I know some places are more progressive in this regard. But from the U.S., I’d like to see every person entitled to:
- shelter
- food
- healthcare
- education and higher education
(As an aside, not sure “right” is the best term here, I think of these more as commitments that society would make because we have abundance. One advantage of the word “right” is that a person is justified in expecting it - it’s not welfare/ a benefit / a privilege)
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.
Removed by mod
The reason is that windows is used on nearly 3/4 of all desktop computers (source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/218089/global-market-share-of-windows-7/), but that doesn’t change the question of ‘why the fuck should anoybody be allowed to do that?’ Also I would call Linux at least mainstream parallel, in that I would guess most people have at least heard of it, and it doesn’t inherently track your activity.
Removed by mod
I won’t argue that tracking on mobile isn’t more important, but I will argue that it shouldn’t be allowed at all, or at least not without an informative opt in for those systems who insist on having one. And when I say informative I mean telling the user exactly what information is being gathered, why, how often, and who else can see or gets sold it.
Removed by mod
I’m still mad about what they did to netflix. I should have the right to not have to delete IE when I get a new computer. I mean netscape.
Yes, innocent until proven guilty. The picture would be logged in as evidence to the authorities.
And we all trust the authorities.
Nope definitely not, but, you can’t just post people’s pics online saying they assaulted you.
Especially now that we have AI-generated imagery.
I’m no expert but I think there are (or should be) exemptions in the case of crime
Often you don’t know a crime has been committed at the time, which is why businesses are expected to have data retention periods for legal reasons.
But everyone keeps pointing to any data retention as some sort of big brother boogeyman.
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.
Yeah because what if the prisoners are like Hannibal Lector and use their speech to remote control people and commit crimes from prison?
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.
Also another problem would be that some languages are more character-efficient than others. E.g. Chinese vs English vs Navajo.
What if they have no friends or family?
Yeah but what if the prisoners use their 1024 kb to talk about ivermectin, or about eating tide pods, or claiming that sriracha hot sauce is overhyped garbage, or other harmful disinformation?
Didn’t think of that did ya?
/s
1 kb whatever
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.
Removed by mod
Poor guy. Grim.
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.
I absolutely agree when the person has an incurable physical illness, but I’m unsure where to draw the boundary for people with psychological illnesses.
For me it’s the age of the person. If it’s a 20 year old, their health can still get better. If it’s an 80 year old who has lost his whole family and friends and is depressed that’s a whole other thing. That’s something that is probably not going to get fixed.
Canada’s MAID program is a step in the right direction, where next year even people with non-terminal mental illnesses will be eligible for assisted suicide.
I’m not comfortable with mental illnesses being included, because I think especially in the past (but more recently too) suicide being easy and accepted would’ve encouraged me to go ahead with it, which is something I’m glad I haven’t done so far.
Glad you’re with us.
- 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.
deleted by creator
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !cypherpunk@infosec.pub
This is a very helpful bot.
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 a third place, i.e. ready access to physical spaces that allow for socializing with strangers.
So, going outside?
Like parks and such where people can gather
I could see a world where people are guaranteed shelter but it’s a hole in the wall and they’re not allowed to be other places like restaurants, businesses etc. because they don’t have the money for it.
right to recall
I read this as having memory, and it made me think of robot rights. Does a robot have a right to have memory?
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
Maybe people should even have a guaranteed phone, for 2FA and connectivity.
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.
Income tracking would create another cache of data. If anything you’d want a ban on cross domain tracking (“domain” in the traditional sense).
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.
I’d never thought of this. This is a great idea. You need to shout it from the rooftops.
I’m not American. The prison system over here, while FAR from perfect, is an order of magnitude or more better than the US system. I’d rather not let private prisons get a foothold over here.
Then I will scream from the rooftops.
No one will listen to me, because everyone important is making money off the current system. But I’ll try.
You could just not tweet something racist? Also how the hell do you plan on enforcing this? If I want to not be your friend because of something I know you did how are you going to force me?
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)
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.
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.
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).
Once food, water, shelter, clothing, and health care are covered (or alternatively, a universal basic income that covers these needs), I’d like to see us start establishing rights for intelligent animals.
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.
That means no helping the disadvantaged either?
We are taking about rights not assistance programs
I meant tax exemptions for the needy
There’s already 0 income tax for the “needy” you don’t pay any federal income tax if you make under a certain amount. That amount is not super low either if I remember correctly.
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”?
Bro just download Whatsapp
WhatsApp isn’t open source as far as I’m aware. Also weird seeing a plug for a Meta app on Lemmy…
I’ll die first.
I’m not quite THAT hardcore, but if someone only has whatsapp… then apparently we’re back to calling eachother on the phone like cavemen
You really need an /s at the end because it does not seem to have been obvious.
Not opensource, not private, belongs to a company that is notorious for stealing and selling your data. They say it’s encrypted, also they request the rights to access what you type.
