Again, one of these things is not like the other.
You don't have an expectation of privacy in your own home, if you leave all the doors and windows open.
Posting on MMO Champion is like having all the doors and windows open, or not having your yard fenced in with a fence that prevents line of sight, you are essentially leaving these areas open to public viewing. Other websites, like Twitter, Facebook, Google+ and so on, have a "private" option, where only people who you allow to see your posts can see them. In such cases, you DO have an expectation of privacy. Beyond that, MMO Champion is still a private website, although it keeps its doors open, it could choose not to, and require viewing to require a membership, and could in its terms of service state that government employees may not set up a membership with the intent of monitoring other members posts.
You quite clearly don't understand how the right to privacy works. It is far more nuanced that you are claiming and even moreso than I can explain in a forum post.
Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.
Just, be kind.
correct if you use the privacy option which at first you didn't state then if you are an American citizen a warrant would need to be issued to look at but we aren't talking about American citizens now are we. the rights given by the constitution is granted to the citizens of the united states not every one else in the world
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0648fe301bf5c
They never expressed threats on social media apparently. They did claim jihad in private conversations.
Last edited by Varvara Spiros Gelashvili; 2015-12-17 at 09:15 PM.
Violence Jack Respects Women!
Sounds fair enough. If you want to enter a country, they can ask whatever information they want of you.
I would think it was stupid of them to deny entry based on critique of their government or something like that, but some people post pretty extreme stuff on their social media.
A secret U.S. policy that prohibits immigration officials from reviewing the social media messages of foreign citizens applying for U.S. visas was reportedly kept in place over fears of a civil liberties backlash and “bad public relations.”-----
"The primary concern was that it would be viewed negatively if it was disclosed publicly and there were concerns that it would be embarrassing," Cohen told ABC’s Good Morning America on Monday
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...pplicants.html
It was in my 2nd post, post #10, because that's where I was discussing the matter of privacy, the first post I made was not. It doesn't matter if you're using an US-based service internationally, because Facebook has a right to privacy even if the person using it is not a US citizen. This is why so many European laws are attempting to limit how private online information can be, because since Facebook is based on the US, Facebook itsself has protections, even if it's users do not. Though some of that also depends on where the data is stored, some protections afforded to Facebook the company may not apply to its data if the data is stored outside the US.
Again, it's nuanced and the issue of other international laws makes it even more complicated.
In any case: as a rule of thumb the people whose pages we are looking at are either going to be bleedingly obvious about their loyalties or very secretive and it's not very difficult to just not post pro-terrorism things online. It's not like social media reads your mind.
Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.
Just, be kind.
So the vetting process for an interview is more strenuous than what the govt will allow for the NSA?
I will let Wikipedia explain
Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct, commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term primarily used as a pejorative to describe language, policies, or measures which are intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
they didn't want to use someone's social media page to vet them because they deemed it as might be offensive
Political corectness means nothing. Like seriously i see people on the right blaming jihadist on political corectness
yeah reagan was so " politically correct " and fighting against racism and xenophobia when he was arming the mujahideen lead by osama bin laden in his proxy war against the soviets. oops i brought up a historical event that goes against the right, now im being a social justice warrior and my point is moot.
these people dont know how realpolotik works in the real world.
Honestly with all the tension I think just increasing the thoroughness of the vetting process for visa applicants is pretty mild. I would much rather increase the vetting process than prevent any from coming here or just letting them come over here without being adequately vetted.
If their profiles were set to private... it is spying. I don't care personally because I think it should be part of the vetting process but its still spying.
They never expressed threat on social medium but in private conversations. Getting access to those would be consider spying. if the person profile was set to private, but I think that should be part of the vetting process. So its w/e with me.
Certain parts of the united states would be pissed about the intrusion of privacy and they aren't only social justice warriors. Sjw and pc fall into this but the right likes protecting civil liberties as well.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0648fe301bf5c
Last edited by Varvara Spiros Gelashvili; 2015-12-17 at 09:55 PM.
Violence Jack Respects Women!