NSG Senate Chamber [NSG Senate] - Version 3

[Minarchist States]

back to discussion of misc c:
in the office of privacy protection act there is a list of what information is regarded as private... i miss photos

I so much hope the gov isn't handing out private info to any who ask. *cough*

[Senate President pro Tempore]

Added your bill by the way

- Battlion

[Next Washington]

back to discussion of misc c:
in the office of privacy protection act there is a list of what information is regarded as private... i miss photos

I so much hope the gov isn't handing out private info to any who ask. *cough*

yeah... but my point is according to this bill, as i read it, photos aren't private, so anyone could take a photo of you or me and do stupid things with it...

[Minarchist States]

Added your bill by the way

- Battlion

Thanks, Batt.

yeah... but my point is according to this bill, as i read it, photos aren't private, so anyone could take a photo of you or me and do stupid things with it...

I don't see why it should be legislated...all that'll happen is a whole bunch of drunks will sue anybody that took a pic while they did stupid stuff. Slander isn't a big enough issue by itself to warrant such an act, I suppose.

[Next Washington]

Added your bill by the way

- Battlion

Thanks, Batt.

yeah... but my point is according to this bill, as i read it, photos aren't private, so anyone could take a photo of you or me and do stupid things with it...

I don't see why it should be legislated...all that'll happen is a whole bunch of drunks will sue anybody that took a pic while they did stupid stuff. Slander isn't a big enough issue by itself to warrant such an act, I suppose.

a wrong picture can cause much more damage than your religion...

[Belmaria]

Thanks, Batt.



I don't see why it should be legislated...all that'll happen is a whole bunch of drunks will sue anybody that took a pic while they did stupid stuff. Slander isn't a big enough issue by itself to warrant such an act, I suppose.

a wrong picture can cause much more damage than your religion...

If you are out in public you should have no expectation of privacy, plain and simple. Anyone should be able to record public events. A law prohibiting slander and libel is one thing but banning the release of any photos that contain someone acting stupid? That's ridiculous.

[Next Washington]

a wrong picture can cause much more damage than your religion...

If you are out in public you should have no expectation of privacy, plain and simple. Anyone should be able to record public events. A law prohibiting slander and libel is one thing but banning the release of any photos that contain someone acting stupid? That's ridiculous.

and spreading those photos via internet...

[Belmaria]

If you are out in public you should have no expectation of privacy, plain and simple. Anyone should be able to record public events. A law prohibiting slander and libel is one thing but banning the release of any photos that contain someone acting stupid? That's ridiculous.

and spreading those photos via internet...

And? If you do something stupid and expect no repercussions then you are insane.

[Next Washington]

and spreading those photos via internet...

And? If you do something stupid and expect no repercussions then you are insane.

i'd expect repercussions... why i think photos should be included because if not someone who does stupid things by spreading photos ould face no repercussions as they'd not be private

[Battlion]

Sharing photos of people, not correct.

[Next Washington]

Sharing photos of people, not correct.

[Belmaria]

And? If you do something stupid and expect no repercussions then you are insane.

i'd expect repercussions... why i think photos should be included because if not someone who does stupid things by spreading photos ould face no repercussions as they'd not be private

If the photos are intended to be private and/or are taken with the assumption that they will be private then there should be some protections. But public photos and videos should not be considered private. This must be specified in the bill.

[Battlion]

i'd expect repercussions... why i think photos should be included because if not someone who does stupid things by spreading photos ould face no repercussions as they'd not be private

If the photos are intended to be private and/or are taken with the assumption that they will be private then there should be some protections. But public photos and videos should not be considered private. This must be specified in the bill.

Unless it's amended by the author before tomorrow's deadline then it goes up as it is

[Great Nepal]

Sharing photos of people, not correct.

Agreed, while you shouldn't have control over who takes the photo in public place, you absolutely must have right to control its distribution provided you are the subject of the image.

[Next Washington]

i'd expect repercussions... why i think photos should be included because if not someone who does stupid things by spreading photos ould face no repercussions as they'd not be private

If the photos are intended to be private and/or are taken with the assumption that they will be private then there should be some protections. But public photos and videos should not be considered private. This must be specified in the bill.

public photos and videos are allowed to be spread

my point is if someone takes a photo of you, modifies it and spreads it via the internet so everyone who sees it eg thinks you're an alcoholist, that's bad

[Belmaria]

If the photos are intended to be private and/or are taken with the assumption that they will be private then there should be some protections. But public photos and videos should not be considered private. This must be specified in the bill.

public photos and videos are allowed to be spread

my point is if someone takes a photo of you, modifies it and spreads it via the internet so everyone who sees it eg thinks you're an alcoholist, that's bad

I see, I did not understand what you were saying before. I agree with that statement.

[Ainin]

I'd like to add a second on to the motion to bring the businesses and finance category to the top of the queue.

Can it actually replace a category if it's been moved on to a new section?

*is not sure what you're saying*

[Battlion]

Can it actually replace a category if it's been moved on to a new section?

*is not sure what you're saying*

If a category is being debated, can it be changed to the other just like that as a result from a motion?

[Ainin]

*is not sure what you're saying*

If a category is being debated, can it be changed to the other just like that as a result from a motion?

Yes.

[Battlion]

If a category is being debated, can it be changed to the other just like that as a result from a motion?

Yes.

Law that states that?

Trying to find something, although I don't see why people can't wait 2 more days instead of screwing up the order again.

[The Nihilistic view]

Come on lets have a debate about something. It's getting quite dull around here, I don't even live here and I put in more work than anyone else. Pull your fingers out chaps.

Disclaimer: some of what I say may not be the truth, the aim is get debate going.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Come on lets have a debate about something. It's getting quite dull around here, I don't even live here and I put in more work than anyone else. Pull your fingers out chaps.

Disclaimer: some of what I say may not be the truth, the aim is get debate going.

Ill debate, what bill do you wish to discuss?

[The Nihilistic view]

Is the SSA 2 a affirmative step in the enactment of the nanny-state?


EDIT: Question for debate is above. I am formulating my opinion right now.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Is the SSA 2 a affirmative step in the enactment of the nanny-state?


EDIT: Question for debate is above. I am formulating my opinion right now.

Of course not, merely keeping a fair balance between church and state, and making sure other groups and/or people, aren't being discriminated against, simply for holding a differing Religious viewpoint.

[The Nihilistic view]

Ok, so the first point I wish to speak about is culture clause 2.

This seems to me will lead to the prevention of funding charities because they may be focused at helping a particular area or problem within a set group of people. This clause actually does discriminate against religion as it says one would have to eventually be an atheist charity to revive funds.