r505Matt said:
Open internet does not mean no privacy. Websites would still probably want to keep their users and visitors information private. Open internet doesn't mean you could just load up anyone's facebook page and see all their information. Users would still be able to block people and keep information private, assuming Facebook doesn't want to go out of business. Free speech and privacy are very different. I don't see what kind of connection you're trying to make between open internet and lack of privacy. If there is a connection, if anything, open internet would support privacy, since corporations like Sony would have a harder time than ever getting something like IPs of people who have visited a site. Free, open internet would mean that the law has no place there (hence the no enforcement) and subpoenaing for IPs would be useless. Then it would be up to specific websites and ISPs if they would keep their users information private, and the sites who don't might be less frequented because of it. Before you jump to conclusions and name calling, please think things through more first. I don't care if you disagree with me and want to have a thoughtful discussion, but when you just jump in to call me a hypocrit, it just shows that you don't care to have a discussion. That makes me wonder why you're even here. |
i'm not the one advocating for a lawless unenforced internet...
but anyways, you're now telling me that privacy should matter. that an open internet doesn't mean you can just have access to anyone/everyones private information. that some things should be blocked from the view of other and not distributed to the entire world to see. ....and on that point i 100% agree with you.
but let's not forget what we're all arguing about here. failoverflow figured out to extract sony's super secret private security key and geohotz distributed it on the internet for everyone to see. what about their privacy? their copywrites? they work? why does sony deserve to be exploited any more than you do?
and by the way, the subpoena strickly limits the viewing of acquired IP address to attorney's eyes only and strickly limits the use of this list to providing grounds that the trial can be held in california. in other words...your privacy isn't anywhere near as comprimised as you'd like to cry foul on.








