TEST

The Pentacoaster

HIGH ENERGY!

bumping back to top

lets get this shit done and get these signatures!

>Trump can't block Twitter followers, federal judge says

And twitter has routinely banned conservatives from what this judge considered a public forum.

Does this mean twitter is violating 1st amendment?

You will strongly want to include the ability to repair, fix, reverse engineer and basically OWN your own device.

A lot of companies give you devices with nasty 'as a service' contract where you don't technically own your own device. This is a MAJOR STUMBLING BLOCK TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Imagine, for example, your device was restricted in a way, or, as is the case with a lot of Android phones, had agreements in place with companies (IE Facebook) to siphon off your data.

Your only options at present are: jailbreak and void warranty, possibly even lose cell service, or comply with the data slurp, spying and restrictions.

The inability to repair a device means more and more devices will be SEALED SHUT and CONTAIN PHYSICAL BACKDOORS, including, but not limited to, ALWAYS ON GPS, MICROPHONES, CAMERAS, INFRARED SENSORS. Mandating a device MUST BE REPAIRABLE allows you to TAKE IT APART and PHYSICALLY INSPECT THE DEVICE, for things such as HARDWARE BASED BACKDOORS.

Otherwise, the IBOR is circumventable with the line that 'it's owned by a private company, they can do whatever they want'. If, however, a device must be fully owned by the person who purchases (IE you) without reprisal, and the device can be repaired (read: taken apart and analysed), hardware based tracking becomes substantially more difficult: pop open phone, burn a hole in the tracking device (or remove it and use it as evidence to sue their balls off for violation of your rights).

You may also want to make sure the laws apply to both private and public entities.

Remember, the constitution went through numerous drafts, revisions and improvements before it became a widely accepted thing.

Reality check on amending the constitution…It will take a lot of work!

Do you know there has been a movement to amend the Constitution to include the right of parents to direct their children's upbringing? to make basic medical and educational decisions on behalf of their children without "undue government interference"?

Do you have any clue how much effort it takes for the Constitution to be amended?

Do you know how long the Parental Rights movement has been going?

Since 2009

And we still haven't gotten it yet. Maybe draining the swamp will help…eventually…

Things like the following are why the movement started:

https://parentalrightsfoundation.org/hold-judges-accountable/

1/2

The Law Versus Judge Lyris Younge

May 23, 2018

PA Court

Room 5A of the Philadelphia Family Court is one of those places parental rights go to die. Or it would be, if presiding judge Lyris Younge had her way.

“She has the capacity to be a good judge,” one lawyer who has served before her told The Legal Intelligencer for a recent article, “but she has these bad days where she takes it out on the families.”

Since being elected to the bench in 2016, Younge has led all judges in the court’s dependency division in the number of cases appealed, with 156. Of these, 79 have been closed (decided), and 8 have been at least partially overturned. That 10% may not sound like much, but it dwarfs the second highest rate of reversal, which is 2 cases out of 112, or only 1.8%.

And if a similar 10% rate applied to all of Judge Younge’s cases including those who couldn’t afford to appeal, that would affect thousands of families.Significantly, half of Younge’s overturned cases involve due process: she didn’t just make a mistaken ruling; she denied them a fair trial at all.

A Bathroom Break Bars a Mom from the Courtroom

In one of Younge’s earliest cases, a mother became physically ill and had to run to the nearest bathroom before her attorney could ask for a recess. In retaliation, the judge refused to let her back into the courtroom. The case became the first overturned on appeal.

“[T]he trial court violated the mother’s constitutional guarantee to due process when it precluded her from the opportunity to be heard,” the appellate court declared.

>>1538603

https://parentalrightsfoundation.org/hold-judges-accountable/

2/2

Judge Refuses to Hear Evidence; Seeks to Separate Parents and Child

Yet another decision was reversed on appeal earlier this month, marking at least Younge’s ninth reversal in just over two years.

In In the Interest of N.M., the parents of a baby girl for two years jumped through every hoop set before them to try to get their daughter returned, only to have Judge Younge change the permanency goal from reunification to termination of parental rights, then grant the termination.

N. M. was only seven months old when she was removed from her parents’ care on a suspicion of abuse. She was found to have broken ribs which a “pediatrician with a concentration in child abuse cases” testified was from “non-accidental trauma.” Both parents consistently denied any knowledge of how the trauma could have occurred. Unfortunately for them, innocence was not an option.

