Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]
Re: Googles new "privacy" policy [Re: 0rusnjos]
    #15732083 -

0rusnjos said:
Why do you guys think we have a right to privacy through google?



because of constitutional law.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Googles new "privacy" policy [Re: akira_akuma]
    #15732098 -

Such as...? 

Google can do whatever they want, it is their company.


--------------------
trip·ping (trpng)
verb.
                                                                  1. to be a sensible man, embodied by a fool, and presently at peace

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Googles new "privacy" policy [Re: 0rusnjos]
    #15732102 -

privately owned corporations gain no implicit value from intruding people's homes.

not to mention, no one should.

there ya go.

oh and also, collecting data from everyone is not only an intrusion of privacy (you know... why they make those clauses you have to agree to?) but it's also unfair business practice.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Googles new "privacy" policy [Re: akira_akuma]
    #15732112 -

if they busted in and took note of all the things we liked and then sent us mail advertising those things, thats a gain if people are paying them for that ad info


--------------------
How do you know but ev’ry Bird that cuts the airy way,
Is an immense world of delight, clos’d by your senses five?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Googles new "privacy" policy [Re: venetianblinds]
    #15732117 -

but it's unfair competition.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Googles new "privacy" policy [Re: akira_akuma]
    #15732118 -


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Googles new "privacy" policy [Re: a2thej]
    #15732419 -

I love it when people spread all sorts of personal information all over the internet, just to start complaining and calling "murder murder" if someone actually has the wit to use that plethora of information. You want privacy? Then stay the fuck away from the internet.

:seriousbusiness:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Googles new "privacy" policy [Re: koraks] * 1
    #15732422 -

Oh noes I'm gonna get google adwords targetted to things I like  :omgz:  :drgonz:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Googles new "privacy" policy [Re: Shroomism]
    #15732648 -

no ones forcing anyone to use google, there are alternatives out there
https://ssl.scroogle.org/

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Googles new "privacy" policy [Re: Led Zeppelin]
    #15732768 -

Led Zeppelin said:
Prisoner#1 said:
Led Zeppelin said:
makaveli8x8 said:
i think the interesting part is how this comes about basically right after sopa failed.



Also right after ACTA was signed (I think).




ACTA is a trade agreement, not a law, it didnt require a congressional vote and was signed in october


seems most people love to buy into the scare shit



I wasn't buying into it thats why I said I didn't know.

but back to the topic. I think its ridiculous google can just admit they aren't giving any privacy and people don't care. I mean yes, they had no privacy before really, but now its like google is shoving it in your face and people still dont care.



you're making an assumption that google is doing anything but changing the
wording from verbose legalese to simple english. google's privacy
statement has always been there for people to read but it's up to people
to actually read it. how is google to blame for people not googling the
privacy statements

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Googles new "privacy" policy [Re: akira_akuma]
    #15732774 -

akira_akuma said:
0rusnjos said:
Why do you guys think we have a right to privacy through google?



because of constitutional law.




google isnt a government agency and therefore are under no obligation to
protect or honor our constitutional  rights

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Googles new "privacy" policy [Re: DieCommie]
    #15732791 -

DieCommie said:
I dont get it.  Why am I supposed to be scared again?



Because you've been smuggling weapons grade uranium


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Googles new "privacy" policy *DELETED* [Re: Patlal]
    #15733002 -

Post deleted by BlackWidow

Reason for deletion: deleted


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Googles new "privacy" policy [Re: auronlives69]
    #15733012 -

auronlives69 said:
no ones forcing anyone to use google, there are alternatives out there
https://ssl.scroogle.org/



forbidden.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Googles new "privacy" policy [Re: BlackWidow]
    #15733015 -

or block Google's scripts and ads with browser add-ons.  Google hasn't gotten anything about my browsing habits in years, and ads LOL you guys put up with so much that you don't need to.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Googles new "privacy" policy [Re: abltsandwich]
    #15733081 -

Why is this a bad thing exactly? At least now you can read it and understand what it means. It's not like they're taking your credit card info or helping the police bust you guys. I don't see what there is to be afraid of. If you don't like their privacy policy, don't take part in any of their websites. Good luck with that though.

