Digital privacy. It should be illegal to track and store data on people without their consent.
Hmm. If you were to assault me, and my friend took your picture while you're doing it, should you be allowed to forbid my friend from publicly posting that picture?
A picture of you is certainly data about you. And you'd presumably prefer that they not publish evidence that you assaulted me. However, I think it's in the public interest that my friend should get to publish their photo even without your consent.
A single picture is circumstantial. I'm more talking about mass collections of information for some kind of data analysis.
That's where the reasonable expectation of privacy provision usually comes into play. It is already illegal to go up to the window of someone's home and take pictures of them, why then is it legal for companies like google to gather information about your activity, such as browsing habits, without asking or even notifying you. Microsoft is another really bad offender here, modern versions of Windows collect and transmit massive amounts of telemetry regarding everything from what hardware you're using to what programs you run and how often, just as a basic part of the operating system.
I don't understand why people always talk about Microsoft. ALL mainstream operating systems track everything you do. If anything, Microsoft were the last to join the party.
Yes, innocent until proven guilty. The picture would be logged in as evidence to the authorities.
Anyone held in prison, jail, or other confinement shall be permitted to post up to one kilobyte (1024 characters) of text every day. These posts shall be published on a public web site operated by the imprisoning authority, and in print form in the imprisoning authority's capital city or other central location. These posts shall be tagged with the prisoner's name, geographic location, and any identification number the imprisoning authority uses.
This serves a few purposes:
- No government or other authority may hold a prisoner secretly.
- All prisoners may plead their innocence to anyone who cares to hear.
- No prisoner is to be held in such complete isolation that they can't communicate to the public about the conditions of their imprisonment.
- Anyone interested in auditing the state of their government's prisons may begin by inspecting the stated locations of prisoners.
- Any prisoner who is not literate shall be afforded literacy education to enable them to participate.
This may go awry if some prisoners are not remorseful. For example, let's say an extremist murdered some women because he believes them to be inferior. They could use this as a platform it to spout their ideals and to convince others to do it. It would also make it trivial to pass messages from imprisoned gang members outwards to the still-free members. Not exactly things we want to encourage.
It's also never going to be an effective method for transparency once the government/facility inevitably starts censoring certain contributors for more or less legitimate safety concerns. Most inmates already have ways to communicate with the outside world anyway through their lawyers and families, so I don't really see the point for either side of the cell door.
I think there's some legitimate concern about essentially giving prisoners a broadcast. You're right that they ought to have some minimum amount of guaranteed communication, but more in the sense that they can call their family or friends without having to pay fees.
Also would love to see solitary confinement outlawed.
surprised no one has brought this up, but freedom from religion. Shouldn't have your life incessantly bombarded by people trying to pressure you into what amounts to a socially acceptable cult
There are some countries (Indonesia) which it is mandatory to have a religion, at least it must be listed in your ID. Atheists will just list any (official) religion they want on it and don't practice. Sucks that it's so easy to discriminate people based on that.
The right to die. At least in the US, the way we treat end of life is absolutely backwards and often the opposite of patient care. If someone wants to die despite therapy and health intervention, who are we to deny them?
Yes, this is what I want to see. We give animals more dignity at the end of their life than we give humans.
It's the same here in the UK. Even terminally ill people are not allowed to end their lives and end up having to go to Dignitas.
There was a story of one guy who was severely disabled. He needed 24-hour care and was just utterly miserable. He appealed for the right to end his life early to put an end to his suffering but the government denied him. He ended up just starving himself to death.
I agree 100%, but it's important to note that it's a very difficult issue. Whether someone actually wants to die or if they're mentally ill and are making a terrible irreversible mistake is often quite a tough line to draw, making this a very complex problem to solve.
- The right to solidarity, i.e. all should be allowed to partake in solidary action during a strike.
- The right of initiative and right to recall.
- The right to free software, or freedom from proprietary software.
- The right to a third place, i.e. ready access to physical spaces that allow for socializing with strangers.
- Freedom from eviction (mainly wrt rent strikes and squatting.)
- The right to democratic education.
- The right to cross borders.
- The right to be forgotten.
- The right to purpose, or freedom from meaningless labor. This includes the right to an employee fund.
And there are of course other things. I just think that under the world's current paradigm, these, at least individually, seem relatively attainable without a literal revolution.
The right to cross borders alone would require about a hundred revolutions. Which is a shame, because voting with our feet is a phenomenally good way of putting people in control of countries.
The right to access the internet via broadband wherever possible. Money should not prevent this.
Especially now, where it's pretty much impossible to do any administrative paperwork without any internet access
Data ownership.
