HUNDREDS of Twitter Employees Paid to View “Everything You Post Online” Including Private “Sex Messa

This is equivalent to the post office reading your mail, Google opening up and reading your emails, or the phone company listening in on your calls this is a blatant violation of privacy could even be illegal
definitely against ones civil rights and I expect twitter to be sued a class action law suit that could amount in the millions if not more

 

Problem is everyone agrees to this when they click that "I agree" box at the end of the 200 pages of small print they scroll through.

The foundation is sound, privacy should still mean something in the digital age.

But these entities are too massive to be challenged and they can always come back and say "you agreed to this".

Plus who will take them on?

Twitter, Facebook, Google, they basically own seats in Congress.

The left loves these guys because of how active they are in suppressing knowledge about the nasty left.

Best thing to do is stop using their service.

I've never been on twitter or facebook and I only use throw-away gmail accounts for random purposes.

There are always alternatives to everything.

Seek out companies that value free speech and privacy and then the ones that do not will cease to have power over us.

 

did she seriously ask while discussing the dick pics... "how do you keep those from popping up" .... good thing I'm not sitting at her table I'd never that let slide

 

reasonable expectation of privacy is the legal standard that needs to be proven and I would think PMing another on twitter or any other electronic ways to communicate one on one would have the impression of reasonable expectation of privacy
by the way PM is short for Private Message so even what it is called gives the impression of privacy

 

Never be intimate on the internet, that's what this shows. And that intimacy can be compromised. That being said though, I think there's a valid argument that since these programs are connected to computers/devices that are in the home or vehicle, etc that it falls under the protections of the 4th Amendment.

 

I have Twitter and I've never sent a Tweet. And I only follow 3 people; one person is on this board, an old girlfriend who never Tweets and Trump.

Anyway, is all this saving of dick pictures and making them undeletable in their terms of service?

 

there really needs to be more legislation on this. If you have a smartphone...youve already agreed to hand over your privacy by clicking I agree. Problem I see is your choice is to have no cell phone. This is like saying I agree to hand over my privacy because I want a car. People have a right to privacy and those forcing it out without a choice should be removed from doing business in the U.S. Problem is, our govt loves our cell phones. They are the best information gathering tools ever created. Use your fingerprint on your android? Surprise youve agreed to make them the property of someone else. Everyone should read googles privacy policy. It essentially states if you use google services they will rape your privacy...and I mean rape.

 

wouldn't hold up in court as long as you can prove a reasonable expectation of privacy

and according to Twitters TOS on direct messaging you aren't agreeing to them reading or sharing that content just storing and processing

Direct Messages and Non-Public Communications: We provide certain features that allow you to communicate more privately. For example, you can use Direct Messages to have private conversations with other Twitter users. When you privately communicate with others through our Services, such as by sending and receiving Direct Messages, we will store and process your communications, and information related to them. Please note that if you interact with public Twitter content shared with you via Direct Message, for instance by liking a Tweet shared via Direct Message, those interactions may be public. When you use features like Direct Messages to communicate privately, please remember that recipients may copy, store, and re-share the contents of your communications.
https://twitter.com/en/privacy

 

They seem to have a lot of underhanded tactics as well as Facebook and YouTube and I think that's going to bite them in the ass.

 

no your not
not according to Twitter TOS on Direct Messages and Non-Public Communication

your only agreeing to them processing and storage not the reading or sharing that content

Direct Messages and Non-Public Communications: We provide certain features that allow you to communicate more privately. For example, you can use Direct Messages to have private conversations with other Twitter users. When you privately communicate with others through our Services, such as by sending and receiving Direct Messages, we will store and process your communications, and information related to them. Please note that if you interact with public Twitter content shared with you via Direct Message, for instance by liking a Tweet shared via Direct Message, those interactions may be public. When you use features like Direct Messages to communicate privately, please remember that recipients may copy, store, and re-share the contents of your communications.
https://twitter.com/en/privacy

 

Yea I don't have a problem with the merit just with the fact that these end user agreements are so iron clad because of the fact that we all agree to them and because of how massive these companies are.