Judge Younge was quoted in the appeals case: “either someone has to cop to [the abuse] or there has to be a plausible explanation…. Until we get some closure about how this happened, we’re not going to get beyond this.”

As to whether the parents could present expert medical testimony suggesting other possible causes for the injuries besides neglect, Younge assured the parents, “I would allow a doctor to testify today. I would. I would. I absolutely would.”

Yet the appeals court noted, “The court again refused to accept from Attorney Freeman the reports and curriculum vitae of two doctors regarding a non-abusive explanation for N.M.’s injuries.”

The family jumped through every hoop, but their effort availed them nothing. The judge “[found] that the parents are fully compliant. It doesn’t move the needle for me.”

On appeal, the court reversed Judge Younge’s decision to terminate the parents’ rights or even to change the permanency goal to termination. But they didn’t stop there.

“We find ourselves constrained to comment as follows,” Justice Lazarus wrote for the court.

“[D]espite record evidence that the trial court allegedly relied upon, the one factor, the elephant in the room, is that the trial judge was and remains the cause of the deteriorated bond between Parents and N.M. in this matter.

“The record is replete with attempts by Parents to meet the goals set by the trial judge, however she continued to put up barriers to reunification….

“In short, despite the goals of Child Protective Services Law, the trial judge seems to have done everything in her power to alienate these parents from their child, appears to have a fixed idea about this matter and, further, she prohibited evidence to be introduced that might have forced her to change her opinion.

“While this court must take and does take the issue of abuse of a child very seriously, the fact that a trial judge tells parents that unless one of them ‘cops to an admission of what happened to the child’ they are going to lose their child, flies in the face of not only the CPSL[aw], but of the entire body of case law with regard to the best interests of the child and family reunification.” [emphasis added]

Our hope, and clearly that of the superior court, is that Judge Younge will give the parents a fair shake moving forward. We would add the hope that one day soon this little girl will be safely returned to the parents who love her, who have put everything on hold for two years to satisfy a judge who simply would not be satisfied.

Needed: Good Laws and Good Judges

We’ve said it time and again: to get good results, we have to have good judges and good laws. Our efforts to present policymakers with model legislation that will aid families, including a Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, arises from this understanding. We work to provide the best possible laws not only to preserve the vital right of parents to defend their families, but to rein in judges whenever we can.

As for good judges, one need look no further than Philadelphia to see why they are so important—and why they can’t be taken for granted. The rules must be changed, not only to let good judges thrive, but to keep bad judges accountable.

— TAKE ACTION: RAISE AWARENESS —

Pass this email along to your friends and family who care about their children, and invite them to sign up for updates from the Parental Rights Foundation. Join us in raising awareness for the need to protect parental rights in law and in the Constitution.

Together we are mobilizing an army of parents to defend our rights and bring much needed change to the system intended to save children, which so often destroys families instead.

As always, thank you for standing with us to protect your children by empowering you, the parent.

Sincerely,

Michael Ramey

Director of Communications & Research

>>1538603

>>1538615

One step at a time anon, calm your tits.

Does the shadow ban for spamming affect you if it is directed @POTUS?

This would spread the #InternetBillOfRights wouldn't it? or does it not count if single accounts are spamming the hashtag multiple times?

hey thread owner, keep posting your updated IBoR stuff here!

some of us are still around and watching… AND DOING!

>>1538603

At this particular stage we don't have to "amend" the constitution, as an internet bill would be, generally speaking, global (if the rights only applied to America, it would defeat the point of it being a bill for the internet).

As someone outside America, I have a very strong interest in ensuring IBOR succeeds globally, because it's the kind of protections myself and others cannot presently enjoy (police arresting people for making twitter bomb jokes whilst allowing pedophiles to go scot-free in Rotherham is the biggest fucking outrage in a century and not a single complaint from anyone anywhere).

If enough countries adopt or ratify IBOR (I'm hoping EU gets on board because once they adopt it, it will force pretty much everyone else to do so as well), it would become de facto.

It might not be in the constitution, but I think IBOR reinforces the American constitution nicely (both support freedom of speech, and I bet a judge would argue freedom of speech on the internet is hypothetically covered by said pre-existing constitution).

