Liberty University Personal Data: Fill & Download for Free

It is ethical, and desirable for consumers to allow companies to monetize their personal data for revenue.“Data Protection” should not be a fundamental right; I hold life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the inalienable rights, and fundamental rights are freedom of speech, the press, religion, assembly, and to petition the government for redress of grievances. U.S. citizens consider the constitutional rights granted in ammendments to be fundamental. Other countries have different sets of rights, and that should be respected, even though they are not universal. Copyright and patent law protect intellectual property.I think that selling advertisements in a phone book where your landline agreement allows your name and address to be published as well as the phone number the phone company associated with you is fine. The value of the phone book is the compilation of personal data; the advertisers wouldn't pay to advertise in a phone book without it!Credit bureaus, title companies, background check companies are run by for-profit businesses; modern commerce like buying new cars or property would be far more expensive if companies did not monetize the brokerage of your information.I think that many people like “free” apps and services, such as quora, where the companies pay money for hardware, salaries, and business expenses, and so people choose to allow data from their usage to be monetized.

Let's turn the question around: Is Silicon Valley out of touch with how much more information the public is willing to share?I would argue that it's not. Silicon Valley is where the culture of developing new ways of sharing previously "private" (or rather, passively-non-public) information and turning them into viable and growing startups. Now, it's possible that the adoption of these startups is capped at some fraction of the total public, but the fact that they are growing exponentially now indicates that "sharing more stuff" is a previously unserviced desire within the internet-user public that these entrepreneurs have tapped into.What many bloggers (and regular people) seem to miss, however, is the mechanism by which this desire is being fulfilled by those products. Users are not finding these products compelling because they allow them to share their personal information. Instead, they are finding them compelling because the user's friends and acquaintances enjoy the fact that more information about that user is being shared, they provide positive (in most cases) feedback to that sharing, and the user finds that experience compelling because, as a result of sharing something they might not otherwise have thought to, they have received positive feedback from their social circle. Bloggers are analyzing this in terms of "does a user want to share piece of data X?" when the real product experience is "does the user want to experience having shared piece of data X and having done so, experience the feedback it generates from their social circle?"Specifically: my friend doesn't benefit from a product helping him tell everyone he's gay. Instead, he benefits from the product helping him do that and, in doing so, cause all his friends (plus others in his social circle he didn't know about) to provide expressions of support. That is the value of a product that promotes sharing.This new product experience is only possible due to the advent of a universally-adopted social network (Facebook). Prior to the age of social networking, people did not want to share certain pieces of data - i.e. the bloggers were right - because there was little positive benefit to it. These modern products, however, have you put your personal data out into an environment where your friends and acquaintances can see it - where a positive social interaction and feedback is more likely to result. The more universal the social network, the more likely a piece of data that you share is to generate feedback from someone you know, versus just being uselessly thrown out into the anonymous wilds of the internet (the way it would have been if you published it on a personal webpage in 1999).Further, there is a multi-party force at work: when a user shares a piece of personal data (perhaps reluctantly, accidentally, etc), it may harm them, but it may benefit many other users. Most people do not respect the privacy of others, and derive benefit from discovering personal information about other people. This yields the following product value scenario: a product which makes it possible to discover a piece of data about a user X may have a net benefit to the ecosystem because 100 people derive benefit from finding out that piece of data, while only a single person is harmed by it.You can call this right or wrong, but the privacy issue as it pertains to "P2P spying" has a different moral flavor from privacy as it pertains to, say, governments spying on you. Many commentators mistake the moral "severity" of the two: something that allows your aunt to discover something salacious about you just isn't as serious as something that allows the government to do so, and most people who talk about privacy assume the severity of the latter because it's how we have traditionally thought about privacy. It becomes an interpersonal issue, rather than a civil liberties one.What we have, then, is Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who are increasingly able to understand how to create holistic ecosystems of sharing which result in net benefit. Of course they understand the "privacy expectations of the public." However, they increasingly also understand the benefits to the public of selectively ignoring those expectations when doing so allows them to provide the public with something more valuable in return.

When we compare religion and science, should we look at which contributed to civilisation the most as the two are polar opposites of eachother? If so, which one did?Religion is not always negative, but it seems that the voices calling for discrimination dominate.Science requires morality, objectivity, and transparency.-Morality -In science, if living creatures are going to be affected by an experiment, is the risk to the subjects justified by what will be learned. This is reviewed prior to starting an experiment and prior to publication of the results. This is constantly evolving, requiring stricter limits on the potential harm to research subjects as we learn more (as our morality evolves).In religion, at least those religions based on the Bible, there is endorsement of slavery, rape, and genocide. I am glad that most Bible-based religious people appear to be heretics, because we do not need more slavery, more rape, or more genocide.-Objectivity -In science, all practical steps must be taken to minimize the effects of bias in experimentation. Our desires should not influence the results of an experiment. The study design should not favor any hypothesis. This is reviewed prior to starting an experiment and prior to publication of the results.In religion, having faith that you have chosen the One True Interpretation of God is essentially the opposite of objectivity. The Creationist organizations Liberty University and Answers in Genesis both require all students and staff (including scientists) to sign a statement that they will never produce any results that contradict the interpretation of the person in charge of each organization, no matter what the evidence shows. Currently, both are led by people who insist that the two different versions of creation described in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are literally true as interpreted by their leaders. Even if God were to tell them otherwise, they must defend the position of the leader of their organization.Statement of Faith - Answers in GenesisDoctrinal Statement - Liberty University-Transparency -In science, all information is reviewed by independent parties prior to the start of research and prior to publication. The methods section of the paper should provide enough information that someone should be able to independently replicate the experiment. The raw data is often published with the paper, as long as no personally identifiable information about research subjects is included. In the discussion of the results, all of the known potentially confounding influences are examined and their possible influence is considered. The possible role of bias is exposed as much as possible, both to expose the weaknesses of the study and to help with improvement of future research.In religion, there is apologetics. Although their God is claimed to be all-knowing and all-powerful, excuses are made for why their God is incompetent at communicating everything.-Why can’t the religious reach any kind of consensus about what their Gods want?Even locally, in America - Why can’t the thousands of different versions of equally sincere Christians reach any kind of consensus about what their Gods want?Is Divine communication really so incompetent that the only thing sincere Christians can agree on is that they like Jesus?All of the evidence tells us that there is nothing else that sincere Christians agree on.Nothing.Essentially, religion is the impediment to morality, cooperation, and peace.Science requires morality and cooperation. You find scientists advocating for peace, even though war would bring much more money to research.Vaccines are probably the safest and most effective medical intervention we have. At their best, they eliminate the need for the vaccine. In what other field do people work to put themselves out of business?When have religious preachers worked to put themselves out of business?.