IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Oh, come ON. He didn't say PEOPLE couldn't look.
It is recorded, stored images that are the problem AND what are being discussed, here.

Why do you confuse "looking" with recording, storing, and even processing?

More and more, I DO see you as advocating monitoring of all citizenry in public.

Or is this just "the right room for an argument"?

Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait

  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
New No, you come on and read what he did say.
He said *he* had the arbitrary decision on who and what could capture his image.

Did he not?

That means a camera - or an eyeball.

He's taken that as his "right"

Go back and read what he said. He "owns" his image, and can decide on a case-by-case basis what he will ALLOW to view the radiation that reflects from him.

Why do you confuse "looking" with recording, storing, and even processing?

I'm not confused.

Because the ISSUE is whether you have any ability to protect your IMAGE in public.

Since you don't currently - AND if you want to set them up, you have to denote the DIFFERENCES - that's the entire point!

There IS no difference (or if there is, explain it).

Currently the discussion is your image, on a city street. Whether its seen by you, a cop, or a camera is irrelevant. That's the issue. Image. Not storage. Not data collection. Because if you CAN'T protect it, then you can't stop the data collection/storage (Without addressing that in new legislation).

Image. Brandioch says that HE owns it.

Bullshit.

More and more, I DO see you as advocating monitoring of all citizenry in public.

(thanks for at least not saying that I'm trying to put cameras into homes).

Nope. I don't like it.

But *my point* is that the image capturing isn't stoppable by any current law. Nor is the data collection or storage prohibited by any part of the Constitution, or state law.

I merely am pointing out the problems with attacking said cameras with some concept that the law will toss out immediately - or with a concept that will render all cameras illegal..

Addison
New Cameras != eyeballs.
Nice try.

We've been over this in the original thread.

No, I cannot stop someone from looking at me. All I can do is to stop them from recording my image.

"Because the ISSUE is whether you have any ability to protect your IMAGE in public."

Yes. That is the issue.

"Since you don't currently - AND if you want to set them up, you have to denote the DIFFERENCES - that's the entire point!"

Recordings. Non-human recordings. Like with "cameras". As I've said only about a hundred times in these threads.

"There IS no difference (or if there is, explain it). "

Simple, the camera can record my image to be displayed to others.

You memory cannot.

Why is that an important distinction?

Let's take one very specific example.

Because photographic evidence is LEGAL evidence.

Whereas your picture you painted from scenes you witnessed IS NOT!

"Currently the discussion is your image, on a city street."

True.

"Whether its seen by you, a cop, or a camera is irrelevant."

Not true. Very not true. The cop can see me. But the cop cannot record my image.

"That's the issue."

No it is not. This entire discussion has been about CAMERAS.

It STARTED with the CAMERAS that were TRACKING SPEEDERS.

If you will recall that, I said there was no problem with cops tracking speeders. Only the cameras doing it was the problem.

"Image. Not storage. Not data collection."

No, the issue is STORAGE. Because your mind CANNOT store data in a format that others can view.

Privacy.

"Because if you CAN'T protect it, then you can't stop the data collection/storage (Without addressing that in new legislation)."

You know, I have hope that ONE DAY you will UNDERSTAND that our CURRENT LAWS do not cover this.

Gee, that means we need NEW LEGISLATION.

I wonder why I haven't brought that point up yet?

Gee, I guess I have. Only about a million times.

But you've still managed to miss it. Over and over and over and over again.

"Image. Brandioch says that HE owns it."

Yes he does.

"Bullshit."

Cows do too, but they don't get any credit.

"But *my point* is that the image capturing isn't stoppable by any current law."

One day. One day.

One day, maybe.

One day, possibly.

Maybe, one day.

You will read my previous posts and find that I've already addressed this issue.

"Nor is the data collection or storage prohibited by any part of the Constitution, or state law."

One day. Maybe.

As I've already pointed out. The Constitution didn't have to address this because there weren't efficient means for capturing a person's image.

"I merely am pointing out the problems with attacking said cameras with some concept that the law will toss out immediately - or with a concept that will render all cameras illegal.."

Again, as I've pointed out. Thousands of rounds of ammunition are fired each day from legally possessed firearms. And there isn't a problem.

