+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By dushdavj

You can view the page at http://forums.pinstack.com/content.p...Privacy-Ruling... Smartphone News forum

  1. #1
    Delfim's Avatar
    Delfim no está en línea Stack Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    PIN/ID
    Nope!
    Posts
    14,886

    Article: What You Need To Know About the Latest Twitter Privacy Ruling

    Advertisement




  2. #2
    lak611's Avatar
    lak611 no está en línea Stack Professional
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    PIN/ID
    no more
    Posts
    1,370
    That reminds me of how RIM was asked to turn over BBM data when the London riots happened.

    We also had a case here locally where a rapper tweeted and started a flashmob. The rapper ended up getting arrested when things got ugly at a local mall. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/21...ash-mob-event/

  3. #3
    dushdavj's Avatar
    dushdavj no está en línea Stack Professional
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    PIN/ID
    Ask Me
    Posts
    2,283
    Two words Patriot Act. It wasn't repealed so technically the ruling may not have been required.
    lak611 likes this.

  4. #4
    TeriO's Avatar
    TeriO no está en línea Stack level 3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    278
    I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, I can see why people would be concerned if the government is gaining access to this data without a warrant. IMO, it's essential that if law enforcement want access to information that is not already publicly available, they need to be able to prove reasonable cause. On the other hand, there is a part of me thinking "If I am not breaking the law and I am not with others who are breaking the law, what do I care?"

  5. #5
    lak611's Avatar
    lak611 no está en línea Stack Professional
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    PIN/ID
    no more
    Posts
    1,370
    I have mixed feelings. I do not believe in violations of the 4th Amendment. However, I do believe that safety and security of the general public is necessary. Inciting riot or causing threats to safety of the public is something that I do not feel should be protected. It reminds me of Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous quote regarding the 1st Amendment and clear and present danger: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
    Last edited by lak611; 07-10-2012 at 01:56 AM.
    Laura

    Follow me on Twitter @lak611

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •