2 comments

• 

  Chris Byrne

  3 years ago

  Thank you for considering my logical and legal arguments, but you disagree with my mroal argument?
  
  I specifically state that although these actions are legal, because the constitutionally and legally protected privacy rights that people FEEL they have are in fact mostly illusory; they are in fact immoral, and the law SHOULD recognize greater legal protections for privacy.
  
  Are you saying that you believe those greater legal rights exist?
  reply
• 

  Rogel

  3 years ago

  I probably misunderstood your argument and if If so will make the correction. my understanding was that you claim that the claim for privacy is wrong, specifically : "Now as to whether it should be or not; that’s a much thornier subject. The fact is, we have allowed but the government, and business, to do this since the inception of communications technologies." following by the similarities you drawn between corporations and the government, despite the fundamental differences. and last you said: "As to a so called right to privacy; no there is no right to privacy if you mean that all others must repsect YOUR privacy and not use the means they have available to abrogate it. That so called right simply does not exist.
  
  A right is something that can only be abrogated by force, or willful consent. Privacy of your telephone calling records need not be forced, nor does it need your consent to be abrogated; because it is already shared with a third party; the telephone company."
  
  again, if i misunderstood your position on this issue I apologize and make the corrections in the post.
  reply