Adding it to the constitution might not be possible, but if we could shore it up to be difficult to assail as Section 230 was and have it unilaterally enforced by other countries (so it 'overlaps'), not only would this allow freedom of speech for individuals like myself, but also for those in countries who have no voice to start speaking out.

Otherwise, one of your major issues is companies will move overseas in order to avoid complying with IBOR, like they already do with GDPR for countries outside the EU.

>>1539559

If your idea is to 'trojan horse' the fact Trump blocked people on twitter in order to force the hypocrisy of Twitter's own blocking/banning, it's hypothetically possible.

But the coverage would be extremely narrow (and I imagine the crooked judge would apply double-standards).

Firstly, it would only apply to 'public' accounts (EG politicians).

Secondly, it would only apply to Americans (a point skipped by the judge conveniently in the rulings; the Twitter block lifts would only apply to Americans who have a right to freedom of speech in their own country - it does not expand to other citizens in other countries, however the judge omitted that key detail to maliciously insinuate Trump had to unban everyone).

Furthermore, it likely wouldn't apply to illegal content (the judge again skips whether or not Trump could block someone who just spams child porn or offers of illegal activities etc).

That said, the judge does mandate that if Trump cannot block users from public forums… neither can Twitter.

If Trump or a shadowbanned user not allowed to post on another politician's account (strongly recommend another politician), in theory, Twitter are obliged to let them post in a public domain.

Otherwise, if they use private v public as an argument, I'd call bullshit, because the Trump account is already private.

Either way, the ruling is very inconsistent to the kind of abusive practices otherwise allowed by Twitter, Facebook etc.

I hope that hypocrisy gets exposed further and triggers outrage.

My personal opinion are ALL social media outlets are effectively PUBLIC utilities. Imagine if a corporation owned all of the roads, but banned some people driving on it based on their views or religious beliefs. The roads are public utilities, but it's owned privately.

My thoughts are anything that is a 'public utility' (to the degree it is practically 'depended upon') trumps any 'privately owned' arguments. Otherwise you allow water companies to cut off your water if they don't like who you are or what you say (if they cut you off for being critical of them, there'd be an outrage).

>>1546953

It says given access to the most up to date technology. This basically means no restricting on what we can have in terms of technology.

Tell me how that's a 'right'?

We have a right to access an uncensored internet free of privacy invasion.

We do not have a legislative right to specify the quality of universally available technology. If you want better quality technology, better than what is offered for free universally, you have to pay for available technology upgrades. We are not advocating to topple the free market.

>>1547105

Are you being serious?

It says ACCESS you fucking moron…

Not that you GET IT FOR FREE…

And I asked how is that a 'right' brainiac. You might also address how access to the most currently available technology has anything at all to do with internet freedom. Are you asserting that forcing use of the most currently available technology for the internet is somehow related to uncensored, privacy protected access to the internet?

>>1547197

Where does it say that is a right?

What level is your reading comprehension at bud?

>#1. We The People have the Right to complete free speech when on the Internet.

>#2. We have the right and shall be guaranteed absolute privacy when online. There shall be no unauthorized monitoring, recording, or storing of our data at any time.

>#3. We shall be given access to the most up to date and powerful technology available to us, with all provisions & efforts made by our elected officials to ensure that our Internet quality is always reflective of its importance to our Republic.

>#4. We have the Right to NOT have our Internet throttled, prioritized, or restricted in any way.

>#5. We have the Right to select and appoint a new special council to oversee these Rights, and a report on the State of The American Internet shall be submitted to POTUS by January 15th of each year

The stupidity is overwhelming here. This is an Internet Bill of RIGHTS that we are talking about. If it's not considered to be a right, it should not be included in a Bill of 'RIGHTS'.

>>1547217

Newfaggot, lurk moar

Is that your most intelligent argument on the subject at hand?

>>1547224

You tell me, you fucking glow in the dark nigger. (((They))) lower the bar so you and your retard brother could join up?

Well then. I don't need to expose you as a shill and a saboteur asswipe. You expose yourself.

I am a new anon in that I have been here less than 1 year silently watching, reading and learning. I fight daily for the cause and would never attack a fellow anon/patriot who is also fighting for the cause, even if I disagreed with an opinion or position taken. You obviously do not share that degree of character. Nigger? What fucking sewer hole did you crawl out of?

