Why is the "muh privacy" meme always employed to defend

Don't get it either. I just started at a new company and part of the hiring process was getting drug tested. On top of going through an extensive background check.

And looking at it from the perspective of the company it makes a lot of sense to test their employers.

>>59714225
Because normies think that any time they give up privacy willingly they're not literally harming all privacy everywhere, so they do it. Leaves criminals out as the ones with a reason to protect their own rights.

File: 1482029362766.gif (972KB, 500x555px) Image search: [Google]

972KB, 500x555px

>>59714225
>>59714324
>>59714349

> Trying this hard to troll /g/.

http://www.amnesty.ca/blog/7-reasons-why-%E2%80%98i%E2%80%99ve-got-nothing-to-hide%E2%80%99-is-the-wrong-response-to-mass-surveillance

Low effort trolling.

don't wanna get spied for free.

>>59714225
There are lots of things that are criminal but not wrong. Try harder.

>>59714225
Last I checked masturbation was not illegal and I don't want people I don't know watching me.

>>59714405
Pretty please?

Why is the second amendment meme always trotted out after another mass shooting?

Why do second amendment constitutionalists enable the death and destruction of lives and property?

>>59714225

Because the slippery slope when it comes to these sorts of things is very real and has happened countless times in history. There's a reason why first world countries are founded both legally and spiritually on the concept of bitching like a mother fucker whenever anyone even begins to tread a little too close. Hitler (ayy lmao) didn't suddenly blurt out "kill the jews!" and they were all with him. Not to say that drug testing will lead to genocide, but it's good practice to tell people to gtfo if they have no good reason to fuck with you.

>B-but drugs ARE a good reason

If you can do your job, nothing about what you do at home matters. Jobs are supposed to be about merit. Looking into one's personal life only encourages employers to act on their biases and possible bigotry, like those dumb stories you hear about someone getting fired because their boss saw a facebook post of them flashing their tits in cancun.

>>59714225

Why not let your employer come to your home and snoop around if you are willing to give them blood?

If you are fucking up at work because you are high they should fire you, if you are smoking weed on the weekends it's none of their business any more than it is if you speed sometimes or got a traffic ticket

>>59714225

Go the fuck back to >>>/pol/ with your cancerous faggotry.

>>59714371
Get out fag

File: 1491006250130.jpg (81KB, 680x1020px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 680x1020px

>>59714225
sage

>>59714414
>>59714423
i don't want some coke fiend working at my bank or a pill-popper working at my clinic. degeneracy is degeneracy; doesn't matter if it's alcohol, weed, opiates, or amphetamines

>>59714225
Does it make sense that the consumption of a benign substance is strictly monitored for up to or more than 90 days; especially when it's a terminable offense, despite the fact that it may have been used exclusively on an employee's off-time? Sans marijuana, the adult public has the right to consume whatsoever they please as far as I'm concerned, and only when it becomes evident that they've committed to material crime that they should be prosecuted in any form.

What should take one further aback is the fact that many of the patented pharmaceuticals are far more profound in their potential impact. With a small handful of narcotic drugs being the exception in instances where those prescribed them work in safety sensitive environments you can go to work, piss hot for opiates, benzos, speed, and a whole other smorgasbord of easily abusable drugs while being protected from any sort of retaliation. Add that to the inherent difficulty of firing someone in the first place and you have a serious gap given the fact that these are all drugs that have illicit counterparts that behave very similarly, if not exactly the same, and yet are treated differently because of some arbitrary sanctions placed to promote pharmaceutical companies.

Another issue with the two contemporary methods is the stark contrast of detection for something like marijuana in urine and another much more deleterious drugs like methamphetamine, herion, cocaine, MDMA, PCP. Marijuana can be detected for up to 30 days in urine while most other drugs top out at a seven day cutoff. Hair follicle tests are supposed to go back only 90 days, but the science is based on averages and the reality is that they can go back as far as you've been growing your hair. Because hair grows at different rates you can be certain that you're getting a potential for error, which has the potential to be quite large.

>>59714460

>degeneracy is degeneracy

Settle down there, conquistador

>>59714460
Perhaps you're the degenerate?

>>59714460
If they are truly degenerates and can't do their job, then they should be fired. He's arguing that what somebody does outside of work is not the company's business. If they can perform their job to the quality of their peers, why should anyone give a fuck?

