crossing over into Arizona and Texas. Everyone here knows about weed farms manned by Mexican narco-traffico soldier/farmers in the middle of National Parks in Southern California. This guy you're talking about, and all the other countless companies sending pot seeds to America... the only people that care about it are... heh... Canadians. The Mexican and South American drug cartels don't care. The DEA and other Feds don't care, and neither do the American people. Keep sending weed-seeds to kids growing hydroponics in their parents' basements. I don't think that is going to tip the war on drugs one way or the other. (I'm smirking at you right now, but you can't see it cuz we're on the internetz. Light up a Doobie and relax, CanadianBros).

dcolbert
dcolbert

I never made that claim, James. I proposed the question, "what IS the answer" (thereby pretty clearly implying, I certainly don't have it, or so I thought). I said, should Facebook operate one site in the US, one in Canada, one in the UK, one in China, one in the UAE, all of which conform to the laws and local regulations of THAT particular region, and which do NOT interact with one another, because of conflicting laws? Should they operate one site, set at the level of the MOST RESTRICTIVE standards of the regions they operate in, so we can all enjoy a Facebook experience governed by the laws of China or the UAE? It seems that you believe that no, the answer is *clearly* that they should adhere to the laws and regulations of CANADA. Yup. That makes *total* sense. Americans have no respect for privacy, and the Chinese and UAE have no respect for civil liberties, Canada is the only place that has it right... Good luck getting the US, China and the UAE on board with that. Seems like a real conundrum. The way I see it, a lot of nations, like Pakistan, would LOVE to see an Internet where sites are isolated from other nations based on regional laws - where a Pakistanian facebook or Twitter user cannot communicate with a Canadian Facebook or Twitter user. That sure doesn't seem like the way to go. Is it OK for Facebook or Twitter or Google to not be accountable to Iran, or to China, or North Korea? But, Facebook should certainly be accountable to Canada, right? And the U.K., and the E.U. too, I assume? What about Russia. Maybe... day by day. Not so much, other days? Probably the USA, from your perspective, too. Those countries that are kinda iffy, like the neighbor that you're not sure of... I never claimed to have the answers to this. I said it was a disturbing path to follow down. If you've got all the answers, I'd *love* to hear them. But I'm not holding my breath.

dcolbert
dcolbert

I said I find these kind of issues troubling. I *don't* think we should be able to extradite a Canadian citizen for the offenses that you describe. If it troubles me, it troubles me universally. I understand that in some situation, extradition treaties are necessary and generally beneficial to society. But, I actually have the same concerns as you... which is what this whole tangent is about, Oz. You assume far too much, far too often.

dcolbert
dcolbert

It says, "See: "Don't feed the troll". But I can't help myself. Why do you start to stutter like Ozzy Osbourne after a handful of quaaludes and a 5th of whiskey once you get excited? Slow down. It is "The", not "teh". I don't think you're trying to 133+-speak h@x0rZ... I think you're just typing to fast. Especially being that you said, "gi to yoru" right before that. Unless you're one of those rare British expatriates living in Canada who speaks Japanese - in which case, imma need a translation, mmmkay Oz-san. You know the ironic thing? I actually *completely* agree with you in every point you made above. I do. I don't think *America* is the "lone evil empire" that is bought and sold by global corporations, though. As a matter of fact, I think the U.K. perfected Corporate Control of Government centuries ago - and probably finds it convenient to allow America to be the "evil face" of global corporate corruption. I still haven't figured out if England is OUR lapdog, or if we are England's - and either possibility seems plausible to me. Although I'm not quite so libertarian as you. I think Government needs to look to the needs of citizens, and needs to look to the needs of business, and that this is a careful balancing act - just like driving down a road, it takes constant course corrections to end up basically on a straight line. You might argue that right now it seems we're being piloted by a drunk. I might agree. But what constantly irks me about you is your pompous, arrogant "European style" assumptions about all things American. 9 times out of 10, when someone is jumping to a conclusion without experience about another culture, it is a EUROPEAN (or in your case, a European living in Canada), making assumptions about America and Americans. I constantly hear "Europeans" (and we're just going to count Canadians in as honorary Europeans, even though the E.U. doesn't want you) - doing this. You assumed I am a back-woods, redneck American with no European experience and basically ended up the pot calling the kettle black, and it isn't the FIRST time you've done this. What is clear to me is that you have less understanding about the U.S. than I have about Europe. It really is your biggest character flaw, and most glaring weakness in your debates. You *are* the pot calling the kettle black, Oz.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Try doing so without the blindfold on. And even though our laws are BASED loosely on Briish law, we have VERY, VERY different governments in place, which you would have noticed in your global travels also, if you were actually paying attention instead of hummign America the Beautiful to yourself, with your eyes closed. As for civil liberties, I think the only reason Americans are so focused on them is that's all they really have left, and few enough of them to count on one hand, that's missing a few fingers. I have NO issue with capitalism and fair trade. I am all for corporate success and play at the C-Level myself quite often. I have an issue with capitalism seeking government protections. People should be free to be prosperous in business, but not to use the government to further that cause and infringe on citizens rights to privacy and freedom, which we see all too often in the US. just look at yoru file sharing BS. A company can actually gi to yoru ISP and teh ISP has to release yoru personal details to them so they can sue you! That's insane! In other words, they can get ANY info on you any time, regardless of your supposed privacy laws, just so they can further their own interests. A complete JOKE! Happily though, I don't have to deal with it anymore, I closed my businesses there years ago...thank god!

