Unter Datenschutz verstehe ich das, was in der DSGVO/GDPR geregelt ist.

Man könnte die alle unter ein Recht auf geschützte Kommunikation und ein Recht auf Hoheit über die persönlichen Daten zusammenfassen.

Das sind aber wieder 2 Sachen. Man kann gut argumentieren, dass die Metadaten mit dem Inhalt der Kommunikation geschützt werden müssen. Hoheit über diese Daten impliziert eine Art Besitzanspruch. Nach der Logik dürfen deine Freunde anderen nicht sagen, dass du ihr Freund bist oder was ihr zusammen macht. Wenn du es verlangst, müssten sie diese Information löschen. Klar, für diese privaten Angelegenheiten gibt es Ausnahmen in den Datenschutzgesetzen, aber eben Ausnahmen. Eigentlich wäre es so.

Es gäbe schon jetzt einiges was zusätzlich getan werden könnte, um diese Dinge besser einzudämmen

Den meisten Befürwortern dürfte das egal sein. Wenn hier Polizei-bekannte oder fiktive Bilder aufgespürt werden, beendet das keinen Missbrauch. Da sind den Leuten die Kinder schon mal eindeutig egal.

Jetzt die Frage, wer eigentlich Nacktbilder von Minderjährigen auf dem Handy hat. Natürlich vor allem genau jene Minderjährigen. Es ist jetzt schon so, dass die meisten Verdächtigen minderjährig sind. Wenn es wirklich darum ginge, Kinder und Jugendliche zu schützen, würde man es von Grund auf anders aufziehen.

Für die meisten Menschen ist die Durchsetzung der “korrekten” Sexualmoral ein Selbstzweck. Die vermeintlich guten Absichten, mit denen man den Weg zur Hölle pflastert, dienen nur dazu, Vernunft und Gewissen zu betäuben.

Yes, she said that. But what she said there just doesn’t make any sense.

I thought she made some very good points, but the quote in the title makes no sense to me.

Briefgeheimnisses

Bin ich eigentlich der Einzige, für den Briefgeheimnis, Fernmeldegeheimnis, etc und Datenschutz ganz verschiedene Themen sind?

Ich weiß nie, was ich mit solchen Meinungen anfangen soll. Sind die einfach ungebildet, oder haben die irgendeine Agenda? Ich habe immer den Verdacht, dass die Copyright-Lobby dahintersteht. Das sind die einzigen Leute, bei denen ich ein rationales Interesse an solchen Maßnahmen sehe. Wenn man nach illegal gespeicherten Medien sucht, dann ist das Verfolgen von “Raubkopien” natürlich der wesentliche Use-Case.

Die Kulturlümmel in der Mitte Europas hatten nichts was so eiegenständig oder relevant wäre, dass es einen Namen wert gewesen wäre.

Das glaube ich so nicht. Es ist wohl eher so, dass die Leute keine spezielle Bezeichnung für die allgemeine Sprache brauchten, solange ihnen nicht klar war, dass es eben nicht die allgemein menschliche ist. Auf Polnisch heißt Deutschland Niemcy (ähnlich in anderen Sprachen der Region). Das leitet sich vom Wort für “stumm” ab.

It always comes down to transubstantiation versus consubstantiation.

-Lisa Simpson

I don’t think that the whole transubstantiation issue is big for Catholics, in practice. But they are supposed to believe that during mass, bread and wine literally turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Protestants have a slightly different take. Maybe it only becomes an issue in the context of the British domination of Ireland. I’m not sure, but at least in some Protestant/Anglican circles the Catholic belief was/is considered barbaric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation#Anglicanism

Maybe it’s derived from 19th century Anglicanism, when there were poor houses and Famine Roads?

Side note: As a neutral person (ie atheist), I find the retelling of the “feeding of the multitude” rather dubious. The anti-welfare message isn’t there. It’s a common conservative talking point in the US, that government welfare makes people dependent. The thing about eating Jesus is from elsewhere. It doesn’t belong in that story. The author adapted these pieces from the bible and made inserted their own teachings.

It’s funny how little connection there is between scripture and actual teachings. For abortion, they bothered to change the text.

The way it looks, Adobe has to do this to comply with EU law.

Interesting take. There’s the standard conservative anti-welfare message, but also very old-fashioned anti-catholicism. I guess this is from a conservative US version of Protestantism. But which denomination exactly? Or is that standard fare for evangelicals these days?

Why is she claiming that the bill is about liability?

An individual can use the roads if the can afford a car. Amazon must be operating 1000s or 10.000s of vehicles in the US alone. Clearly, some benefit more than others. Some win at Monopoly.

Are we at least agreed that it is a conservative policy? If you carve up the roads and gift them to the people who own the land next to the roads, it’s still conservative. It will lead to greater inequality and poverty. It’s not left-wing redistribution.

we’re now going to charge anyone who wants to use them and keep 100%. Oh, and you have no ownership rights, so we can restrict access to these roads as we see fit."

I don’t know what this means. What is currently happening that is like that? Besides, you want data to be owned, and an owner can restrict access. Shouldn’t you be all for that?

I thought of something that maybe gets this across. Think about roads. We all pay for them with taxes. Companies use these roads for free to make a profit. EG Amazon runs delivery vehicles on public roads.

The (center-)left take on that is: “You didn’t build that.” It can be an argument for progressive taxation and even a wealth tax.

Then there’s people who say that we should privatize all the roads. Let Amazon pay a toll for using those roads. Is it clear that this is a conservative policy?

No competent engineer would use NFTs for the purpose. It’s inconvenient, slow and ridiculously expensive. No one uses the “technology” because it’s rubbish.

Implementing such a feature is trivial. Steam has a marketplace. They don’t let you sell used games because the developers don’t want it.

You want to force people (not just companies) to pay for use of a new kind of intellectual property. That is capital income. You want money to go to property owners.

If you think about this for a second, you should realize that this means lower wages. If a bigger share goes to property owners, then employees must have a smaller share. The money can’t come from anywhere else.

I can relate to the sentiment, but that just makes it worse. How do you enforce ownership of data?

There’s only 1 thing for it: More internet surveillance.

It’s not.

It’s very tamperable. It lacks common safety features like 2FA. Hacks are common and stolen NFTs can not be recovered.

It doesn’t provide any evidence of ownership, much less proof. Anyone can mint NFTs without providing any evidence of ownership or anything. There is no legal requirement that ownership of anything is transferred along with an NFT.

Like a corporation that pays wages. Yeah, trying the same thing and expecting a different outcome.

But it doesn’t redistribute wealth. To do that, you have to take wealth from somewhere and spread it elsewhere.

Private ownership ≠ capitalism.

Right. It’s private ownership of capital; aka the means of production. You’re saying that data should be owned because it can be used productively. That’s exactly capitalism for capitalism’s sake.

This is a typical economically right-wing approach. There is a problem, so you just create a new kind of property and call it done. The magic of the market takes care of it, or something. I don’t understand why one would expect a different result from trying the same thing.