That is a clearly a semantic simplification. All rights are conditional, the "right to one's own work" is conditional on the "right of others work not to impede on one's own work". From this alone you can see the contradiction and realise that rights are a compromise of different interests. From there we're just arguing about who can wield what force to enforce what rights. Perhaps it's not in my best interest not to be the sole source of force in the world but it's certainly in others.

> "right of others work not to impede on one's own work"

That is not a right. As I said there is only one right, or only one that matters: the right to your own thoughts, to your mind's work, that is the work I was talking about.

Everything else is not a right, at least not if we are gonna be true to the word. If it's dependent on others is not a right. If it's conditional to other people's whims is not a right. If it needs the entire legal establishment and an army to enforce it is not a right. Rights in the constitution are not "rights" per se but obligations from the government to its citizens, as in you have the right* to procure it from the government, whatever it might be.

If you need to ask for permission is not a right.

What nonsense. Apple is a business, it has no right to participate in the economy - it has to follow the rules.

Which is exactly what they've been doing.

That isn't the same as:

   What there is none is the "right" for governments to claim ownership to other's work and dictate you must do what your own free will tells you is not on your best interest

which is the post I replied to;

The law absolutely dictates the rules, which may or may not contradict your own free-will e.g. paying taxes, abiding by copyright etc.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people on HN rush to defent the 'rights' of a fictional entity at the cost of their own.

My work and private data is stored on apples's systems, so either it's my rights to do as I please or their's.

Your work data is not something within your own rights to do as you please with it, it is that of your employer.

Your private data is something within your own rights to do as you please with it, which gives you a choice of whether you want to store it on apple's systems or on someone else's systems or on the local systems that you personally own.

'My work' is a collective term for all products of my efforts, from official employment to sex tapes. Apple is not privy to the various rights and claims on it.

Now, what are you even arguing? Once i out data on an apple computer they can do whatever they want? If I but an iPhone is it still not a 'local system I personally own'? Do they have to respect my data, or do they not have to follow the law?

>'My work' is a collective term for all products of my efforts, from official employment to sex tapes

If your sex tapes are included as a part of your "work data", what would you count as your "private data" then?

Not trying to argue anything in particular, I am just genuinely curious at this point.

>Once i out data on an apple computer they can do whatever they want?

Nope, only things you agreed to in Terms of Usage that do not go against the law. Added that detail at the end because yes, I am aware that ToU do not override laws, and just because you put something in there doesn't necessarily mean that it is legal.

>Now, what are you even arguing?

Your earlier comment said "I store my data in apple's systems, is it my right to do with it as I please or theirs?", and that's what I was addressing. You have the right to do as you please with it, which manifests in your ability to NOT use Apple's systems for your data storage, unless you are satisfied with their Terms of Usage. If you decide to use their systems for that, you are agreeing on the ground rules with them which are outlined in ToU.

If you don't like it stop storing your data in Apple's systems. Why do you keep doing what you are against?