Here's the bottom line. This:

>#3. We shall be given access to the most up to date and powerful technology available to us, with all provisions & efforts made by our elected officials to ensure that our Internet quality is always reflective of its importance to our Republic.

is bullshit. Dictating how current the internet software platform is in terms of quality and power has nothing to do with internet freedom.

Wants and desires have no place in a Bill of RIGHTs. Maybe you should be advocating for a snowflake bill of 'wants and desires' where what you think we should be stupid enough to advocate for would make more sense.

Advocating for an internet rights special counsel is a flagrantly obvious attempt to sabotage this movement. We have no RIGHT to a special counsel and don't need one. Having one could do far more harm to rights than good.

This is also bullshit:

>#4. We have the Right to NOT have our Internet throttled, prioritized, or restricted in any way.

We have no right to dictate how the internet platform is maintained as long as there are no differences made to selectively censor or restrict full available access.

Nobody was born stupid enough to come up with this shit by accident. It's by design. It's sabotage. There is NO actual internet freedom from censorship, the primary concern, in this fucked up bullshit excuse for a reiteration of the original IBOR petition which DID NOT NEED CHANGING.

Attack me all you want it just exposes you more for what you are – a saboteurfaggot.

Yes, your points make a lot of sense…especially as the EU's GDPR has been making every one and their brother email updates to us in the US about their terms of service/privacy policy. The internet is WW. WWG1WWA!

https://gdpr-info.eu/key-issues/

>>1543396

>At this particular stage we don't have to "amend" the constitution, as an internet bill would be, generally speaking, global (if the rights only applied to America, it would defeat the point of it being a bill for the internet).

>

>As someone outside America, I have a very strong interest in ensuring IBOR succeeds globally, because it's the kind of protections myself and others cannot presently enjoy

>>1547305

Glow in the dark nigger is a term for alphabet agency, so calm your fucking lack of autism newfag.

I agree that we don't need to amend the constitution to pursue the enforcement of rights already guaranteed by our constitution, free and uncensored speech in the public arena (which the internet is despite the argument that privately owned 'applications' on a public platform are exempt), and; privacy.

I also agree that the fight for an IBOR governing the world wide web is a world fight and WWG1WGA. We are stronger fighting together.

>>1546953

Besides in this post you unironically admit to fucking up the petitions by making duplicates. Fucking lurk moar faggot.

Thank you for that clarification. I hated to think that Richard Duke's relatives were MAGA anons. I proudly accept the handle of newfag since I don't deny being one of those probably for some time to come. However, this newfag didn't come without pre-existing brain power.

You keep exposing your ignorance. You should get a handle on that. I said AFTER THE ORIGINAL QAnon PETITION EXPIRED I immediately republished it using the exact same text.

>>1547535

Holy shit, I'm done talking to you grandpa.

You're opinion is shit, you are shit and fucking lurk moar faggot.

YOU on the other hand are obviously supporting whoever IS submitting duplicates (and did so 2 or 3 days after the original petition was published and again when I republished the original) each time changing the text to something Q would not have us advocating. Q read and blessed the first IBOR petition, NOT the bullshit substitution you're arguing for now saboteurfag.

Have a great day saboteurfag. I hope you've got air conditioning in your mother's basement. The temps have risen everywhere and we wouldn't want your brain to overheat and cause a stench now would we?

>>1547170

>>1547305

>We have no right to dictate how the internet platform is maintained as long as there are no differences made to selectively censor or restrict full available access.

>

>Nobody was born stupid enough to come up with this by accident. It's by design. It's sabotage. There is NO actual internet freedom from censorship, the primary concern, in this fucked up bullshit excuse for a reiteration of the original IBOR petition which DID NOT NEED CHANGING.

Honest opinions: I read the 'access' part and thought several things.

A. that part sounds like it was written by a snowflake, but basic access maybe should be considered a public utility

B there is most certainly classified tech we don't/can't/likely won't get

C I would want a lawyerfag to refine the whole thing, we need to distill down to basics to get it moving anywhere

D I though i'll wait to sign until I see C happen as well as enough numbers backing it

And yes, some language will sabotage the thing…its not D vs R…not conservatives alone…

WWG1WGA

>>1547610

Also, the patriot act….is in essence anti-IBOR…how do we address how that eroded what we are trying to do? Did you see yesterday how Best Buy was being paid by a gov agency to spy on computers they were repairing…new issue!