>>59714225
Drug testing only invades your privacy if you did not consent to it and there was no legal warrant for it.

We're against mass surveillance that has no legal warrant, which is rampant in computing.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that it's immoral for Pajeet to watch you fuck your girlfriend on the couch through your Smart TV.

>>59714460
>i don't want some coke fiend working at my bank or a pill-popper working at my clinic. degeneracy is degeneracy; doesn't matter if it's alcohol, weed, opiates, or amphetamines

bait

all anyone has to do to pass a test for coke is not do it for 3 days before the test

Being an alcoholic is perfectly legal, if you are not drunk at work you wont get caught

god forbid you judge an employee by his/her performance and not your biases against drinking

>>59714460

Your way of thinking is dangerous and why the separation of church and state is a thing. People have different moral ideals, different modalities for living. We've had tyrannies for millennia, forcing one and only one morality down people's throats. Has that ever worked out well? Obviously the answer is fucking no. So we've come to a point in history where we legally enforce a "live and let live" attitude. Everyone can follow their own moral code, their own modality, as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's. So firing someone solely on the basis of taking drugs is moving away from this policy and into forcing a way of life onto someone else. The grey areas, such as how much of one's personal life we allow to be fucked before we can use it as justification to fire them, call the cops, put them into a mental institution, etc, is why politicians have a job. They are constantly rewriting the grey areas. Before the grey area was "no homos, no blacks". Do you want to go back to something like that? No?

Then shut the fuck up and take a long look in the mirror you whiny little bitch

From years of imageboard shitposting I have concluded that some people are just born with "we need a king" mentality, where they want everything to be regulated and hate freedom, regardless of actual political inclination.

>>59714225
The CIA spied on, and then killed, Martin Luther King Jr.

>>59714589
>>>/x/
The CIA spied on him but a rogue assassin killed him.

>>59714523
Wait pajeet can do what? Wtf how to protect myself

>look mom I posted it again
S A G E
A
G
E

>>59714820
Don't buy a Smart TV?

Go to wikileaks. The most recent CIA leak was the biggest ever and covered a lot of weaponized malware the CIA developed but chose not to use because it could be reverse engineered and used by civvies and other governments to devastating effect.

I object to drug testing because I don't do drugs. My urine is clean, and thus has monetary value amongst druggies. I should be paid to piss in a cup for a drug test, since I'm literally pissing away money.

>>59714838
Already have one. Fuck it now i need to find a way to secure it against pajeets

>>59714855
Get razor cutter, cut out the microphone and black tape over the camera.

If enough people do it, they'll start putting firmware that refuses to turn the screen on unless the microphone is connected.

Then we'll need open-source TVs.

I smoke weed like a chimney and work my ass off. I deal directly with customers and offer technical expertise and computer repair at a national chain store. I live in a hippie town and nobody gives a fuck, everyone smokes weed from the college students to the retirees. I don't bring my shit onto the property or smoke anywhere near work. Several of my coworkers have or currently do smoke as well.

People who can't do their job while high are probably just as incompetent sober and shouldn't have been hired in the first place.

I have on occasion dealt with meth heads who genuinely try to social-engineer their way into free shit -- I had a toothless black-gummed fucker who wanted a hard drive, then he changed his mind and wanted a tablet, then tried to pay $60 in singles but only had $45. The entire time he was waiting for me to place the box on the counter so he could grab it and run. No luck, fucko.

>>59714875
Also have a mic in the remote need to cut that out too

>>59714569
i'm surprised you got this ass-blasted about this

>>59714517
>degenerate is casually doing drugs in a bank/hospital/wharever
>doesn't effect his performance
>suddenly hits a rougher patch financially
>can't afford to buy his drug of choice anymore
>his dealer happens to know where they work and what type of access they have to sensitive information
>blackmails shit out of him for drugs
>degenerate agrees to it because he wants his drugs
>company gets into massive problems later on due to the degenerate doing illegal shit to get drugs
Having drug users is massive liability to any company because they're illegal. That's why comparing them to alcohol isn't the same. That's why it still matters even if it doesn't happen to effect his work right now. If drugs weren't illegal then insisting that your employees don't use any wouldn't make nearly as much sense because the degeneracy wouldn't be nearly as big of a liability.

