Freedom of Information vs Right to Privacy

[bedub1]

Here's his bank records!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/97438975/Geor ... nk-Records

He spent $5.98 on iTunes downloads on April 11, ate at Arby's on April 5 ... I couldn't find any evidence of him paying for amputee porn.

I think that every charge that isn't a paypal transfer for a transaction to the lawyers should be removed as not-relevant. Oh, they bought something at sams club. Not relevant. Oh, they bought an itunes song, not relevant. You know? I think that's how you balance privacy and freedom of information, what's relevant to the case is presented, what's not relevant is kept private.

I don't think a jury has been selected yet.

And leave all the crap about obama and rand paul etc out of here unless it's very specifically related. The other shit I read that's posted is just stupid meaningless ramblings and distracting from the issues at hand.

How would bail work in your new system?

my new system? what new system? You see they blacked out some stuff....like his address and account number? All I'm saying is they should have blacked out more.

So, I'm confused, what are you suggesting? Bail is a public contract. If you want public records only to show payments to lawyers, you've missed the point of bail.

Zimmerman lied about his finances in a public court. A judge made a ruling that this was so. That's why his bail was rescinded.

I'm suggesting that when your finances are provided to the public, that information that isn't relevant to the case shouldn't be released.

Relevant: You have $160,000 in a paypal account.
Relevant: You paid your lawyer $10,000.
Not-Relevant: You bought a dildo online 3 years ago.
Not-Relevant: You bought $5 worth of stuff from itunes.

I'm not talking about Bail at all. This is the first time I've typed that word in this thread.

[jonesthecurl]

Here's his bank records!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/97438975/Geor ... nk-Records

He spent $5.98 on iTunes downloads on April 11, ate at Arby's on April 5 ... I couldn't find any evidence of him paying for amputee porn.

I think that every charge that isn't a paypal transfer for a transaction to the lawyers should be removed as not-relevant. Oh, they bought something at sams club. Not relevant. Oh, they bought an itunes song, not relevant. You know? I think that's how you balance privacy and freedom of information, what's relevant to the case is presented, what's not relevant is kept private.

I don't think a jury has been selected yet.

And leave all the crap about obama and rand paul etc out of here unless it's very specifically related. The other shit I read that's posted is just stupid meaningless ramblings and distracting from the issues at hand.

How would bail work in your new system?

my new system? what new system? You see they blacked out some stuff....like his address and account number? All I'm saying is they should have blacked out more.

So, I'm confused, what are you suggesting? Bail is a public contract. If you want public records only to show payments to lawyers, you've missed the point of bail.

Zimmerman lied about his finances in a public court. A judge made a ruling that this was so. That's why his bail was rescinded.

I'm suggesting that when your finances are provided to the public, that information that isn't relevant to the case shouldn't be released.

Relevant: You have $160,000 in a paypal account.
Relevant: You paid your lawyer $10,000.
Not-Relevant: You bought a dildo online 3 years ago.
Not-Relevant: You bought $5 worth of stuff from itunes.

I'm not talking about Bail at all. This is the first time I've typed that word in this thread.

How did you get hold of my bank details?

[Phatscotty]

Privacy it seems is no loner a right. We have been too busy fighting over social wedge issues to care or notice.

I read this, and thought "hey, one issue about which Phattscotty and I actually agree (though not your Paul solution!)

Another privacy issue that is really irking me lately is the release of divorce records and other personal information of large political donors....

Yet here we see the great divergeance.

When someone is putting money forward, based on the ruling that "money is speech", then we have a right to know the full basis for that "speech". You have the right to say what you want, but not to hide behind a blanket and say it.. and expect protection. That money is being used to manipulate votes, to sway voters to their thinking. We, the voters have a fundamental right to know where that money is from.


AND.. one of the most "interesting" arguments against this was a complaint that this should not be released because the donors were being subjected to threats. He began by referring to physical threats (perhaps real, though pretty limited) and then went on to say "and boycotts"...

See, now, they can put out whatever money they want, but if we boycott their business in return.. well, THAT is an undo "threat". (I can find the interview if anyone is interested.. ).

Knock it off Player, we agree on tons, we just never talk about the obvious stuff.

[PLAYER57832]

I agree that divorce records of heavy political donors is not relevant information. That said, legalized marriages and divorces are fully public institutions/events and thus always available, no matter who you are.

[/]

Here's his bank records!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/97438975/Geor ... nk-Records

He spent $5.98 on iTunes downloads on April 11, ate at Arby's on April 5 ... I couldn't find any evidence of him paying for amputee porn.

Why would they blank out the credited amounts but not the total? Are they trying to code a message past people who failed elementary level math?

[Symmetry]

So, I'm confused, what are you suggesting? Bail is a public contract. If you want public records only to show payments to lawyers, you've missed the point of bail.

Zimmerman lied about his finances in a public court. A judge made a ruling that this was so. That's why his bail was rescinded.

I'm suggesting that when your finances are provided to the public, that information that isn't relevant to the case shouldn't be released.

Relevant: You have $160,000 in a paypal account.
Relevant: You paid your lawyer $10,000.
Not-Relevant: You bought a dildo online 3 years ago.
Not-Relevant: You bought $5 worth of stuff from itunes.

I'm not talking about Bail at all. This is the first time I've typed that word in this thread.

But his finances were released by him to a public court in relation to getting bail. He publicized them in order to be allowed to go home instead of staying in jail prior to his trial.

He lied to the judge, the judge has released his financial records.

