Prism

You just love missing the point don't you. You say that being below the elite you're simply a tool for them, as history, or your interpretation of history suggests. Thus education, one of the most valuable things to strive for, is a worthless endeavor, or it should be in your own perspective. You're not elite, thus you're simply a tool for them. Your words not mine.

I never stated that one could never advance. If you use your education in an earnest attempt to better yourself, then it's not a waste. If you use your education and do nothing with it, then it's a waste. It's also a waste if you use your education is in something that won't advance you (basket-weaving majors).

No, you saw age and assumed that. When you live out your life you gain more experiences, thus may want those to be hidden, especially if you feel inadequate with your life accomplishments. Even the Kardashians have skeletons in their closet they got ape sh`it about.

All that information is public. The prism just makes it more concentrated for the government to possibly exploit, considering the IRS debacle, I've become a wee bit skeptical.

Bold implies that with age comes a desire for privacy. You also explicitly stated "you're not old enough to actually appreciate privacy," implying that when I'm older I would appreciate privacy more. And thus, with age comes privacy.

There's also a significant difference between a skeleton in a closet and something you post on the internet. If you post it in any capacity on the internet, be it a blog, a vlog, forum post, status update, tweet, vine, instagram, whatever, then you are liable if it's used against you in some capacity. Emails I do believe should have a degree of privacy as those can easily constitute one's "papers" in a digital age as much as carrier mail can.

I honestly don't mind it until the information is used improperly. When the government starts using it to arrest random teenagers or random citizens who clearly aren't spies or terrorists, then I'd have a beef with it. But until then, it can stay. Sometimes to be free, you have to give up some freedom first.

No one is arguing true privacy, but there's a line to be drawn with personal phone conversations, even in house communication. "Man obama sucks" could be considered something worth investigating, let alone any congress member. Having to be careful what you say is probably the most un-american thing you can expect out of someone. I certainly don't want an fbi agent at my door for screaming ALALALALALALALALALA as I play as a terrorist on borderlands 2.

Some of the people in this thread make it seem like they believe there's true privacy on the internet. Additionally, you have to be careful of what you say regardless of whether or not the government is going to persecute you. Political correctness is such a wonderful thing. The government may not have much to say about it, but if I start throwing out racial-slurs and being a white supremacist, you can bet that a lot of society is going to marginalize me.

Your example of "ALALALA..." while playing Borderlands 2 is poor because that's gibberish and not even a credible in and of itself. Now, if you had done a lot of research on how to make at-home bombs, fatwa sites, and jihadist sites while making those kinds remarks on Borderlands 2 frequently, now that I would see no problem with. By itself I even wouldn't be pleased with it.

Equality is a very ambiguous term, in my opinion its a fair opportunity for all to reach success, and allow those who don't have the tools to get the bare essentials to attempt to do so. The ideal "equality" has too many factor's to even deem an argument, however you can take very progressive steps to reach the closer to that equilibrium. Though I don't see how anyone is even arguing that we should fight for equality, but to fight for what makes us evolve to a type 2 civilization.

And even by your definition, society is still not equal. Suburban soccer mom who can pay to get her daughter SAT-prepped has a higher chance of succeeding compared to inner-city, single parent who cannot pay to get their daughter SAT-prepped. But of course, with a definition of equality as "equal opportunity," it is, I suppose, possible to have an equal society, in that regard. However, right now we're a ways away from having an equal society. But even equal opportunity can be vague. Does it mean every gets a job? Everyone gets a good job? Everyone gets the best job available to them? Everyone has a chance to compete for a job? With that mind-set, we're even further away from an equal society.

While the right to privacy is firmly rooted in the ethical tenets of the library profession, it is also an intrinsic American value, guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Although the Constitution does not explicitly reference the word "privacy," the Supreme Court has nonetheless inferred a right to privacy from various portions of the Bill of Rights and the common
law.

The most obvious protection of privacy in the Bill of Rights is the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals in their persons, homes, papers, and effects from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the government. The First Amendment, which protects freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, also implicitly safeguards the right to privacy in the form of freedom of thought and intellect. As eloquently articulated by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in his famous dissent in Olmstead v. United States: "The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness . . . They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, THE RIGHT TO BE LET ALONE - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."

The first Supreme Court decision to fully articulate the right to privacy was Griswold v. Connecticut, which held that the right to privacy included the right for married couples to use contraceptives. In Griswold, Justice Douglas, writing for the Court, famously explained that the guarantees in the Bill of Rights have "penumbras," or somewhat hazy, but obviously present, extensions, which must be read as creating "zones of privacy, such as the First Amendment right of association, the Third Amendment prohibition against quartering soldiers in a home, the Fourth Amendment right to be secure in one's person, house, papers and effects, the Fifth Amendment right to not surrender anything to one's detriment, and the Ninth Amendment right to not deny or disparage any right retained by the people."

In recent years, several federal courts have recognized the right to privacy in public libraries. Specifically, these courts found that the First Amendment protects the right to receive information in a publicly funded library. However, the professional code of librarians provides a much broader promise of privacy than is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Consequently, constitutional limitations on the right to privacy are often at odds with the librarianship principles of privacy and confidentiality.

http://www.fontanalib.org/Privacy_Tutori...rivacy.htm

Derp.

As I said, wasn't explicitly stated. In the later half of that section I made an abbreviated version of what you had said. It is also crucial to note that the Supreme Court has not taken on a case regarding internet privacy. You have to know that the right to privacy notion was decided in the 60s, thus no internet.

The internet needs to be regulated. If you asked someone in the 80s if the internet would be big, you'd get quizzical looks. If you asked someone in the 90s, probably the same. Early 2000s you might get some agreements. If you asked someone in 2000 whether they thought social media would be a thing, you probably wouldn't get anything of substance. What I'm getting at essentially is that no one knew that the internet would be as big and powerful as it is. Hence why it remained fairly deregulated for the longest time.

As I said earlier, sometimes to be free, you need to give up some of your freedom first. I'm perfectly content giving up some of my privacy so I don't have any privacy (or have no need for it) because I'm dead because of whatever reason. Terrorist attack, school shooting, bank heist, whatever.

[MENTION=7446]Words[/MENTION]; You're welcome to do that if you'd like. But as I said, many countries' constitutions were not framed with internet privacy in mind. I'm not going to deny that there are some countries out there that have some "you have privacy, even on the internet," but if there are any, they are going to be far and few.