Oh, that's right. You can't make your point without resorting to this same old strawman.

Whatever.
New Actually
No, I cannot stop someone from looking at me. All I can do is to stop them from recording my image

Currently, legally and technically, you can do neither.

Don't like it...change the law... But baring that you should say "I should be able to stop people from recording my image", not "can do"


Because photographic evidence is LEGAL evidence.

Whereas your picture you painted from scenes you witnessed IS NOT!


but my eyewitness testimony *is* LEGAL evidence
Jay O'Connor

"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
New Already addressed in your previous post.
"Currently, legally and technically, you can do neither."

Yep.

"legal" == "right"

Thanks for your participation.
New yawn
Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, intentional homonym confusion doen't get you anywhere

But just for grins, you say you can stop it. I'm curious how you think you can currently, technically. Otherwise you're just living in a fantasy where what you want to happen has already happened
Jay O'Connor

"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
New Re: yawn
Otherwise you're just living in a fantasy where what you want to happen has already happened

That seems to sum up his counters quite concisely.

Addison
New It's called "reading with comprehension".
"But just for grins, you say you can stop it. I'm curious how you think you can currently, technically. Otherwise you're just living in a fantasy where what you want to happen has already happened"

Hmmmm, did you miss the part where I said that this wasn't a CURRENT law?

Did you?

Is it even REMOTELY possible that you missed ALL of my posts where I said that this was not a CURRENT law?

Well, if you didn't miss those posts, why is it that you STILL don't understand that I realize it is NOT a CURRENT law?

I've SPECIFICALLY stated MULTIPLE times that I REALIZE IT IS NOT A CURRENT LAW.

There, I've even done it again. Specifically directed at YOU.

Now, for some reason, I have the feeling that you're NOT going to be able to grasp that rather simple statement.

I don't believe in Santa Clause.

I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.

I don't believe this is a current law.

So. If it is not a CURRENT law, but it is a RIGHT that is inherent in every person, what do we do?

Hmmmmmmmmm.

What do we do?

It seems an impossible situation.

How do you handle a current right that is not recognized by the current authority?

Well. You've got me stumped there.

I really have no idea how to handle that.

I guess my position is fatally flawed.

I guess I was wrong all along.

You two are right.
New Whoa! Here's a radical thought!
I was thinking over it and I thought back to the other examples I had posted and I thought....

Well, you know how I was talking about people freeing slaves when it was illegal?

And how the US revolution was illegal?

Well, I was thinking, why no do something like they did?

Why not continue doing what I believe is right AND get the law changed?

Is that fucking radical or what?

Now, I'd still be a "criminal", but the rights I have inherent would be recognized by the authorities.

Gee, I don't know WHY I didn't think of that sooner.
New Been waiting for that one
I was curious when you would put all the pieces together.

If...rights are only expressable through the whim of those in power to grant or deny your expression of them.

and if there is a difference between moral righteousness and legal rights

and if you think a morally righteous thing should be a legal right

Then the only two morally right courses of action are a) legal change and b) civil disobedience. (and I mentioned a) a long time ago and b) not too long ago also )

Jay O'Connor

"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
Expand Edited by Fearless Freep Aug. 14, 2001, 04:56:03 PM EDT
New I was much older then, I'm younger than that now.
"I was curious when you would put all the pieces together."

I was hoping for better, but it was just a silly hope.

"If...rights are only expressable through the whim of those in power to grant or deny your expression of them."

No. All that the government can do is to facilitate their expression or punish their expression.

"and if there is a difference between moral righteousness and legal rights"

Yes, there is.

"and if you think a morally righteous thing should be a legal right"

That would be ideal.

"Then the only two morally right courses of action are a) legal change and b) civil disobedience. (and I mentioned a) a long time ago and b) not too long ago also )"

Hmmmmmm, why don't you try doing a search on my postings about painting cameras?

Then check the dates on those posts.

Today, you arrived at "civil disobedience" as a means to achieve my goals.

Which was my original posting, many many many moons ago.

New because
Which was my original posting, many many many moons ago.

If you look at my first post to you you said

"You cannot photograph me.