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

The only reason he accepted teh extradition was to stop others from being charged under US laws. The US threatened to send his cohorts (his so called wife/partner.girlfriend) to jail for a long time for their direct involvement (which was even more than Marc's involvement). He HAD to offer himself up as part of a bargain to keep his friends safe. They didn't really want to charge teh real offenders, they just want Marc Emery so they can use him as a Drug War poster boy to show that they are succeeding. Meanwhile, similar companies worldwide send even more of the same seeds to Americans every day. Just search for seed banks shipping to the US, they are EVERYWHERE, worldwide and run much bigger operations than Marc ever did. He's just a figurehead target for the US to look good and make a stand for the war on drugs.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Whil I completel;y agree with mostof yoru post, the Telecom laws in Canada are actually far more restrictive and regulated than in the US. If you dig around, you'll notice that we pass SIMILAR laws to the FCC sometimes two tears later, this is so US communications laws can be watched, evaluated and then enhanced for better application in Canada. When I worked for the CRTC we were constantly battling against loose US FCC laws. The reason these frauds end up here is due to our banking system, so they can pass money and get cheques released hat haven't actuallly cleared through US banks due to the 3-5 week delays, even though a bank will clear a check in 4-5 days (whether it is acctually legit or not). They are just hiding behind a flawed banking system. as for flight times, I thought they were about teh same give or take 20-30 mins, but that is irrelevant, your point is still correct but lets not forget the tax issues that make the Virgin island more desireable for American cons too. Your views on Facebook are absolutely bang on! Americans are nto used to personal provacy protection, their privacy is walked on with ease. the government just says it is for their safety when they want to remove privacy restrictions. With Us media filling American minds with fear from the day they are born, it is accpeted as being in their best interests. Face it, Americans WANT to trust the government, well at least the one they voted for anyway, it's unpatriotic not to (or so they have been lead to believe by the government).

Jaqui
Jaqui

first off, the US government's legal actions against him have made his business boom, all that FREE ADVERTISING, GLOBALLY. second, Marc Emory was never ordered by the Canadian system to be extradited, he voluntarily turned himself over to the US authorities, with limits on any sentencing if convicted, and no attempts against the business itself, now in his wife's name, by the US if he is convicted.

JamesRL
JamesRL

First off, while most countries have extradition, the agreements are only for the most serious crimes, crimes that are in common. Minor fraud for example has made many American fraudsters apply for Canadian citizenship because they know that Canada's laws and enforcement of phone fraud isn't up to the US standard, so they come to Canada, set up shop and then defraud Americans from here. Similarly many Canadians have become internet gambling entreprenuers despite our laws by setting up shop in the Caribean. They can fly from Toronto to the Caribean in less time than to fly to Vancouver. And extradition can and does have restrictions on it. For example, Canada which does not have capital punishment, will not extradite a Canadian unless an agreement in place that the foreign government/courts will not impose capital punishment. Oz has already mentioned the Marc Emery case. Marc had a business selling marijuana seeds by mail in Canada which is legal, but he also mailled seeds to the US, which in the US is a major crime. After all the hearings and appeals, Marc was sent south. Marc's case is somewhat similar to internet issues, he didn't physically travel to the US to commit a crime, he did it through the post. With regards to Facebook, are you suggesting they are accountable to no one ever? Because if they are only going to hold themselves to US laws, then they should restrict themselves to US customers. There is a precedent by the way in US networks that will only show their content on the web to US customers, because of the variances in copyright laws. Of course that simply creates proxies to fake out those servers. Canada is trying to ensure the privacy of its citizens are respected, both as a privacy issue, and as an anti-fraud measure. I'm glad they are trying, but while Facebook committed to making changes, they haven't delivered. The changes don't impact the user experience on Facebook, they impact how the private details are stored and how they are shared with others. James

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

You see how you shouldn't be extradited to another nation for breaking THEIR laws. Yet ignore how Americans stand proud that they can extradite people from other nations for breaking overly restrictive US laws from their home country. You want to have your cake and eat it too, it's not just the Internet, its been going on for many decades. What about the US threatening legal action and trying to shut down servers in Eastern Europe for offering information to Americans that the US government feels breaks US laws? It happens daily. And it was YOUR government actually set that plan into action, not ours.

