Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Dottore's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
jbaggs

@selfsame Dwelling on this a bit, when exactly did the US pass from "Corporations are people" to "Black box statistical models are people, and they have more rights than you?"

5 September at 0:03 | Wall-to-wall | Open on infosec.exchange
9 comments
Sherri W (SyntaxSeed)

@jbaggs @selfsame No no... *money* is people & it has more rights than you. The bigger the money the more this applies.

5 September at 0:57 | Open on phpc.social
jbaggs

@syntaxseed @selfsame Thank you for explaining my own comment to me. Aside from sorting out any actual issues of legal standing.

5 September at 0:58 | Open on infosec.exchange
Sherri W (SyntaxSeed)
jbaggs

@syntaxseed @selfsame I feel the fact that corporate "personhood" , whether I agree with it or not, went through debate in the legal system is at least a bit of an important distinction.

5 September at 1:18 | Open on infosec.exchange
Mark Gjøl

@syntaxseed @jbaggs @selfsame
I believe the CEO of Volvo in 1988 mentioned that cash is king.

5 September at 13:53 | Open on mstdn.dk
Lykso

@jbaggs @selfsame Capitalism. Any debate in the legal system is purely for show. The capital class generally gets what it wants under capitalism.

5 September at 2:44 | Open on tiny.tilde.website
jbaggs

@lykso@tiny.tilde.website @selfsame I disagree that any debate in the legal system is hopeless. There are plenty of people who went into the legal profession to fix things and sometimes actually do. Some of them even belong to organizations that work more towards freedoms for the general population and not for corporate interest. I'll leave looking for such orgs as an "exercise for the reader" but I bet you could pick out a couple if you tried.

I'm also wondering why you started by saying anything in the legal system is "purely for show" and then backed off to saying the monied "generally" get what they want. It sounds like you aren't fully convinced of your own argument.

@lykso@tiny.tilde.website @selfsame I disagree that any debate in the legal system is hopeless. There are plenty of people who went into the legal profession to fix things and sometimes actually do. Some of them even belong to organizations that work more towards freedoms for the general population and not for corporate interest. I'll leave looking for such orgs as an "exercise for the reader" but I bet you could pick out a couple if you tried.

5 September at 5:30 | Open on infosec.exchange
bojkotiMalbona

@jbaggs @selfsame There needs to be an amendment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (#UDHR) to generally state not only are humans equal to each other but also they shall never lack rights given to corps & machines.

It’s interesting to note that the reason encryption was not banned: corporations need encryption to protect trade secrets and facilitate commerce. Individuals benefit from the privacy of encryption only incidentally.

I’m not clear on what court decision triggered the OP but it seems like a departure from the cryptography scenario.

@jbaggs @selfsame There needs to be an amendment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (#UDHR) to generally state not only are humans equal to each other but also they shall never lack rights given to corps & machines.

It’s interesting to note that the reason encryption was not banned: corporations need encryption to protect trade secrets and facilitate commerce. Individuals benefit from the privacy of encryption only incidentally.

5 September at 7:46 | Open on infosec.exchange
Go Up