(03-24-2018 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-24-2018 01:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-24-2018 01:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-24-2018 01:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-24-2018 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So you see no ethical qualms with what CA did?

I see no qualms about what Trump did.

let's say Obama's butler hands him a baseball bat, which Obama uses to clobber somebody.

And let's say Trumps Butler hands him a baseball bat, which he uses to clobber somebody.

Same thing, to me.

Now let's say Obama's butler bought the bat from a neighbor, and Trump's butler stole the bat from a neighbor.

Does that influence how we should view the usages of the bat?

When did I say Trump? I said CA. I am comparing the Obama’s campaign to CA. Do you have any ethical qualms about how CA operated?

If it is illegal, I would not do it that way. My point was to the usage of the data, not the provenance.

Was it illegal?

BTW, I have never been on Facebook, and never will be. I just see it as me posting stuff about myself that is nobody's business but mine, so I guess I should be happy if somebody actually reads it.

Since when have legality and ethics been directly correlated? Is the legality of an action the only thing that matters to you in regards to ethics?

Do *you* have ethical qualms about the Obama actions of hoovering the **** out of information on friends in a friends list when *only* the original user gave permission, and the consent of the friends was absent?

I do.

Much as I do with both steps of the CA actions.

But I guess the original permission makes Obama's actions okay in your book....