You cannot film me."

and I merely pointed out that I could indeed photgraph and film you currently, technically, legally. I didn't care if you would use civil disobedience or try to change the law. My only point is that you say "cannot" to what is currently very much a "can". and it's your use of a verb tense to insist that *right now* it cannot be done when what you really seem to mean is that yuo wish it couldn't be done or you'd like it not to be done or wouldn't it be nice if it wasn't done or whatever you really mean, your statement is wrong. That was it
Jay O'Connor

"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
New You cannot shoot me.
You cannot stab me.

You cannot kick me.

You cannot beat me with a stick.

Ah, you think. But I can. I can't do it legally, but I can still do it.

And, under the correct circumstances, I can even do it legally.

Context, Jay. Context.
New Too bad the posting lacks said same.
Hmmmm, did you miss the part where I said that this wasn't a CURRENT law?
Did you?


Nope.

Nor did I miss how you've stated it as the current case for weeks now.

Are you retracting all of those? (including all of those implied sighs and "will we have to do this all over again"?)

Cause.. either its one, or its the other.

Well, if you didn't miss those posts, why is it that you STILL don't understand that I realize it is NOT a CURRENT law?

Because until your posts about an hour ago - you've spoken as that it IS.

Of course, our reading comprehension is exceeded only by our memory.

Addison
New No kidding
Hmmmm, did you miss the part where I said that this wasn't a CURRENT law?

Nope, and that was my point. I said you couldn't currently legally or technically do what you claimed to be able to do (and yes, your use of language, especially present tense verb sense, was a direct claim that you could stop it *now*)

Since you disagreed with me saying that you couldn't do it, I assumed that meant you think you can do it, so I asked how. Since you come back and say you can't do it legally currently, you've just agreed with my original point that you couldn't do it legally currently. Thank you

Here's the process...a bit slower

Brandioch:All I can do is to stop them from recording my image.

Jay: Currently, legally and technically, you can do neither.

Brandioch: "legal" == "right"

Jay: I'm curious how you think you can currently, technically.

Brandioch: Hmmmm, did you miss the part where I said that this wasn't a CURRENT law?


Notice that your last line says the the same as my first?

Incidentally, I asked how you could do it *technically* because I figured you might willing to break the law in a exercise of civil disobediance to claim your right. Now you have no technical answer and throw your hands up about the legal issue so your first statement, "All I can do..." is wrong, because you can't technically, yuo can't legally, and you are unwilling, at least based on this post, to cross the legal line. If you change the law in the future, maybe you can say uit, but as of now, *you* can't.

And if you are unable to cross the line of legality to exercies you're right....do you really believe it?
Jay O'Connor

"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
New Not currently.
And Jay already handled most of it.

All I can do is to stop them from recording my image.

No, you can't.

You are saying that since you can't STOP me from looking at you, you can't prevent it. Well, you can't stop me from taping you then. Same thing.

You're setting up a distinction. You say you own your image, except for..

No, it doesn't work that way. If you want it to, you have to go change the law for that effect. Because right now, Cameras=Eyeballs.

Simple, the camera can record my image to be displayed to others.
You memory cannot.


Again. Your distinction/choice.

Which implies that you also have the choice to prevent others from looking at you.

You know, I have hope that ONE DAY you will UNDERSTAND that our CURRENT LAWS do not cover this.

Reality Check: That's been my point, from day one.

I'm not the one claiming that they do. Or that I can do something illegal.

You are.

So until you get back to reality.. How about leave the insults at home.

Addison
Expand Edited by addison Aug. 14, 2001, 03:16:21 PM EDT
New There is a distinction. BTW, have they even worked?
If we're going to talk abstractions for a second, there is a difference in that we generally limit the government to those actions that we permit them, not to what they can get away with. We permit police certain exceptions not available to the normal citizen, such as (generally) protection from false arrest lawsuits and permission to deadly force in some circumstances. We permit the government to levy taxes but not unequivocably (and if you live in Tennessee, you protest if the government tries to give itself too much power).

I think the Tampa cameras are a police "oh gee isn't technology wonderful" power grab. Now that may not mean they can't get away with it, but I would hope there would be more public pressure against it.

Speaking of the Tampa cameras, have they even worked? The only time I've heard of someone even being questioned was the mis-identification of the construction worker, and that wasn't even the Faceit process. *If* the process is as they are claiming (identiification of criminals), they should at least trot out a few successful arrests. If they can't point to any, then arguably either the software doesn't work (and they should stop wasting their time), or they aren't using the cameras as they are supposed to be used (going back to the "get to play with computers and technology" argument as being the primary purpose of the system, not arresting criminals.)
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
New Not in this context, and I don't know.
Right now, what you can see, you can record. Restricting what you can record in public view) is, with few exceptions, both at the same time.

If something is Top Secret, you don't let people see it. Not just try and keep them from photographing it.

Same as walking down the street. Nothing legally stops anyone from taking your picture, other than polite convention (and some laws that are somewhat specific in their implementation).

So for the police to video what is in public isn't unprecedended, nor, in my opinion, is it a grave injustice, or illegal.

Saving said tapes and data isn't either. And if you want to prevent either of the above, you'll need new laws to change either or both of those equvilances. (But thanks for coming around to my way of thinking after a couple weeks, Brandioch, I was starting to give up).

I don't know if the Tampa police were doing anything as motivated as a tech grab - more likely, they HAD the cameras, why not see how they work?

But when a system is being put together, I don't object to some time to get things sorted out (when death isn't on the line).

You're right about the limits to government. But capturing images in public is rather well-established and has been for some time.

Building a database of said images, well, the implications of that worry me. But the way to solve that isn't to insist that they "can't do it", but to see how we can prevent them from doing it.

Addison
New That only has one solution
Building a database of said images, well, the implications of that worry me. But the way to solve that isn't to insist that they "can't do it", but to see how we can prevent them from doing it.

And how would you suggest doing that, short of just not going to Tampa? (Or other cities with databases of images.)
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
New Thanks for your participation.
"Not currently."

Thank you. Now if you don't mind, I have to go buy some more niggers to work my plantation.

"legal" == "right"
New I've gravely mistaken...
Your character.

I had presumed that you were very strongly based in logic, and fact, and the here and now.

Are you that incapable of understanding the concept of *time*?

"legal" == "right"

As opposed to "What Brandioch things == right, and screw anybody in his way?"

I'll take legal, over that, anyday.

Cause you see - that's the sort of thinking that CAUSED slavery, and many of the worlds other ills.

But of course, that was THEN. This is NOW. And tomorrow will be the FUTURE, and you can't even manage to distinguish in your posts between them.

(Gee, and we had to be able to do that to get out of 3rd grade? And people talk about *South Carolina* schools).

Addison
New Because you don't agree with me does not make me wrong.
"I had presumed that you were very strongly based in logic, and fact, and the here and now."

Again, your statements are partially right and partially wrong. That's why I break my up as I do.

I am strongly based in logic (as far as that can go).

But I am not strongly based in the here and now.

Because the here and now is not the past, nor is it the future. I thought I had made that concept clear but I guess not.

"Cause you see - that's the sort of thinking that CAUSED slavery, and many of the worlds other ills."

Yep.

And the REST of the world's ills were/are caused by the belief that "legal" == "right".

It's called "freedom".

I've covered that in my other posts.

It is a right that cannot be taken away.

The right to do what you BELIEVE is right.

The consequences will vary from government to government and from time to time.

But the RIGHT is always there.

Inherent in the individual.

All that the LEGAL SYSTEM can do is PUNISH the individual AFTER s/he exercises his/her RIGHTS.

Which is why we now have heros who freed slaves before it was LEGAL to do so.

As I've pointed out. Those "criminals" are todays "heros".

The rights are inherent in the individual.

All the government can do is use force after the fact.

It's a very scary concept and one that lots of people try to hide from.

Again, trading freedom for security while deserving neither.

The freedoms you're exercising now were won by people willing to die to secure them for you.

People who rejected the law of their government.

People who wrote their own laws and formed their own government.

Criminals.

Traitors.

Heros.

Our "then" was their "here and now".

Remember that.

