Aaqgs-recognized-dilemma opt-in versus opt-out

O

other view -

Solving the Opt-in/Opt-out Debate, Privacy Article | Inc.com

Conventionally, liberal side of the issue favors opt_in while conservatives prefer opt-out. What is meant is semantics of people who have not bothered to specify are assumed to have voted in the negation in opt_in, affirmatively in opt-out. Specification is generally hard. A simple abuse philosophy in opt-out is to invent a new method for every new transaction. Then you can claim on every complaint that bothering would never recur. Most people suffer from a second problem – address of agency is not known, nor is how they decode shut requests! How do you terminate the menace of telephone sales and browser hijack?
Consider telephonic sales. If you have explicitly forbidden calls, then they will not be made in opt_out, otherwise they can be made. Opt-out has the difficult problem of locating the forbidding database and meeting its requirements. It is very difficult to implement in opt-in, For many valid targets NEVER bother to sign up in equally difficult opt-in circumstances. Another big issue is impossibility of distinguishing between genuine errors and error-excuse destruction of opt-in.
The first aaqgs-comment is gross stupidity of deciding any issue by ideology. One might devote a small time otherwise, and decide by ideology anyway! But fundamental to aaqgs-belief is that all ideologies are applicable to small subsets of problems and it pays to have some discriminant function between ideologies that reduces to ideology in relevant extreme. This is true in ALL aaqgs-recognized-dilemma that the choice is pissed on stupidity of ideological answer and construction of the interpolation that reduces to ideologies in extreme. It requires brains, readers should try interpolation between the two options before reading on.
The first no-no is to come up with any complex solution that requires government servants or lawyers. These are simply the private-public version of same unproductive philosophical stupidity that serves to destroy productivity.
Fundamental to aaqgs-philosophy is error-free constitution, achieved whenever. For this purpose, the highest principles are

0. aaqqgs-philosophy explicitly recognizes conflicting parties of aaqgs-players. It is a document on rules of non-violent conflict. Once exhausted, only violent conflict remains.No ideology which considers violent conflict as legitimate can be an aaqgs-player.

1. There are rights and duties. No one deficient in duties can argue for rights.
   
2. The rights and duties must be textually enumerated. This is to prevent a party from imposing impossible burdens on adversaries. This does not imply the existence of undocumented duties. They can not be be used in current conflict but maybe incorporated for future conflicts. Professional judges are crucial in that they expand the law while delivering equitable judgement on current case.
   
3. The preferred aaqgs-solution is to invent a continuous measure which can be measured transparently and whose value decides the degree of closeness of ideological points. In case above, one must have opt-in-ishness-chooser which leans to opt_in when 1 and opt_out when 0. There is a very simple continuous numerical function obtained by analogy to grades – percent of population below and above. One extreme is nice multi-modes corresponding to grades. Other is a uniform distribution when interval schemes have to be used. In either case, depending on philosophy, an optin-ishness-chooser can be constructed. In fact, crime convictions are no longer digital 1 or 0, instead better done as percent of jury convinced above a threshold of clean chit that the convict is considered liable for. Death penalty can be abolished if what happens to a convict after such conviction, is no longer justifiable but left to the state including corporal punishment. Death penalty should not be considered as punishment but as a cessation of judicial protection on application with the thereafter treatment entirely political! Such convicts can be executed, used as mine-canary, drug-study-victims organ-sources etc, or simply life imprisoned based on political votes of others. As always, there is a popular democratic choice which is decides, never any intellectual moron which ALL are against the dynamic will of the people. Both aacqgs-religion and aaqgs-philosothy (i.e. ethics and law) are aaqgs-dynamic and different from ALL OTHERS up to this point which are condemned to be static and eternal in theory, while not so in practice through transparent lying, reinterpretation and sect-formation; three unpardonable sins aaqgs-free from now and forever.
   
4. Neither judgements can be delivered based on analogy, nor can argumentation be made by analogy, the parties in both cases must be either successfully master or be fired.
   

Security is the zeroth and highest aacqs-goal. That being so, one can safely assume its use to justify anything and describe its invocation by competition as politically motivated non-sense. Essen
It is the highest aaqgs goal to design popular vote answers where the will of members can be applied in a democratic manner without aaqgs-hard barriers implementation which constrains the future to a path. This can, however, be done by allowing irreversible steps now but only allowed by courts. For rapid pronouncements, the supreme court is of life-long tenure and insulated from cases of individuals, more like an administrative court with appointments from the high courts by repeated direct elections, giving it the flavor of judicial senate, and also popular removal every few years. It is this that prevents dictatorship and arbitrariness.
Second highest goal is efficiency. A society with high rates of growth