I was hoping POTUS would get rid of the patriot act immediately when he took office and admit to being disappointed when he didn't. I decided he'll get to it and I should be patient, but yes, that should definitely fall to the annals of past history under an IBOR.

It would be great to have a lawyerfag vet the IBOR language. We can do this. We need to get out from under the saboteurs, get it right and monitor our progress closely when we republish it again.

I have a real time actual signature count tracking strategy in mind.

I saw a report on Best Buy techs spying for the government months ago. I haven't seen the recent story. I'll check it out thanks.

I should mention though that I have considered the possibility that POTUS may temporarily need to use the presidential powers of the patriot act against those who enacted it for nefarious purposes.

>>1547716

ACCESS DOESN'T MEAN GIVEN!!!

ENSURE INTERNET QUALITY IS A MATTER OF INFRASTRUCTURE

STFU and go take a nap saboteurfag. I don't have and interest or patience to deal with any more of your ignorant bullshit. Stop trying to waste any more of my time. You've had all you're going to get.

>>1547743

LISTEN OLD MAN, LETS JUST GET A LAWFAG IN HERE TO SETTLE THIS MATTER

>>1547696

It was on the board yesterday…not necessarily new stuff put up

>>1547716

If it is 5G

i want nothing to do with it

We have to take into consideration that many are blue pilled on the safety of wifi/cellular RF bandwidths. It is (((theirs))).

BREAKING: 5G is a Sterilization & Eugenics Program

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIYPnOM-SXs

Look at LIFI

I was relieved to hear about an alternative to the DEMON of technology that 5G network is shaping up to be…so long as LED's are safe…

LiFi to unlock the Third Industrial Revolution//LiFi - How every LED light could connect you to the Internet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHWIZsIBj3Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UulEFh8yhCg

https://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-ncPjD1IeY

>>1547868

Yeah, I've heard about the 5G cancer beams.

Ditto. They think we're stupid.

You can tell I'm a newfag. I replied to the wrong anon.

Ditto, no 5G. They think we're stupid. Internet infrastructure doesn't have anything to do with internet freedom anyway. Including it in the IBOR would be a perfect way for (((them))) to get stupid anons to fight for their own murder.

>>1548110

Anon.. I'm just going to let you know.

The link goes in the text field not in the subject line.

You see?

>>1548110

Just click on the No. 1548110

And it will add it to your text field..

>>1548138

Got it. Thanks anon

>>1548184

Yeah and sorry about earlier, if I end up being completely wrong about this draft then I take full responsibility for being deceived. But honestly I see it as a valid petiton that deserved promotion. And at the very least will be some form of acknowledgment to the White House that the internet and its accessibility to the public is of great importance to upholding our freedoms we hold dear.

>>1548308

And where do you see that I argued differently? I didn't argue the need for an IBOR and we're not talking about a 'draft'. The document I posted to express concern about is published on the WH site. You didn't address the concerns I raised. You attacked me for raising them. There's no need for you and I to go back and forth on this. I stand by the concerns I raised. They are not reduced by this 'lawfag' who just happened to show up.

Let's agree to disagree and move on. I'm okay with you hating me.

>>1548460

How many attempts will we have to sign this at 100K? As many as it takes!

WWG1WGA!

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-18

Shithole country had a first and fourth amendment

#1. We The People have the Right to complete free speech when on the Internet.

The first amendment covers this.

>#2. We have the right and shall be guaranteed absolute privacy when online.

You only have a right to privcy when inside your home or property. The internet is outside of those boundries. If in oder to use a private platform ie tweeterb and agree to their terms you have no recourse.

There shall be no unauthorized monitoring, recording, or storing of our data at any time.

You gave up those rights with terms of agreement. Companies that violated your tight will pay heavy fines.

>#3. We shall be given access to the most up to date and powerful technology available to us, with all provisions & efforts made by our elected officials to ensure that our Internet quality is always reflective of its importance to our Republic.

This is so socailist it is beyond belief. You have no right to anything unless you build itb a company that has built it allows you to use it. So again terms of agreement.

Only a facist would support this part. It's actually a whing fucking David Hogg demand. Why not throw in free ammo.