And for drug testing to work it needs to happen often and unannounced because of how fast most of the drugs clear the system.

this is /g/ not /pol/

>>59714225
Well, I don't know desu~
Here is EU I've never heard of drug testing, especially no the forced one.
You must be living in a 3rd world shithole if someone treats you like some kind of wild animal.

>>59715337
In America, we regularly take drug-urine tests if arrested.

Drug-charges amplify other charges, so the police like to get as many drug-use charges as possible to feed the Private Prison system more moneys.

>>59715365
Enjoy living in a police state then.
Here I poland I see the police on streets maybe once two months and yet that's the safest country in region.

>>59714405
HARAM

>It is never even once invoked to protect some legitimate enterprise, only illegal doings!
That's a bold claim, and you have no evidence to back it up. But, just so we are clear about a few things...

1. Just because something is legal now, does not mean it will be legal later. Just because something is illegal now does not mean it is morally or ethically wrong, and that it will remain illegal. Even if you can somehow make the argument that protecting privacy rights only helps criminals, I would still argue that this is a valid enough reason to allow for universal privacy laws.

2. The government is not a universal morally good entity, free of corruption. It is composed of human beings, who are flawed, and may abuse the information they obtain under the guise of solving crimes. Moreover, even innocents may be found guilty of crimes that they haven't committed, if the right evidence is portrayed in the right way. There is a reason people have a fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, and that is to protect the innocent. Don't believe me? Watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

3. Any means by which the government can use to get around modern encryption schemes can also be used by criminals. There is no such thing, and can never be a such thing, as a method of encryption that can be unlocked using a master key by law enforcement, that cannot be unlocked by criminals. If you think the government can keep secrets, you need only look to Wikileaks. There is much more being leaked to private individuals and institutions than there is to the public.

>>59714389
> amnesty
> not an ultra-far left globalist organization built around supporting Islamization

of course they'll slam mass surveillance, but for all the wrong reasons

>>59714412

The second amendment is brought out after every mass shooting because liberals keep making the same tired arguments after every mass shooting. Do you want to know why we accept a few mass shootings to keep our guns? Because when you run the numbers, mass shootings kill maybe a hundred or so people a year at most. The vast majority of firearm murders occur between criminals, who are not legally allowed to obtain firearms anyways. Meanwhile, if we remove guns, we remove the ability to resist potential government tyranny. One competent dictator and millions can die.

>But muh tanks, fighter jets, nukes
You cannot rule over a smoldering crater. To run a police state, you need police. Police don't do well against an armed populace that isn't going to put up with their shit. We need to maintain an armed militia (that is, a people's armed forces, separate from the military, capable of rising to the occasion when necessary), to maintain the security of our free state (for a land under a dictator is no longer a free state), and therefore, the second amendment recognizes that the right of the people of this country to keep arms, and bear them where necessary, shall not be infringed.

>>59714405
Self-rape is a sin and haram, though

>>59714225
>>59714324
if a company wants to screen it's employees, fine
but I don't think every single person in my country should be drug screened, without choice

File: 4f46f0719f70d99d8565749cd5a3fd23120deef74bfc37b6dd15712e822996ef.png (242KB, 499x424px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 499x424px

>>59715841
If I consent to my own fap, how is it self-rape, Mohammed?

>>59714225
do you use https to access your bank? email? 4chan?
why? are you doing something illegal?

>>59716113
>implying underage people can consent to any sexual activity

>>59716446
>implying 16 year olds are old enough to drive cars and work for a living but not old enough to consent to have sex with anyone older than 17.9 years

>>59714225
Okay. Give me your username and passwords to your email, your Reddit, your computer, and your bank account too. And download one of those remote desktop apps and give me access to that too.

I'll wait.

>>59714569
>Before the grey area was "no homos, no blacks". Do you want to go back to something like that? No?
Yes please, actually.

>>59716513
But what if they do "no unemployed" though?

>>59716522
Does "actively searching for a job" count as unemployed? Also do you need to claim welfare, or do you just need to not currently be working?

Because if you have to always ensure you're under an employment contract literally 100% of the time that's rather arbitrary and counterproductive. On the other hand, cutting down on social leeches who take advantage of the welfare state? Yes, absolutely!

>>59716538
>Because if you have to always ensure you're under an employment contract literally 100% of the time that's rather arbitrary and counterproductive
>arbitrary and counterproductive
Why?

>>59714225
you can test positive for opiods if you ate certain bagels.