And personally I'd like to see the campaign law fight occur first because of the massive amount of censorship and traffic shaping that Google/Facebook/Twitter/Reddit/etc engaged in for the benefit of Hillary.

They get away with it because the law is always so damned slow in catching up to technology but we essentially had a trillion dollar powerhouse trying to buy a Presidency and that cant be allowed to happen regardless of what party they support.

 

Ill read the entire policy later. Ive never read a single one that didnt leave a loophole in. That looks like the same canned comments they all use to make you believe your info is safe, then buried later in the full privacy do you find that you have signed away your privacy.

 

two times in what I provided Twitter mentions private and privately there for giving the perception of reason expectation of privacy and that is all that needs to be proven in a court

 

Um, Twitter is not a US government entity, so your comparison fails miserably.

Apparently, you're totally oblivious to the fact that the US Supreme Court has already ruled on the matter...

As the court pointed out, Google’s terms of service allegedly permitted Google to scan users’ emails for objectionable content but not to target advertising or create profiles of users’ preferences. The court held that this distinction provided an appropriate way to draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable expectations of privacy, concluding that “ecause the two processes were allegedly separate, consent to one does not equate to consent to the other.” In re Google Inc. Gmail Litig., 2013 LEXIS 17278, at *13.

 

post the entire policy

 

phone companies aren't government intities and it is illegal for them to listen in on your phone calls and share the content of those calls not without a warrant

and when you agree to Twitters TOS no were are your agreeing for them to read or share you content when it comes to Direct Messages and Non-Public Communication
just that they are allowed to store in process so your not signing away any reasonable expectation of privacy


Direct Messages and Non-Public Communications: We provide certain features that allow you to communicate more privately. For example, you can use Direct Messages to have private conversations with other Twitter users. When you privately communicate with others through our Services, such as by sending and receiving Direct Messages, we will store and process your communications, and information related to them. Please note that if you interact with public Twitter content shared with you via Direct Message, for instance by liking a Tweet shared via Direct Message, those interactions may be public. When you use features like Direct Messages to communicate privately, please remember that recipients may copy, store, and re-share the contents of your communications.
https://twitter.com/en/privacy

Twitter mentions privately and private numerous times in that TOS giving one the reasonable expectation of privacy

 

I'm not going to fill this page I posted the link three times to all of it

 

There is one basic rule to follow: DO NOT TWEET YOUR TWANGER....

 

So FedEx or UPS can read my mail?

 

You will notice in their statement about sharing info with the DOJ.

Valid legal request does not equal warrant. If they required a warrant they would have said so.

 

Someone Needs to Sort Out the Tech Idiots on Censorship

 

"The real relationship between politics and government is the gangster relation: nice little business you got here; pity if something should happen to it. Most conservatives don't have a gangster bone in their bodies and really don't want to get in the faces of good honest businessmen.

Problem is, then all the businessmen in America will end up paying protection money only to the Democratic Party, because liberals do care about power and do want to tell business who is boss."

This is especially evident in Europe where globalist like Merkel use the threat of anti-trust to get Google, Facebook etc. to ban their primary political opponents, the nationalists.

When the globalist in Europe days jump Facebook and Google say how high.

Fascists love Monopolies because Monopolies are easy to control.

 

We the American People allow Twitter to import foreign employees rather than hire Americans. Where these imported guests are deliberately censoring American's over their viewpoint, yeah, cancel their VISA.

 

Only if it’s true. One thing that seems odd is the idea that they only need hundreds of people to monitor the messages of all Twitter users. I couldn’t find stats on DMs but I did find statistics saying there are 6000 tweets sent per second so even if use of direct messaging is magnitudes smaller, it would still be much more than they could possibly deal with manually. There could well be cause for concern here but I’d want a less alarmist analysis of the actual facts before reaching any conclusions.

 

The law needs to catch up with the technology. In principle Twitter reading your DM is no different than FedEx reading your mail. Both private companies but one goes to jail for snooping the other dies not.

This problem is all over the silicone valley rober-barorns.

It's not that the questions haven been asked and answered. It's that the rober-barons don't want the law applied to then. No Twitter can't read your DMs because they are a private company anymore than UPS and FedEx can read your mail because they are a private company.