>#4. We have the Right to NOT have our Internet throttled, prioritized, or restricted in any way.

It isn't your internet. It's not a public owned operation and hopefully never will be.

>#5. We have the Right to select and appoint a new special council to oversee these Rights, and a report on the State of The American Internet shall be submitted to POTUS by January 15th of each year.

This one is beyond stupod the SC law is unconstituional as is this last childess demand.

WWG1WGA

This piece of crap tskes away from what is going on and makes me wonder who runs this op

>>1550208

Correct on all counts.

This IBOR slide bullshit is getting as tiresome as the Flat Earthers.

Get a fucking clue.

>>1546953

"I believe the petition is being deliberately derailed"

Natural News, when petitioning about vaccines, found that despite hundreds of thousands of people signing (and reporting that they had signed), that the number never budged - kinda like how YouTube diddles the subscriber numbers or view count.

The president needs to implement a means of accepting *alternative* petitions from *outside* the government website (so long as it has an equal standard/level of detail).

That way, we could independently verify we have over the 500,000 signers mark, submit, then get a follow up on the WH website - to confirm the numbers are being forged/manipulated.

Believe me, the resistance to actual petitions on government websites is unreal.

My proposed draft of IBOR (not yet a petition as I think we should try to get bigger organisations to weigh in):

1) Right to freedom of speech, with;

1a) right of reply (confers immunity to libel, slander, etc lawsuits)

1b) neutral hosting requirement (IE cannot censor based on political opinions, views etc otherwise becomes liable for slanderous, copyrighted etc content posted by users as it signals they can moderate)

2) Right to privacy, except;

2a) When a warrant is issued by a publicly electable judge in a transparent court (secret courts are explicitly prohibited), subject to periodic review of the approved warrants (to ensure they are not just being rubberstamped without question)

2b) Unless compliance is practically impossible (EG a generally unbreakable encryption algorithm means you have no obligation to 'crack' the algorithm to comply with the warrant, etc).

3) Reasonable right of access (governments, corporations, are not allowed to impede your access to the internet and should make *reasonable* accomodations to support access, however this isn't carte blache for them to bend over backwards, IE you're still expected to pay, you can't demand they install costly infrastructure - it just means they can't generally block or throttle your access as an indirect means of censorship, or demand unusually high costs in comparison to the average, etc).

4) Right of ownership/right of repair (AKA right to own the device you buy, for example, companies can't just install a physical backdoor and then seal it up with T&Cs stating you don't 'truly' own the device, even if you paid a lump sum for it; you're allowed to reverse engineer it, take it apart, repair, fix, modify it etc which allows you to remove hardware based backdoors)

5) Right of public utility (if a thing (EG website) is publicly viewable, or it's contents are publicly well known, then by rights you must be given access, and cannot be censored from participating, if it behaves like or is a public utility).

I think points 1 and 2 are bare minimum. Points 3 and 4 are 'practically mandatory' because without them, censorship would simply occur indirectly (rather than a company 'obviously' censoring you, they would 'inobviously' censor you, EG give (falsified) service errors, cause problems, or alternatively spy on you via hardware backdoors etc).

5 is a mildly redundant provision (technically, it's 1 couched in different terms), but it's there as an explicit counter to the 'but we're a private company'. If it walks like a public utility, and quacks like a public utility, then goddamn, it's a public utility.

>>1550208

We agree on most of the points that you make, especially as regards to the snowflake socialist demands some saboteurfag included in this current IBOR petition that's being circulated now.

I disagree with your take on the the right to privacy being limited to home or property locations. Congress recognized digital privacy rights on the internet with their passage of the Email Privacy Act (EPA) which expansively covers all digital communications and content.

The House amended the EPA last year to remove the 180 day limitation on the age of content protected so that digital privacy would be protected under the 4th amendment no matter how long it's been on the internet along with some additional updated provisions recognizing the current state of the internet and the WWW – https://www.multichannel.com/news/house-passes-e-mail-privacy-act-410716

The courts recognized the applicability of the 4th amendment to digital privacy at the state and local levels but there hasn't been a federal case to establish consitutionality. The EPA is intended to achieve that.

The amendment passed by the House is now hung up in the Senate. They last deliberated on it in July 2017 for the second time.

https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/305042/the-email-privacy-act-makes-its-way-to-the-senate.html

Hopefully if we pass an IBOR it would serve as an impetus for the Senate to get off their ass on this.

