Message from @Fitzydog
Discord ID: 476222035060588553
They should just be socially unacceptable.
Obviously that's not stopping anyone
This kind of data mining and exploitation should fall under the 2nd catagory. Though a good case could be made either way.
Google seems to have successfully privatized the communist revolution from the looks of it lol
Good for them.
It'll bite them in the ass soon enough assuming the government doesn't make them a monopoly.
My god, you Russians are nihilistic lol
I'm not that nihilistic.
I like to think of myself as a realist. Who bets on the worst possible outcome.
Because if someone can go wrong it will.
It's a law of nature.
<:pepe_hang:460603218766987298>
Nature is a bitch trying to kill you and make it as painful as possible.
Which is why we created societies
The problem with humans is that the majority of them don't care if that happens to you, assuming that you don't take them down with you, because they are busy enough keeping nature off there backs.
That was a run-on sentence but I'm too tired to fix it.
Society is there to keep nature off everyone's back, and delegate it to someone else
A part of nature.
More or less kicking the can down the road.
Yeah, that's nihilistic as fuck.
I mean entropy
Eventually it wins. Hopefully not for a good long as time. And I want to make that as long as possible.
Isn't he technically correct? Considering that California is a 2 party consent state.
Hmm... I'm curious if that applies to public employees on duty
"Remember, even if you’re in public, you cannot record conversations between two people unless you have their permission. This includes conversations that you’re one of the parties to. If one person in the conversation can reasonably expect his or her conversation to be confidential, this standard applies.
If the person is standing on a soapbox on a corner, it does not. If the person is attending a government hearing and is speaking, it does not. If the person is shouting, yelling, or speaking to a large group of people without apparent concern for who might overhear him or her, it does not."
"You have the right to record video of police or public officials engaged in the performance of their official duties if those activities are visible from public places. "
If he was off duty would it still apply?
No, because he's not in the performance of his duties
I would like to see the first hand source on that information just because I'm curious
What info?
The link the the article is broken
I want to see the primary source
oh, I didn't realize
I don't doubt that it's correct I just want to see what's up
Considering I live in a 2 party consent state.
Yell.com bruh