> Web mail or a Facebook post isn't 1:1, but rather something in which you invite hundreds of unknown people into any single interaction.
This is false. In both cases I sent it to known, specific, authorized people. You're employing exactly the same "slut!" logic I criticized before: "well, you were okay with all those people seeing it, I guess you don't mind everyone seeing it, if you didn't want the rest of us to have a taste you shouldn't have been so promiscuous".
Hold on. No matter how many people I privately shared it with, and no matter how liberal you think my standards are, I still shared it in private. The typical person does not expect that the general public can read what they're posting to their friends or email recipients.
And before you say, "but some designated employees get to look at it sometimes for debugging" -- again, same logic. "Come on, you live in an apartment, you know maintenance comes in now and then, I guess anyone can come and take a look around. Gee, if you're so liberal that you leave your stuff right were the handyman can see, what, what's the problem? What, you expect that just because your contract says that entrance is limited to designated people and situations that the whole world can't take a peak into your bedroom?"
I get that you're not convinced; that you think, "hey, those people send their data to anyone, it seems, so what's the problem?" And you don't seem to be bothered by how close the argument is to "she was a slut anyway"; I just hope that you'll at least recognize there's a good source of well-tested rhetoric you can draw from, albeit from unsavory characters.
Your landlord doesn't rifle through your apartment to see what kind of laundry detergent you buy so that he can sell that info to advertisers. There are also very well defined limits on how your landlord can access your apartment, and you have a property interest as a renter. Read Facebook's TOS and tell me there are any such limits to what Facebook can do with your data, and explain to me how you have a property interest in the data Facebook collects about you.
In a struggle to make your analogy work, you're posing s hypothetical online service very different than the ones that exist. If Facebook and Google didn't mine your data and provided strong contractual protections limiting the situations in which their engineers could access it, like landlords do, then you'd have a much stronger argument that these things are protected by the 4th amendment.
This is false. In both cases I sent it to known, specific, authorized people. You're employing exactly the same "slut!" logic I criticized before: "well, you were okay with all those people seeing it, I guess you don't mind everyone seeing it, if you didn't want the rest of us to have a taste you shouldn't have been so promiscuous".
Hold on. No matter how many people I privately shared it with, and no matter how liberal you think my standards are, I still shared it in private. The typical person does not expect that the general public can read what they're posting to their friends or email recipients.
And before you say, "but some designated employees get to look at it sometimes for debugging" -- again, same logic. "Come on, you live in an apartment, you know maintenance comes in now and then, I guess anyone can come and take a look around. Gee, if you're so liberal that you leave your stuff right were the handyman can see, what, what's the problem? What, you expect that just because your contract says that entrance is limited to designated people and situations that the whole world can't take a peak into your bedroom?"
I get that you're not convinced; that you think, "hey, those people send their data to anyone, it seems, so what's the problem?" And you don't seem to be bothered by how close the argument is to "she was a slut anyway"; I just hope that you'll at least recognize there's a good source of well-tested rhetoric you can draw from, albeit from unsavory characters.