Quite frankly, lying to a judge is a bit more of an issue than worrying about Zimmerman's itunes purchases being released to the press.

[PLAYER57832]

That's the thing about privacy. Once you release information to one party, they are public, with very few exceptions. And,for all this hoopla about this case, the truth is that a lot of people give out far more on Youtube, Facebook, etc every day. If you want a real threat to privacy, its that... and people joing those things willingly.

[Woodruff]

That's the thing about privacy. Once you release information to one party, they are public, with very few exceptions. And,for all this hoopla about this case, the truth is that a lot of people give out far more on Youtube, Facebook, etc every day. If you want a real threat to privacy, its that... and people joing those things willingly.

Indeed. I find myself preaching this to my cadets almost weekly, it seems, when one of them starts talking about something they posted on their Facebook/Myspace/Twitter/whatever that was really stupid of them to do.

[PLAYER57832]

It's one of those cases where I think nothing short of legislation will truly protect those too young to know they are being idiots. Too many parents don't know enough themselves to protect their kids and as soon as the parents figure a few things out, the companies are quick to change it to cater to the young.
When its only adults, I say "Stupid, but largely their own fault", but not when we are talking about underage kids and teens! And, honestly, I think the companies have more obligation to make their policies and the implications known.

[Night Strike]

It's one of those cases where I think nothing short of legislation will truly protect those too young to know they are being idiots. Too many parents don't know enough themselves to protect their kids and as soon as the parents figure a few things out, the companies are quick to change it to cater to the young.
When its only adults, I say "Stupid, but largely their own fault", but not when we are talking about underage kids and teens! And, honestly, I think the companies have more obligation to make their policies and the implications known.

Imagine that. Another area of life that player doesn't like that she thinks legislation needs to be tacked on to address. Let parents be parents and leave the government out of parenting. If the parents don't know enough, it's because they're being stupid about it. There are tons of stories every month about the dangers and openness of social media, etc. Or, the parents could just do things like making sure their child doesn't even have one of those accounts. It's called parenting.

[PLAYER57832]

It's called parenting.

BULL Its called forcing everyone to be more of an expert on computers than the computer companies themselves.


My son is not allowed on the computer without us there, but there is no way, short of physically removing the modem to keep him off it when we are not directly there. Do that, and it does nothing to protect him at friend's houses.

As a result, our son does not have access to the computer most of the time. As a result, his friends are getting more adept than he, and therefore, should they survive the pitfalls, will wind up ahead in school, etc over my son.. because we chose to protect him.

NOPE, its not about simply parenting.

[Night Strike]

It's called parenting.

BULL Its called forcing everyone to be more of an expert on computers than the computer companies themselves.

If you think it's too dangerous for your kids to be online, then don't let them get online. A parent still has the authority in the household and can't be forced to allow the kids to do something. There is no reason for the government to come in and mandate everything.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's called parenting.

BULL Its called forcing everyone to be more of an expert on computers than the computer companies themselves.


My son is not allowed on the computer without us there, but there is no way, short of physically removing the modem to keep him off it when we are not directly there. Do that, and it does nothing to protect him at friend's houses.

As a result, our son does not have access to the computer most of the time. As a result, his friends are getting more adept than he, and therefore, should they survive the pitfalls, will wind up ahead in school, etc over my son.. because we chose to protect him.

NOPE, its not about simply parenting.

Gee, it would seem that if other people didnt replicate your parenting policies, then all their children are... damaged, or harmed, somehow?

would you like to show that all parents who don't imitate your parenting style have kids who were somehow harmed by the Internet?


Also, why not teach your kid to use the Internet more responsibly, instead of severely restricting his access to it, (which wont teach him much)?

[Night Strike]

It's called parenting.

BULL Its called forcing everyone to be more of an expert on computers than the computer companies themselves.


My son is not allowed on the computer without us there, but there is no way, short of physically removing the modem to keep him off it when we are not directly there. Do that, and it does nothing to protect him at friend's houses.

As a result, our son does not have access to the computer most of the time. As a result, his friends are getting more adept than he, and therefore, should they survive the pitfalls, will wind up ahead in school, etc over my son.. because we chose to protect him.

NOPE, its not about simply parenting.

Every single computer comes built-in with parental controls so you can limit access to certain sites automatically. You can also buy programs that limit sites and send data to you to review what is being browsed on you computer by certain users. And all this is being done by the free market without government mandates. It's YOUR job to look after your kids, not the government's job.

[Woodruff]

It's called parenting.

BULL Its called forcing everyone to be more of an expert on computers than the computer companies themselves.

I'm afraid I disagree, as somewhat of a computer guy myself.

My son is not allowed on the computer without us there, but there is no way, short of physically removing the modem to keep him off it when we are not directly there. Do that, and it does nothing to protect him at friend's houses.

As a result, our son does not have access to the computer most of the time. As a result, his friends are getting more adept than he, and therefore, should they survive the pitfalls, will wind up ahead in school, etc over my son.. because we chose to protect him.

NOPE, its not about simply parenting.

It's not likely they'll be ahead of him, if he takes the right courses. And of course, it's true that you can't control what your child does away from your home. However, the point here is that it's STILL about parenting and the relationship you've developed with your child.

Imagine that. Another area of life that player doesn't like that she thinks legislation needs to be tacked on to address. Let parents be parents and leave the government out of parenting. If the parents don't know enough, it's because they're being stupid about it. There are tons of stories every month about the dangers and openness of social media, etc. Or, the parents could just do things like making sure their child doesn't even have one of those accounts. It's called parenting.

That's really not possible, you realize...