Though our 1st amendment rights are protected under the constitution social media platforms are partisan-politically censoring this right.

The purpose of an IBOR as regards to both the 1st and 4th amendments is to enact legislation to enforce these protections not only from infringement by the government, but by the private sector as well.

The internet belongs to the world and is owned by no one. It was created by the American government but released to the world at large.

Private companies create applications that we use on the internet. They used to be satisfied with selling ad space on their platforms giving access to their users in that fashion. Now they

have gotten greedy and they sell our private information and personal content to the highest bidder. Our content is on the internet, which Google, Yahoo, FB, YouTube, etal don't own, though we format and access it through their applications. An IBOR would stipulate that they cannot usurp constitutional rights as a condition of using their platforms. We had no idea they were selling our information until they got caught. We never agreed to that.

An IBOR to enforce constitutionally protected 1st and 4th amendment rights from government AND corporate infringement is not far fetched.

>>1550208

>>1551573

"I disagree with your take on the the right to privacy being limited to home or property locations."

There's a few other counter-examples to privacy being 'home limited', for example, and not limited to:

1) Client-Attorney privilege

2) Patient-Doctor privilege (including confidentiality of patient data)

3) Witness protection programs

4) Security matters (confidential, secret, top secret, above top secret, etc)

5) Industrial espionage (specifically, stealing confidential corporate information)

My argumentum is that standards should be applied universally. If the government, corporations and healthcare can keep shit secret/private for 'greater good' then citizenry should be granted this same right.

Likewise, government documents can be made public for greater good, and likewise citizen's information (usually part of an investigation).

Privacy should be the default, not the optional. Privacy is very much like virginity; once you lose your private information, there's no way of getting it back.

And just to tack on from my prior argument (regarding pre-existing 'out of home' privacy):

Adopting privacy in general is a good thing. Think of the costs losing private information entails:

1) Identity fraud (which makes law enforcement difficult, costs banks money)

2) Scammers (which means the individual loses their cash)

3) Harassment/stalking (once a harasser, stalker, pervert, pedo etc knows where you live, you either have to move - costing a lot of money, job disruption, etc - or ultimately they are going to get you)

4) Datamining for manipulation (Obama campaign, Cambridge Analytica, every facebook experiment ever), which is a major tool for dictators and dictatorships

5) Frame up for crimes (this is a lesser known aspect: corrupt law enforcement will use the details they can obtain in order to 'build a picture' or 'spin a story' sufficient to frame someone for a crime. Alternatively, obtaining leaked information allows them to justify further, minute surveillance, looking for the slightest technicalities from a major historical perspective. CCTV images of you littering? Expect a suspended jail sentence)

6) Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation harassment. Critics primary defence against frivilous SLAPP is to write pseudo-anonymously (or wholly anonymously). If data about them leaks, they may face frivilious lawsuits they cannot afford to defend against.

7) Whistleblowers getting jailed. One of the key aspects to whistleblowing in the media (or indeed, in a corporate environment) is *true anonymity*. Without it, whistleblowers often find themselves charged with technical legalities (such as so-called 'treason' or 'espionage' - despite not working with a 'foreign power') and thus face jail. Journalists, without privacy, cannot provide their sources from scrunity, which lowers the quality of journalism overall.

8) Journalists getting killed. One key issue is journalists who do true mudraking and successfully exposes on corruption, can risk being murdered in retaliation (either by the organisations they expose or indirectly in their line of work, for example, front-line coverage in a war). Without a way to work undercover, protecting their identity (in order to expose corruption), journalists will be forced to 'toe the line' on government affairs.

I'm pretty sure you can expand the justifications for privacy beyond this, but it isn't merely Johnny keeping his weird fetish porn collection safe - this is about life or death, jail or freedom, truth or dishonesty.

Knowing you're truly anonymous, and able to speak out, emboldens free speech.

>>1556605

Excellent arguments

For those of you like me who think Twitter are just evil bastards (somehow, like Facebook, I snubbed as many social media tools as possible), there is a reported alternative that is 'Twitter-esque' but pro-freedom of speech called gab.ai:

https://gab.ai/

It even has a frog that seems kinda pepe-ish as it's icon.