dcolbert
dcolbert

I've been all over the world, Oz. There is no doubt we're a corporate controlled police state here in the US, but we're not quite the same kind of Nanny State as most European style governments, yours included. Small distinction - but an important one. They're not busy running about passing legislation worrying about if country-fair goldfish should be banned or not, here in the US: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=U.K.+county+faire+goldfish+ban&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=CArIRShYATN_YBY6EygS-y4HCBQAAAKoEBU_QmrGq&fp=34a472219e05e2a4 (1000 pound fine for selling goldfish to a teenager in England. Yup, those European style laws are so much better than American ones). The thing about Canada, really, is that it isn't worth the bother, is it? The only one who wants Canada is... Canadians. As for the rest of the world, they just want to send their corporations to plunder Canada's natural resources - but they don't actually want to do much else with it. And, like many Europeans, your perspectives re:US Corporate, Corrupt Legal Systems and Civil Liberties versus "International Global Rule of Law Supported by No-Question Government Extradition" seem oddly in conflict to my American sensibilities on liberty and justice. Not just oddly in conflict. Darned near bi-polar. But whatever, I almost totally disagree with you.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

try NO respect for ANY government. :D Seriously, what Canadian values ANY government? But, a you duly noted, at least our rights are RIGHTS and protected in these cases where American rights are merely words on paper to be ignored and shunned at the government and corporate whims. The problem with international laws and websites is that laws are in place that simply cannot be applied when teh Internet comes into play. HOWEVER, the USA is CONSTANTLY threatening and tryign to shut down servers worldwide for hosting file sharing links in other nations that infringe on US provacy laws. They can't expect to have it both ways...well they DO always want ti both ways but they shouldn't. It seems that America respects international laws that protect American interests and ignore those that don't even when initially agreed upon. Softwood lumber anyone? How about we try the US for tax evasion and lock up all the American corporations that breach our laws when working in OUR country? How abou we try teh US government for crimes against humanity for ignoring the Ingternational Humanitarian Act? Not on yoru life, that works for America and they feel they can change laws as needed to suit their own circunstances, while TRYING to impart their laws upon other nations. 'Hypocrite' and 'America' should share a paragraph in the dictionary.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

First of all canada is not settign a bar for anyone. Our government protects our civil rights to privacy, these aren't NEW laws, but laws which are so easily ignored and circumvented in the USA. You have provacy rights too, except your government will bend over and protect the corporations while ignoring citizens rights, not teh case here. They are ONLY saying that Facebook has to have an adequate system for a user to EASILY opt in or out of third party information sharing. In the US, it is fine for a company to apply a blanket statement such as 'by acxepting this agreement, you authorize the release of all information provided by the user to be shared with affiliate and partners of Facebook.' (not facebook's actual verbage but the same meaning). Do you HONESTLY feel that a government protecting the Bill of Rights is overly restrictive? Would you also agree that accepting a blanket agreement should enable that company to share what they want with who they want without your approval of who they share yoru information with? This has f-all to do with overly restrictive government, in fact we have far greater freedoms provided to us as Canadians than Americans do. I can't believe how heavily regulated, policed and repressed everything is when I am stateside. You need to travel a bit more if you feel you really have these greater freedoms the government keeps brianwashing you into believing are unique to America. Those great freedoms are simply freedoms for large corporations and government to use your personal information as they choose, without your expressed consent. American citizens rights mean nothing when faced with capitalism. As for annexing canada, you tried that already ,failed, had your white house burned to the ground and the border pushed even further south. Do you REEEEEALLY think that you would gain the allied support on that one? It would be America vs the free world, good luck with that, we see how well you are doing with Iraq. Now add the European Union, UK, Australia and all the others to teh mix and have fun with that lot, America as you know it would simply cease to exist. As far asadhering to another nations laws, as soon as a company expands its network into another nation, they must abide by teh rules of that nation. Otherwise there would be no extradition laws, no police cooperation between mations etc. Marc Emery would be able to ship and sell marijuana seeds into the US without facing US laws. People in Amsterdam could sell pot to Americans and not face US laws. That grandiose and narrow minded viewpoint just doesn't fly.

dcolbert
dcolbert

Here is the thing though... If I do something that is perfectly legal in America, on a server in the UK, and it is illegal in the UK to do this... What then? If the UK investigates, tracks me back, and asks for me to be extradited for high crimes against her Majesty... Should US legal authorities comply? And if not, then... well... Heck, if I go across State lines in the US, it pays to be aware of their different legal standards - because while I am physically there, I've got problems, and because of federal cooperation, they WILL hold me accountable in my home state for breaking a law in another state that is not illegal in my home state. Lots of people here in Ohio have gone to California and gotten busted for not wearing a bluetooth headset when talking on a cell phone. If you don't pay the fine, Ohio will suspend your license. I'm not totally fond of that within the U.S., I can't imagine how I would feel if I could accidently break an online law in the UK and be held accountable for it in the US, despite it not being illegal here. This is the dangerous future *I* am more afraid of than FaceBook privacy issues.

Jaqui
Jaqui

that particular idiocy is just one of many examples that demonstrate why most sane Canadians have low respect for our government. They do some things right, but most things they are idiots. and you are right, the laws governing any particular website are those of the country the server is physically located in. In both cases of TR and FB, that is the USA. on the flip side, if the Canadian system penalizes FB seriously enough it might push FB into paying more attention to the US privacy laws. [ what's left of them after the Patriot Act destroyed them ]

NexS
NexS

But I find it's very complicated... I have no time or patience for it if it isn't straight forward. And it seems to me that you need a facebook degree to use the darned thing.

Editor's Picks