[lamontcg]

> The point is that Organization A is providing their owned device to Person A, and they have a right to monitor its use.

Or we should aggressively throw that idea out and take privacy rights to take precedence over corporate ownership of property. If the organization isn't willing to trust you with that device without constantly monitoring you, they shouldn't "lend" it to you (since "lending" in this context is always coercive and its mandated by your employer as well and you cannot effectively opt-out).

[ziddoap]

I believe I already agreed that surveillance culture isn't doing our kids any favors. Not sure why you are trying to convince me on that, despite me saying it in my first post.

[lamontcg]

You keep arguing from the perspective that the school/company necessarily has the "right" to spy on anyone using its loaned equipment.

I thoroughly reject that right as being valid. It should never have been invented as a concept, and you should not be defending that supposed "right".

If I loan a friend something I don't have the right to spy on them, I trust them, and I expect the article to be returned to me in good condition.

And you keep arguing that "surely you understand that they must have right" which is exactly what I'm rejecting, and its very frustrating that you can't even seem to comprehend that someone would strenuously object to your premise to begin with. You just keep on restating that I MUST agree with you that they have that right as a premise to the argument. I reject the premise. If we can't get past that there's no point to this any more, we can't even have an argument about the beneficial effects of rejecting that premise and the horrible effects that keep getting worse and worse of being brainwashed into accepting those "rights" like they're physical laws and not something that we can choose to change.

And if you get pissed off at some point in the future about our surveillance state, take a good look in the mirror and figure out if you're part of the problem or not and if you might have been flat out brainwashed to accept things that never should have been accepted.

[ziddoap]

>You keep arguing from the perspective that the school/company necessarily has [...]

Because I am able to separate what is reality and what my ideal is. My ideal aligns closely with yours. But I try not to let it cloud what the reality is; mainly that organizations which provide assets for free to employees/students are allowed to stipulate conditions of use, one of which may be monitoring.

>If I loan a friend something I don't have the right to spy on them, I trust them

You are absolutely allowed to give a laptop to a friend and say "By the way, this has a keylogger on it. If you want to use it, just know that keystrokes are being recorded". You, as the owner of that device, have every right to do that. The key being that you notified the other party (like, for example, terms and conditions of use). Trust doesn't even come into the equation. Would that make you a shitty friend? Yes. Can you still do it? Yes.

>And if you get pissed off at some point in the future about our surveillance state, take a good look in the mirror and figure out if you're part of the problem or not and if you might have been flat out brainwashed

Jesus that escalated quickly. I am saying that organizations are allowed to have terms of use on their equipment, one of those terms being that the device is monitored, and suddenly I'm the cause of the surveillance state.

[ClumsyPilot]

"mainly that organizations which provide assets for free to employees/students are allowed to stipulate conditions of use"

1. They are not 'free', they are paid for with taxes

2. stop equating employees and children, it's daft, any judge would throw out such argument without a second thought

3. there are currently like 30 active lawsuits against schools and states for spying. The case law is not set on this matter, it's a new phenomenon and now is the chacne to set the recond strain.

4. Just because you put 'your house now belongs to me' or 'you are now my slave' into terms and condition doesn't make it legally valid.

[TedDoesntTalk]

> Jesus that escalated quickly.

Indeed it did and it reminds me of a lot of conversations I’ve seen on Twitter with unreasonable people who hold the entire world to their personal ideals, everything else be damned.

Just don’t engage.