Comments by "Scott Tovey" (@scotttovey) on "A Major Crisis! Our Data, When Privately Held by Corporations, Loses Protections!" video.

The only difference between an envelope and a data file, is the container that is holding the data and the form that the data is held. The rights should be no different between the two.
10
@janburn007 It is illegal for anyone to open an envelope that is not addressed to them. The same should apply to digital data.
4
@ParisLondonRoma Ownership of equipment is not a valid argument. The Post office owns the trucks that the mail is delivered on. Your data does not cease to be your data simply because it resides on someone else's equipment. You do not transfer ownership of the data through the use of the equipment.
1
@terrydaktyllus1320 Again you speak of irrelevant things. Are you not aware of the fact that you cannot legally sign a contract that causes you to lose your constitutional rights? At least in the State of Michigan, such contracts are illegal and they should be illegal in all States. In like manner, it should and ought to be illegal for you to give up your rights in a TOS whether you read the TOS or did not read the TOS. For instance, when you create a work, whether it's a book a song or other form of art, that work is automatically copy righted. The only way for a work covered by copy right legislation to become public domain is for the author to knowingly, purposely and intentionally declare that work to be in the public domain. No statement buried and hidden in a TOS can cause the work to be released into the public domain. It's unlawful. Similarly, you using a website does not constitute you owing the owner of the website compensation for the use of the website unless, such fees and remittance is made obvious and clear. A statement buried and hidden in a TOS cannot obligate you to pay the owner of the website money by virtue of your using the website. This is why websites that charge a subscription have the fees made obvious along with a sign up form. These are basic principles of freedom and free enterprise which requires clear and obvious disclosure of ALL obligations that a person may be entering into when agreeing to terms of service. Don't allow the wicked to use the "it's not illegal" claim to justify their wickedness and injustice claim of ownership of your property.
1
@terrydaktyllus1320 "I stopped reading at the first sentence, you wasted your time writing the rest of it. An intelligent adult could have worked out for itself that the best way to deal with irrelevance is ignore it - yet you wrote a lengthy response which tells me that you are simply "grandstanding". Funnily enough, that's how I deal with "grandstanding" - I just ignore it. Run along, mind how you go and stay away from sharp scissors." Your judgment is corrupt and baseless. Your arrogance is reveled in your last statement. If it is grand standing to be correct on the matter. It's too bad that rather than learn and have a proper debate that comes to a consensus of how to solve a problem, you'd rather remain in your delusional world fantasy where you are always correct and those that disagree with you are always incorrect. That attitude invalidates your point of view on the matter. Why did I quote your post? So it's obvious that unlike you; I took the time to read it and post a response based on what you actually said, not on a fantasy of what I imagine you said.
1
@PandawdyBob "The government can and does open mail that is in transport and read the contents. Prison is a good example. Everything incoming and outgoing is examined." That is legitimate when dealing with convicted criminals. It is not legitimate when dealing with those that have not comiteed a crime and those that have served their sentences and have returned to the general public
1
The solution to the problem with big tech is to pass a constitutional amendment that requires corporations to not release users data without a wuarant from a court of law excluding FISA. The Amendment would also declare that the data belongs to the individual it is concerning and would also require big tech to delete the data after 15 to 30 days and ban big tech from selling the data to government. This is a difficult and expensive process but it is the only way to permanently solve these problems. As we have seen in the past, executive orders and legislated law can be over turned easily. A Constitutional Amendment, not so much.
1