>>59715883
this

>get tested for opioids
>test shows positive
>I have the choice between telling my employer that I have a back injury that I get painkillers for (something the company isn't legally allowed to ask of me) or get fired and charged with a drug crime

Drug tests are only okay in certain circumstances and for certain jobs.

>>59716546
Someone can be fully non-degenerate, highly productive, and generally a perfect person even from an ultra-conservative point of view, but maybe his company suddenly folds and boom, he has no job. Because he is such an exemplary human being, one-two weeks later he's already signed his next contract and is dutifully employed.

During those one-two weeks, would he get gestapo'd under your scenario?

>>59716557
You would have to eat a bunch of them though.

>>59716585
>but maybe his company suddenly folds and boom
That's his fault for not working hard enough and/or not doing his homework properly when he tried to find work.

>cause he is such an exemplary human being, one-two weeks later he's already signed his next contract and is dutifully employed.
Two-three weeks is way too long. I've never between jobs more than literally three days.

>During those one-two weeks, would he get gestapo'd under your scenario?
Jokes aside, no. But a balance must be struck between those that are legitimately trying to find a new job and those that are special snowflakes and trying to find their dream job and playing around. I'd say that during those weeks, you have to prove that you're sending out job applications and showing up to interviews, and if you pass down a job offer you shorten the time-period you're allowed to spend searching for a job.

>>59716661
>>59716585

>That's his fault for not working hard enough and/or not doing his homework properly when he tried to find work.

To expand on this, before you accuse me of memes, I honestly think that if we made a system that punished bankruptcy, this would actually stimulate the economy and force people to make more sane and well-considered investments.

>>59716474
>implying 16 year olds are old enough to drive cars

>>59716683
It is in the US

At age 16 you are old enough to have the responsibilities of working full time and owning+driving a car, but you're not old enough to
>drink alcohol
>vote
>have your own bank account
>consent to having sex

It literally is the capitalists' wet dream. You can work and drive to work, but you're not allowed to save your earned money.

>>59716721
or have fun spending your money on booze and sex, or even vote to change the system.

>>59716577
Your testing agency isn't doing a proper job if that's a possibility. In all the ones I've gone through all the results say is wether or not they detected substances in other than medicational use. So even if you did have an opioid prescription your employer wouldn't be any wiser even after the test.

>>59716678
What it would actually do is make people do more desperate things to avoid bankruptcy, and therefore be less concerned about dealing legally and honestly.

>>59716757
>Your testing agency isn't doing a proper job if that's a possibility.
It's not even a possibility, it's a reality. There are literally lobbyists right now that want to change Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) so that companies are allowed to test even for prescription drugs.

In 2007 a car factory banned their workers from taking several prescription drugs and won the subsequent lawsuit by arguing that they suspected misuse and abuse, even though most of the workers that tested positive in this case all had valid prescriptions.

>>59716678
Not happening any time soon. As long as it's a 'limited' liability company, then as the name implies. The liability of the owners is limited to how fucked they can get. Which is why white collar infractions of even horrible levels is recieves better punishment than someone using weed for recreational use.

>>59716768
>less concerned with dealing legally and honestly
Solution: punish illegal businesses harder

You wouldn't be so tempted to be fraudulent if you knew you risked capital punishment now, would you?

>>59716811
Well, they should change this obviously. Make owners and employees responsible. Make it harder for companies to fire people without valid reasons.

>>59716821
Then wrongdoers go to even greater lengths to cover up their wrongdoings.

>>59716661
>That's his fault for not working hard enough and/or not doing his homework properly when he tried to find work.
Ok, maybe the company suddenly does layoffs. Maybe the company is relatively small and a merger deal got hashed out really fast and now half the employees are being given the boot.

Or maybe some really important business deal fell through.

Or maybe it was a startup and he took a risk. Before the startup has a minimum viable product/prototype, while it's still not generating any income whatsoever, is he employed? Then if the startup fails (which most of them do), does he deserve to be punished for trying to be entrepreneurial?

>Two-three weeks is way too long
I'd just like to point out that I said "one-two weeks" twice, and never "two-three", kek.

>other points
Honestly I think welfare is the main problem; everything you say can apply to people on government support who work close to minimum wage jobs and are too poor to survive out of employment; if they don't get their shit together and fuck about because "free money" then that free money should cut off.