I personally like having adds tailored to me. Not like I click on most of them anyway. :shrug:

Edited by PatrickKn (01/29/12 10:58 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Googles new "privacy" policy [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #15733098 -

Prisoner#1 said:
akira_akuma said:
0rusnjos said:
Why do you guys think we have a right to privacy through google?



because of constitutional law.




google isnt a government agency and therefore are under no obligation to
protect or honor our constitutional  rights



but i am.

and also, lets not for unfair and undue business practices. reaping your cookies for advertisement and tracking the websites you visit, to sell to markets, is i'm sure illegal, except for whatever loop-hole there is or whatever. i'm sure you'll be fine with that though, as long as it in accordance with what has been written down somewhere by some jock douche bag. (useless without the consent of the people of the municipality of the United States. even federally, useless.)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Googles new "privacy" policy [Re: Led Zeppelin]
    #15733164 -

Led Zeppelin said:
Prisoner#1 said:
Led Zeppelin said:
makaveli8x8 said:
i think the interesting part is how this comes about basically right after sopa failed.



Also right after ACTA was signed (I think).




ACTA is a trade agreement, not a law, it didnt require a congressional vote and was signed in october


seems most people love to buy into the scare shit



I wasn't buying into it thats why I said I didn't know.

but back to the topic. I think its ridiculous google can just admit they aren't giving any privacy and people don't care. I mean yes, they had no privacy before really, but now its like google is shoving it in your face and people still dont care.



So you're just throwing out acronyms and relating them to other acronyms for scare tactics.  And then because you "didn't know" you can't be called on your bullshit?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Googles new "privacy" policy [Re: a2thej]
    #15733215 -

a2thej said:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-googles-new-privacy-p

its for more ad money



Right. They don't give a shit about YOU, they give a shit about your MONEY.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Googles new "privacy" policy [Re: akira_akuma]
    #15733248 -

akira_akuma said:
Prisoner#1 said:
akira_akuma said:
0rusnjos said:
Why do you guys think we have a right to privacy through google?



because of constitutional law.




google isnt a government agency and therefore are under no obligation to
protect or honor our constitutional  rights



but i am.




so it's up to you to stand up for your rights

stop using google

Quote:
and also, lets not for unfair and undue business practices. reaping your cookies for advertisement and tracking the websites you visit, to sell to markets, is i'm sure illegal, except for whatever loop-hole there is or whatever.



well surely you can find the statute that says it is, once you find that
I'm sure the shroomery will have to shut down in order to accomodate those
wishing for privacy since we have google, amazon and ebay ads marketed to
us via statements made in threads


ranch bacon dildo

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Congress caught making false entries in Wikipedia SourceLimit 2,937 19 02/06/06 09:09 PM
by Koala Koolio
* Give some examples of the weirdest music out there!
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Vulture 6,612 60 08/17/04 09:25 PM
by Vvellum
* Working at Google
( 1 2 3 4 all )
OneMoreRobot3021 3,983 65 10/19/05 10:15 AM
by HELLA_TIGHT
* Bush's and Kerry's Drug Policy pantsboy 1,241 17 10/31/04 02:47 PM
by Krishna
* Is this an invasion of privacy? What can I do? UncleLuke 1,001 16 08/24/05 06:01 PM
by PS_Cubes
* Firefox/google hacked? CaptainH13 960 14 09/11/05 07:06 PM
by CaptainH13
* anyone dled google talk yet? boO 1,215 12 08/24/05 12:27 PM
by Vulture
* Type "miserable failure" in google search and press "lucky" Dogomush 1,750 11 12/11/03 09:03 PM
by mntlfngrs

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
2,852 topic views. 3 members, 288 guests and 137 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.038 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.