Post #5,063
8/14/01 1:17:33 PM
|
Disconnect
You're right to run around naked with a chicken strapped to your head is granted under "..liberty, and the persuit of happiness" (for strange definitions of 'happy', I guess :)
Brandioch's right to his own image is far more tenous because it bumps up against "Freedom Of The Press" and maybe "Freedom Of Speech" which are already defined rights in law. (Probably also "Liberty" as in the right of the photographer to do what he wants, as long as he's not breaking any law)
So until a law comes about that grants a person the right to not be photographed, that expressed right falls against already espablished legally granted rights
Jay O'Connor
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #5,064
8/14/01 1:21:19 PM
|
and Clarification
Personally, for moral and ethical reason, I don't think people should be photographed without their permission. I'm not arguing that it should be ok. However there is a difference between what is 'right' in my eyes and what "rights" a person has, and the second involves legal issues as well, amd I don't think Brandioch has the legal position to claim what he feels is his moral right
Jay O'Connor
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #5,069
8/14/01 1:53:59 PM
|
Cough. That's Declaration of Independence...
not Bill of Rights. The Declaration, as nice as it is, isn't a document of the Government of the United States. (Hell, it was written before the Articles.) However, I think you'll find that Admendment 4 suits your needs. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
|
Post #5,084
8/14/01 2:41:45 PM
|
Not really.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Notice the explicitness of that.
Now, even assuming that's being more literal than was intendend.. it doesn't approach the problem here - that of public images (and their storage/retrieval/use).
If you walk down the street, and have something illegal in your pocket, there must be that said probable cause to search you. If you walk down the street with something illegal in your hand - no such probable cause is needed (the sight is all that is needed).
Thereupon lies the big difference. The 4th is talking about the protection of private property. This issue is where are the limits of data collection, of someone in public.
(For instance, that's why the thermal imagers were tossed out on 4th amendment grounds - they were used to penetrate into the houses, without warrent)
Addison
|
Post #5,088
8/14/01 2:45:52 PM
|
Umm..actually....
I *thought* he was saying that the fourth amendment gives you the right to run around naked with a chicken on your head....
Jay O'Connor
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #5,093
8/14/01 2:51:14 PM
|
Errr. He was?
|
Post #5,100
8/14/01 2:59:07 PM
|
Yeah...
...go back to [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5060|Don's post] He was talking about running around...etc.. I replied saying that his behavior was probably protected as a right to "liberty, and the persuit of happiness". Simon countered that I was quoting from the Dec. Of Independence, which was not a legal document, but went on to say that the proper reference was porbably the 4th amendment.
I thought he meant that as an alternative to what I said, in defense of of the naked chicken running
Jay O'Connor
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #5,101
8/14/01 3:00:24 PM
|
Oh.
Well, in that case I misunderstood. :)
Sorry 'bout that.
Addison
|
Post #5,112
8/14/01 3:15:34 PM
|
NCRs unite!
All naked chicken runners are better than clothed chicken runners and we deserve recognition, awards and free coupons entitling us to half off at any participating vendor.
"When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
|
Post #5,153
8/14/01 4:23:40 PM
|
There's a flag on that play.
"Brandioch's right to his own image is far more tenous because it bumps up against "Freedom Of The Press" and maybe "Freedom Of Speech" which are already defined rights in law."
Jay is using references that were "illegal" and crafted by "criminals".
"So until a law comes about that grants a person the right to not be photographed, that expressed right falls against already espablished legally granted rights"
Okay, so, until England recognized the colonies "right" to form a nation, they had no such right.
Again, rights usually aren't lost via revolution, but that is the way they are usually regained.
|
Post #5,156
8/14/01 4:33:23 PM
|
Pick the flag up
Again, rights usually aren't lost via revolution, but that is the way they are usually regained.
No kidding. Until those with the power to ignore your rights recognize and respect those rights, you don't really have them in any meaningful way because you can't express them. Sometimes you have to kick them in the teeth to make them recognize your rights. I could say "I have the right to shoot every third person who drives past my house", but there are those who would deny me that right, and have the power to do so, so my expression of that right is meaningless
Okay, so, until England recognized the colonies "right" to form a nation, they had no such right.
Legally? No Morally? Yes
Is the distinction sinking in yet?
Very few revolutions are 'legally' right because they are revolutions against the current legally system. They may be morally right based on local definitions of morality
Jay O'Connor
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #5,157
8/14/01 4:33:33 PM
|
Others have stated it more elegantly
"We hold these truths to be self-evident...
...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
"
Did anyone notice that part that reads "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"?
I do not consent to have my image recorded while in public without my express permission.
The whole concept of these public recording devices linked to face recognition software and stored in permanent databases stinks to high heaven. If you can't see how it is incompatible with that nice bit of prose quoted up top, I feel for you.
"When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
|
Post #5,163
8/14/01 4:54:08 PM
|
Not sure who you are talking to...
Did anyone notice that part that reads "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"?
Yes, that's why I've been using terms like "Community" and "those with the power.." because, to me, the government *should be* an extension of the will of the community of people gathered together. In an ideal world, the community bforms the government, whom governs the people of the community according to the will of the community. That doesn't usually happen. And sometimes you get bullies and tyrants who do not derive their powers from consent but derive their unjust powers from might.
The whole concept of these public recording devices linked to face recognition software and stored in permanent databases stinks to high heaven. If you can't see how it is incompatible with that nice bit of prose quoted up top, I feel for you.
I agree. But it's an interesting journey between what is wrong and what is a right and I've been more focused on the quanderies of the journey itself
Jay O'Connor
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #5,178
8/14/01 5:59:53 PM
|
The journey is the destination.
Without understanding why something is "right" or "right" or "right", how can you tell whether something is "wrong"?
And the only way to tell is to watch yourself as you go from one to the other.
Core values and beliefs.
|