Everything you do, every action you take, is commodified down to the very steps you take. Even if you refuse to participate, there will be a "you" shaped hole due to the amount of related data.
Overall we are all generating huge amounts of data, content and financial information. We need new laws to direct the ownership and related income of the data each person generates.
In regard to the US: if we are a capitalist nation, than being an American citizen is an investment. I want to see returns on that investment.
I truthfully think privacy is dead and we need to look forward at what we can control. We can control this, and companies should not be allowed to make billions off your mere existence.
I think we've reached a point technologically that it's entirely within our grasp to secure the base layer of Maslow's hierarchy of needs for everyone. Air, water, food, shelter, clothing, medical care.
I hadn't thought about air, but seems like it will become a more and more relevant right (and one everyone can claim even in a more traditional sense of a right)
A 7 year limit on having old posts, videos, writings, or other records of your words and opinions used against you. This includes no more lifetime bans on anything. If you change your ways and keep your nose clean for seven years, society can no longer use your past actions against you.
This does not apply to criminal sentencing of course, though that whole mess should be reexamined much more frequently.
Criminal sentencing should be the same as the posts, IMO. Prison should be rehabilitating, not just punishment/legal slavery. There should be punishment, yes, but even parents who spank their children usually tell their kids why they got spanked and how not to get spanked again. Prisons seem to forgo that second part of it, and focus entirely on the spanking aspect.
What's frustrating is there's an obvious and effective way to incentivise that too. You don't even need to give up private prisons.
Just split the payment. The prison gets paid say 20% up front. The rest is paid out over the 10 years post release. If the inmate ends up back in prison, the rest of the payments are lost.
Basically, 80% of their income is made by keeping the inmates from reoffending. Kicking them to the kerb with no skills becomes a big loss. Job training, and a robust post release support network are suddenly money makers, rather than sinks.
UBI, it's hard to believe people see the way things are going with AI and Automation and they're not talking more about Universal Basic Income.
Others have covered it pretty well. Food, shelter, healthcare would be the highest immediate priorities I would think. We have the means, we just don't have the will or the culture (collectively speaking anyhow).
A living wage for every human. This society have the money to cover all, but still we accept to let other humans die on poverty because "they don't contribute to the capitalism". Fucking disgusting everyday.
Access to open source, end to end encrypted technology. Particularly for messaging/ communication.
Seems like you might want to go broader than talking about a specific method or feature of technology. Maybe something like "right to private communication"?
Irrevocable right of bodily expression
Irrevocable right to abortion
Irrevocable right to euthanasia
No tax exemptions for any type of religion.
Bodily expression is too broad, also tax exemptions for no one would be better.
Maybe not a right but more a commitment for governments towards public transportation. Not having a car makes everything so much harder. Having as much coverage as possible within reason, more buses and drivers, expanding metro lines. Right now in my city it is just "bearable", I am at least grateful I can do things like see buses on the map and transferring to trains is easy. Was much worse before! Not like governments wouldn't be able to make their money back, and imagine how many less car crashes and traffic clogs we could have. Not to mention the environmental benefits.
Also electric buses are cool. So quiet and can charge in them.
Edit: To elaborate on why it should be a right: it is not like in the olden days when you could walk to the store or your job. Everything is simultaneously dense and far thanks to how zoning works and cities being car-oriented. The right to mobility exists in America, but what if we took it further and made sure you really could go where you wanted without having to invest in a car?
Public transportation should be free for everyone on top of that. We need to do everything possible to discourage driving in favour of public transport for the sake of the environment and our future selves, plus the bus driver would no longer be able to turn away poor people on hot days.
The right to quit, if things get corporate and greedy and the people, the people who actually form the community only get screwed over. Whether it's a job, a club, or a social media platform.
Welcome to at-will employment. Be careful of exactly what you're asking for.
I think you're using the word right correctly, ultimately you're pointing out things that you think people should have inherently and that shouldn't be based on merits or taken from someone based on crimes. I generally agree with your list, though to add on I think that the right to transportation is fundamental to enabling most opportunities in a society and that the United States could greatly improve upon their public transit system.
Right to Information
Allowing the public to get access to information without it being censored or hidden.
I think one problem with this is, most of you are all talking about positive rights. Rights are things government can't take away not things the government gives you. Rights are inherent. Think of it as more the government can't deny you food, not, the government will supply you food. The one post about abortion would be that the government can't deny you medical autonomy, that would cover it, as well as dying if desired. Then the debate just has to decide when a life is a life and requires protection (not having that debate here)
I believe in "to each according to need," (or to put it into the language of a "right," the right to fulfillment of your needs.) but I don't trust "countries" to do that. There's a long history of governments saying they're doing that while perpetuating the worst atrocities.
Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu