BT and TalkTalk challenge Digital Economy Act

[Clinton]

Apart from the legal vs moral categorisation, there's also the claimed rights vs liberty rights and rights held "in rem" (against everyone) vs rights held "in personam" (against a particular person or body of persons).

Joe Public sees rights deriving from self-evident truths and commonly accepted cultural and religious priniciples. However, these are localised and not universal "truths" and "principles". Great thinkers from the past have delved into philosophical justifications for basic rights of every human. I found a link for you that discusses those justifications. Chris's point seems to draw on the "Will Theory Approach".

[christopheravell]

Could have sworn I answered this already but my post aint here so maybe I imagined it.

You're talking about ideas Christpoher, that's all a right is, an idea. They don't physically exist, they don't come as part of being human, it's just something we made up and they remain in the realm of made up until someone enforces them. The only reason I don't have the right to murder you is that the majority of people agree with you that no one should have that right, but not everyone..... There are plenty of people throughout history who believed they had the right to murder who they wanted and promptly did so in their hundreds and thousands and even millions sometimes. They had the right because they thought they did and were able to enforce it, I bet the royal mass murderers would even argue they were born with the right.

All the people they murdered who thought they had a right not to be murdered? Guess they were wrong. So unless the majority agree, rights mean nothing and that makes them flexible and arbitrary and entirely subjective.

Right, (ideas / abilities) you we're born with the "right" to murder me -- but it was taken away. The people who murder did have that "right" until it was taken away. The people who did not want to be murdered did have that right, it was taken away. This is why rights are not given, rights are what has not been taken away. Either way, we are agreeing here and just looking at it from the opposite perspective.

[JJMcClure]

Apart from the legal vs moral categorisation, there's also the claimed rights vs liberty rights and rights held "in rem" (against everyone) vs rights held "in personam" (against a particular person or body of persons).

Joe Public sees rights deriving from self-evident truths and commonly accepted cultural and religious priniciples. However, these are localised and not universal "truths" and "principles". Great thinkers from the past have delved into philosophical justifications for basic rights of every human. I found a link for you that discusses those justifications. Chris's point seems to draw on the "Will Theory Approach".

Get back to you on that one, too busy to properly read that right now and it clearly requires some considered thought, most likely beyond what I'm capable of since I'm no intellectual but we'll see.

Either way, we are agreeing here and just looking at it from the opposite perspective.

No we're not agreeing, you think we're born with rights and I think that's pure invention. To quote from Clinton's linked article "Morality is fundamentally concerned with what ought to be the case", what ought to be the case... and this one "for many non-philosophers human rights may all too obviously appear to rest upon self-evidently true and universally valid moral principles" .....for many 'non-philosophers'.

You think I don't have a right to murder you, I go ahead and murder you anyway, so much for your rights, didn't actually make a difference in the end did they. If murder wasn't illegal, it would happen a lot more, it's the law that makes the difference not your interpretation of how things ought to be because of your own value system and perception of the world..

[Clinton]

OK, seeing that this is all light hearted debate, can we agree that some of us agree, some agree that we agree and some disagree that we agree?

[benitez17]

To bring this back on topic, it looks like TalkTalk was already doing deep packet inspection and planned to report the results to Huawei as some sort of malware detection program.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...g-web-use.html

It's hard to argue against an activity that you are already effectively doing.