But I don't really see the problem if someone has savings, and want to spend some extra time looking for a good job. Forcing them to pick a suboptimal offer under threat of punishment or something will not benefit society, and will in fact lower the person's productivity since they won't like their new job, thus actually harming society. Or what if they are a highly skilled worker, but with a niche skillset? They should have enough savings to wait, and then in several months an opportunity will turn up where they will fully utilise their skillset and make a ton of money. Or your proposed scheme will make them jump on the first job they're capable of doing, they'll make far less money (and thus pay less taxes etc.), they won't utilise their skillset properly, and when the opening gets created several months later, that company will now need to spend a lot more effort searching for someone.

>>59716837
>Then wrongdoers go to even greater lengths to cover up their wrongdoings.
They already do this, so it's not really a good argument.

>>59716839
>Or maybe it was a startup and he took a risk.
See >>59716678

>>59714225
Look, Shlomo, /g/ is redpilled, this won't work.

>>59716804
>land of the fucking free

>>59716829
>make it harder to fire people
How to make sure companies don't want to actually hire anyone

I used to think that /g/ and the rest of the internet was just trolling when they said nothing to hide and mass survillance was a great thing. But now it's clear as crystal that it's no longer trolling and people who actually think that way post here now.

>>59716985
>How to make sure companies don't want to actually hire anyone
Well, explain Scandinavia's low unemployment rates then.

Companies are more thorough when employing

>>59717031
I live in fucking Scandinavia. I've worked at my current job for 2.5 years now. Before the 1st of last month I wasn't actually employed by the company but working as a contractor through another company. People will still work because companies need employers. However the companies start hiring new workers through 3rd party companies as contractors to make sure they can get rid of them fast if they don't end up working. And this is even when we still have test periods when you can fire people without reason. Because if they at some point need to scale down they can just stop the contractor contracts without a massive legal battle and negative pr. Only the ones that they really want to keep are hired as internal employees.

I'd much rather have a system where it's easy to hire and fire employees as needed.

Only worthless trash would use any non-medicinal drugs, and that includes alcohol. Someone weak enough to use drugs is weak enough to destroy lives by performing retarded actions that come with being a drug using retard.

>>59717187
Do you drink coffee anon? Because coffee is a fucking drug. Also I know you said non-medicinally, but I suffered from debilitating chronic gastritis for 5 years, would have to leave work and lay in bed for 5 hours, sometimes would puke a lot. I started using canabis to control the symptoms, but it fucking cured me. I know it's the canabis because when I stopped using the gastritis came back and then went away when I started using again.

>>59717241
>he uses caffeine
100% pleb

>>59714225
the problem with drug testing is that it gives employers access to more than just information about drug usage.

discrimination based on drugs is legal, but giving a urine sample gives a lot more info. a company could hire based on pregnancy, because maternity benefits are expensive. they could check for pre-existing medical conditions, and refuse to hire people who might be sick. that's illegal, but it's impossible to make sure it's not happening.

basically it's not what they say it's for that matters, it's everything they can do with the information once they have it, and this applies to every form of privacy and security.

>>59714324
Jokes on all you days, acid is very expensive to test for and only takes a few days to be totally gone.

Didn't know there was this many muslim pedophiles on /g/

>>59717187
Proper societies like the age of vikings used to drink to celebrate their manly raids. Sorry you're so weak and effeminine you can't even handle a bit of beer.

>>59717187
>weak enough to use drugs

Lmao this is hilarious.

>>59714987
But what if aliens find out you work at a bank and promise you could live in a world without degenerates if you give them details?

Should moralfags be fired from their jobs as well, just in case?

>>59715519
You say "islamization" as if it was a bad thing.

I have to admit islamization used to be a fear. Now, with how degenerate our culture and society has become, islamization is a hope.

>>59715526

Dumb ignorant tripfag.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/d-robert-worley/judicial-activism-and-the_b_2412471.html

>>59714225
Nobody says that dumbass. Huge Fucking liability if someone is getting high and fucks up and hurts someone else while on the job. Now if you work Fastfood than you're straight. Most of us have real jobs where we get random drug tests.

>>59714396
Like what? Doing drugs?

>>59715461
>Any means by which the government can use to get around modern encryption schemes can also be used by criminals. There is no such thing, and can never be a such thing, as a method of encryption that can be unlocked using a master key by law enforcement, that cannot be unlocked by criminals.

>WHAT ARE ASYMMETRIC BACKDOORS???

Filtered.

>>59714225
>We have no way to prove that you did something wrong
>We will just unreasonably assume you are a druggy

Gee, I wonder why people are offended by drug tests.

>>59716829
>Make owners responsible
>harder for companies to fire
contradictory

>>59717447
Here's that (you) that you wanted

>>59715519
>tfw I'll never know if you're being this retarded on purpose or by accident

You see, Anon, that's because
>illegal doings!
>!
nevermind

>>59716587
http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/poppyseed.asp

http://abcnews.go.com/US/mother-settles-suit-poppy-bagel-drug-test/story?id=19567956

>durr drugs are bad, mmmmkay?

Anyone who unironically defends drug testing for any reason is either illiterate and uninformed or a shill. Those screenings are massive privacy violations, they're pointless because they fight a problem that doesn't exist and because drugs are not that bad, they're a huge waste of our tax dollars, they're unconstitutional, they're useless and wrong on all levels.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/21/michigan-welfare-drug-testing-program

https://thinkprogress.org/what-7-states-discovered-after-spending-more-than-1-million-drug-testing-welfare-recipients-c346e0b4305d

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2014/12/03/appeals-court-finds-florida-law-mandating-drug-testing-assistance-applicants

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2016/12/22/court-finds-mandatory-drug-testing-college-students-unconstitutional

https://www.commondreams.org/node/36408

>>59715526

Way to miss the point here. Fantastic copy and paste knee jerk reaction though. You couldn't be a bigger fuck up if you tried.

>>59717518
Stop throwing buzzwords you don't understand, military grade shill

File: Menezes, van Oorschot, Vanstone.jpg (32KB, 322x499px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 322x499px

>>59717686
Read a book.

>>59714987
>Having drug users ... because they're illegal (the drugs)
>cant compare to alcohol
seems to me that your reasoning works not because of legality, but because drugs are more expensive than alcohol, which they are because they are illegal.

btw, prolific alcohol abusers spend quite a lot too, and a young adult who goes out to drink with friends sometimes after work hours, and on every weekend, spends quite a lot more than a prolific consumer of cheap weed or cheap vodka.

the thirst for alcohol is just as strong for those addicted, that they have for instance a special secret anouncement on airports for those feeling the urge to drink, another cuiosity that only happens to alcohol because its legal but weed isn't.

File: chun li blinking.gif (193KB, 145x170px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 145x170px

>>59717754
Follow your own advice first before giving it to others.

Mandatory drug testing is mostly ineffective at catching regular drug users, it primarily catches people who use weed and usually not even when they're high. Really though the biggest flaw with it is that it reverses how the criminal justice system is supposed to work. People are assumed guilty and have to prove their own innocence.

It does make some sense when operating a vehicle or heavy machinery and an injury occurs but otherwise it shouldn't be a thing.

>>59717780
It's more because of the fact that they're illegal and someone could use that fact to blackmail them. Just take someone with access to a banks production servers for example. There's massive liability potential for the bank if that person is involved in something illegal.

I personally don't care if someone uses drugs or not as long as they've got their shit in order. But I do understand why some companies want to test their employees.

>>59717456

Author is an idiot. A pure textualist approach to the constitution would clearly show that the second amendment gives a right to individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Pay attention to the grammar of the sentence below:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

Everything up before that second comma indicates a reason, but is not an effect of the law itself. What follows afterwards cannot be interpreted in any other way but to give individuals a right to keep and bear arms, because the right is given to the people. Even if we ignore that, however, we cannot ignore the fact that the military is not the militia. A militia by definition comes from the civilian population.

>>59717518

>WHAT ARE ASYMMETRIC BACKDOORS???
Thank you for not understanding the point I was trying to make. You neglect the human element here. The argument is not that the technology is not theoretically possible (although I have yet to see any papers that suggest that it is). Rather, if we assume that it is possible, then the problem is that no government is capable of holding on to the master key.

>>59719012

>the second amendment gives a right to individuals the right to keep and bear arms

$10 have just been deposited in your account by the gun lobby

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1464183.html

>>59717515
Raping your mother is one of them.

>>59719040
>10 dicks have been deposited into your ass by the I'm-A-Gay-Faggot-/noguns/ lobby

>>59714225
Saying you don't care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is the equivalent to saying you don't care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say.

