Morality/ethics aside I wish there had been more nudes of Hope Solo. God damn.

What can I say, I am a hypocrite.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Loosed in the henhouse? They were using legal means to try to protect the world from people like ISIS. They may have overstepped themselves slightly in their efforts to do so, and there are certainly a few examples of rogue employees doing bad things, but the NSA operations weren't purposefully malicious, like this "fappening."

Right, they're not the same thing, as Nou was seemingly arguing(?)

I was merely borrowing a phrase- appointing the fox to guard the henhouse. And yes, when you hear of the sheer "wealth" of people looking to join ISIS from Europe anymore, it's difficult to not think "huh, guess maybe it's good that communications are being monitored for this sort of thing?"

And let's go with sorta-legal. I am glad the NSA as a collective was accountable; it says everything about the difference in this case.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Right, they're not the same thing, as Nou was seemingly arguing(?)

Not on a "civil liberties" axis perhaps, but certainly on a moral plane. It's not just the actual hackers who went to all that malicious effort to get the information, it's the millions of people currently gleefully revelling in the utter violation of the privacy of individuals in a way that directly, publicly and lastingly humiliaties those individuals. If you're happy - no, make that joyous - to throw away the precepts of your beloved Constitution if it means seeing a pair of famous tits then how can you credibly claim to hold that Constitution so dear when it suddenly dawns that you might become a victim?

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

Do only women take nude selfies or because hackers are male they only leak female nudes or no one would give a dam about male nudes except for gheys? Btw I was underwhelmed by the pics.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Not on a "civil liberties" axis perhaps, but certainly on a moral plane. It's not just the actual hackers who went to all that malicious effort to get the information, it's the millions of people currently gleefully revelling in the utter violation of the privacy of individuals in a way that directly, publicly and lastingly humiliaties those individuals. If you're happy - no, make that joyous - to throw away the precepts of your beloved Constitution if it means seeing a pair of famous tits then how can you credibly claim to hold that Constitution so dear when it suddenly dawns that you might become a victim?

No disagreement from me, it's why I brought up the "spirit" of the constitution in this case, as this same community was crying foul over PRISM and is now happy to share some very dire and similar violations among themselves. But to be more specific, the US constitution -by its letter- is a bulwark against the potential abuses of federal government, hence why the NSA violating certain articles was particularly egregious. Individuals cannot typically violate the US constitution, as they are not laws or agencies unto themselves, and the spectrum of accountability cannot be legislated into sweeping precedent... or at least I can't think of any comparable examples?

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Jon_Snow Do only women take nude selfies or because hackers are male they only leak female nudes or no one would give a dam about male nudes except for gheys? Btw I was underwhelmed by the pics.

How do you not know the answer to this having been on TA so long?

I'd say the number of well known female TAs that don't have nudes or somewhat compromising pictures out there is in the minority.

It was a rhetorical question.

Some of you guys are dense, so ill provide two clear examples of what the differences i alluded too earlier.

If your neighbor peeks over the fence while your wife is butt-naked in your yard, you can go over and punch him in the face. On the other hand if the police do it, you're not going to do shit about it because you value your freedom. Fuck.

___________________
UnauthorizedTranceAddict Youtube Channel where I post older mixes from the TA DJ Promotion Forum

My mixes:

Still up:1:2

Down:3:4:5

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange Some of you guys are dense, so ill provide two clear examples of what the differences i alluded too earlier. If your neighbor peeks over the fence while your wife is butt-naked in your yard, you can go over and punch him in the face. On the other hand if the police do it, you're not going to do shit about it because you value your freedom. Fuck.

If you went over and punched your neighbor he could very easily sue you and you would most likely be arrested.

___________________
Quarantine Classics Brunello di Montalcino (In Transit) Edition [Progressive Classics] (August 2020)
Quarantine Classics - Puligny-Montrachet Edition [Progressive Classics] (April 2020)
What Is Progressive Anyways? [Progressive House Classics] (November 2019)

Reddit will not get in trouble for this because of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

quote:

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a landmark piece of Internet legislation in the United States, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230. Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by others: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by this provision, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity: The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service." The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must "treat" the defendant "as the publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue. The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue.

I've had to deal with numerous idiots over the years threatening me over stupid shit (bad reviews/etc.) - NONE of them followed through with legal action.... and even then it would be against the poster, not TA. The ones that always pissed me off were the ones in regards to images that were linked within a thread... why are you going after TA and not the server where the file is located? One of the main reasons I never allowed image attachments.

___________________

"In a world of illusion you only see what you feel"

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Not on a "civil liberties" axis perhaps, but certainly on a moral plane. It's not just the actual hackers who went to all that malicious effort to get the information, it's the millions of people currently gleefully revelling in the utter violation of the privacy of individuals in a way that directly, publicly and lastingly humiliaties those individuals. If you're happy - no, make that joyous - to throw away the precepts of your beloved Constitution if it means seeing a pair of famous tits then how can you credibly claim to hold that Constitution so dear when it suddenly dawns that you might become a victim?

I think most people understand that criminals and hackers are gonna be naughty and do shitty things to others. But one probably holds their government to a higher standard of behaviour, otherwise they are unfit for the purpose of governing. I grant that is a very lofty ideal, but I think this is how people feel. People are unhappy with either of the following:

1. The government legalises, for themselves, what we consider to be criminal activity (privacy invasion). That's not fair.
2. You could now logically conclude that we are ruled by criminals.

On a side note, you're treating an entire online community, thousands of personalities, as one person who is both against snooping but at the same time rejoicing in the gratuitous downloading of titties that they weren't allowed to see on the big screen.

___________________
Nothing to see here

this wouldnt be an issue if people werent so self obsessed feeling the need to selfie themselves in every possible angle and every possible naked pose.


there is a lesson to be learned through all of this....get over yourselves.