You obviously don't care about privacy, so I'm going to need you to post all your personal information and Internet history right here and right now.

>>59719040

>9th circuit court
And let's look how SCOTUS ruled, six years later.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

>(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

And for what it's worth, the NRA doesn't pay people to go online and defend gun rights. Plenty of people will do that willingly because it's a right we'd rather keep.

>>59717148
>I'd much rather have a system where it's easy to hire and fire employees as needed.
Dra til helvete

Why is this such a meme

When they get the results of a drug test they know whether you take illegal drugs or not.

The company has every right to not want to employ people who do illegal things.

Whereas when someone gathers data about your online activity, they learn practically everything about you. They learn whether you use illegal drugs or not, whether you do anything else illegal like pirate things, which by itself is fine, but they also learn your daily schedule, they learn who you are and where you live, they learn your favourite brands, they learn your hobbies and interests, they learn your views on everything (political, social, etc.), they learn your typing style...

And "they", in this case, is a faceless corporation with an interest to make as much money as possible from the data of all the people it has mined on. Whereas "they" who will test you for drugs, are your employers, who you meet every single day, who do want to make the most money from you but they do so by utilising useful work you do, not by exploiting information they have about you. I'd still not want to disclose to my employer all the data that can be extracted from my internet activity, of course, but again, I don't have to because that's not what drug tests do.

>>59719299
Social democrats should neck themselves

>>59719265
That was a political ruling, they did not respond to Judge Reinhardt's arguments. The answer to that outrageous decision is the article I posted here >>59717456

>>59719317
They also learn all the contents of your blood and/or urine and they get a sample of your entire DNA. That is a massive privacy violation.

>>59720056

The supreme court does not need to respond to the arguments made by the lower courts. It is sufficient enough for them to take whatever interpretation they want, even a literal interpretation of the words and grammatical structure used in the second amendment. I'd personally argue that the courts should always take a literal interpretation of the law, to reduce the number of political decisions.

We work at an ISP and routinely tell the police/copyright agencies to fuck off and muh privacy. We also violate in case of abuse and suicide etc. Horses for courses desu.

>>59720172
>argumentum ad verecundiam
Cool, good to know the SCrOTUS' authority overrides what the Founding Fathers really wanted.

>>59716721
Where the fuck do you live in the US where 16 year olds are not allowed to consent or have bank accounts?

>>59714225
>illegal doings!
You some kind of fucking pajeet?

Snowden used the "muh privacy" meme and he wasn't a criminal.

>>59714225
Cause much privacy when dealing with business is muh copyrights, and privileged information

File: befuddled.jpg (56KB, 353x401px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 353x401px

>>59720527
>Snowden wasn't a criminal

>>59717016

Isn't that the entire history of 4chan summed up?

People who make ironic jokes about supporting obviously horrific things, who then suddenly find it's self flooded with people who don't understand the irony of using the word nigger and faggot and instead literally want to promote racial purity and moral supremacy?

>>59720661
Got something to hide, nigger faggot?

>>59714324
I don't see the issue as long as the habits at home don't creep into the workplace. For example, it's fine to drink at home but you'll probably get in some shit if you show up to work drunk.

>>59720459
This is what the founding father's wanted. They wanted to preserve basic rights while allowing for flexibility as times change.

>>59714225
Not an argument

>>59717241
No, i don't drink coffee because I'm not a faggot.

You can get a medical marijuana prescription in most of North America. If you haven't done that and it's available to you, you're just an addict. If it's not available to you and you're not contacting your government representatives about it, you're just an addict.

>>59717348
They drank alcohol because it was usually cleaner than their water source. You're a weak addict.

>>59720459
so the founding fathers wanted a country where the state had a monopoly on violence?

where citizens had to depend on the state to do violence on their behalf?

that doesn't sound like the founding fathers at all

>>59717392
Sad little addict faggot. Go back to fucking your ass with a horse dildo and your little dick cage on, while looking at nigger bestiality.

>>59720937
>there's a handle of vodka in full view of everyone on top of my coworkers cabinet
>there's few cases of beer in the same cabinet
>people occasionally take shots during work
>people occasionally take a beer in the afternoon
Absolutely fucking haram

[spoiler]all the alcohol has been bought by the company[/spoiler]