Then tell me that they were "right" or "wrong" for breaking the law.
New Nope, it doesn't.
However, your inability to properly use tenses DOES.

I am strongly based in logic (as far as that can go).

Not when you state, as a matter of fact for the now, something that does not exist now, and might not ever.

Then tell me that they were "right" or "wrong" for breaking the law.

I've already dealt with this many times.

I didn't say that at all. I said that its a slippery slope when you start breaking the law. I said that currently I can't think of a good justification for such.

I have pointed out the obvious problems with solutions you've offered.

The freedoms you're exercising now were won by people willing to die to secure them for you.

Except they didn't argue that what they needed to do existed - they said they needed to make it so.

The right to do what you BELIEVE is right.

Like I said. Slippery slope. Abortion bombers. Murderers "But it was right to do that".

Our "then" was their "here and now".
Remember that.


*I* (unlike you) haven't forgotten that. I haven't mixed up my tenses and my times.

*I* have *always* said that it is not currently against the law - and said law must be changed if that worries you.

I just saw that from you today.

Addison
New And man will never fly.
"Not when you state, as a matter of fact for the now, something that does not exist now, and might not ever."

I have not done that.

I have stated that I have the inherent right not to be photographed without my permission.

I do not have the legal backing of the government for that.

I have stated that I will take whatever actions, even illegal ones, to ensure that my inherent rights are not infringed upon.

"I didn't say that at all. I said that its a slippery slope when you start breaking the law. I said that currently I can't think of a good justification for such."

Yep. It is slippery.

And very scary.

Again, trading freedom for security while deserving neither.

I can think of a good reason to break the law. You don't agree. And somehow society continues.

"I have pointed out the obvious problems with solutions you've offered."

No you haven't. You've offered strawmen about cameras being outlawed (which I've countered with guns being legal).

You claimed that every wacko would use this as a basis for breaking the law. I've agreed. That is a price of freedom.

"Except they didn't argue that what they needed to do existed - they said they needed to make it so."

No. They said that those rights EXISTED. They merely codified the rights that were already there. Then they went to fight those who wanted to infringe upon those rights.

"Like I said. Slippery slope. Abortion bombers. Murderers "But it was right to do that"."

Freedom.....Security.....Deserving neither.

The price of freedom.

"*I* have *always* said that it is not currently against the law - and said law must be changed if that worries you."

And my point is that there isn't any requirement for me to follow a wrong law.

I've never said that I would have it changed.

But I don't have to wait for it to be changed.
New So after 2 weeks...
You're now telling me exactly what I started off saying.

(That its not the law now, and its a slippery slope when people decide to take the law into their own hands).


And you're insulting *my* intelligence?

"Not when you state, as a matter of fact for the now, something that does not exist now, and might not ever."

I have not done that.


Yes, you have. You have stated that you *own* your image, and you *can* prevent someone from capturing it.

Today (I think, I'd have to check, but yesterday or today), no less. Before your sudden conversion.


But you don't.

You might in the future - but that's not what you were saying for the last while. That was only today that you began berating other people for "not reading" what you posted today, rather than what you posted prior.

Um.

And you're insulting.... why?

Addison
New And the loop starts again.
"Yes, you have. You have stated that you *own* your image, and you *can* prevent someone from capturing it."

Yes. I am saying that. I've been saying that all along.

Because I believe that the rights are inherent in the individual whether or not the government recognizes them.

So, whether I own my image or not does not depend upon whether the government thinks I own my image or not.

My rights exist whether the government confirms them or not.

The government cannot take my rights away, only punish me for exercising them.

And so on and on and on and on.

Now, as to the concept of CONTEXT.

No. I cannot stop someone from photographing me.

Anymore than you can stop someone from murdering you.

Yet the common usage of the language would be "you cannot murder people".

So, can I murder you?

Yes or no.
New I can but hope that you really don't think this way.
Yes. I am saying that. I've been saying that all along.

But yesterday you berated and insulted and belittled when that was attributed to you.

Because I believe that the rights are inherent in the individual whether or not the government recognizes them.

That's a philisophical debating point. If you'd like to, that's fine.

But when you say "I have this right", and its not supported by anybody but yourself, then that's usually considered to be wrong.

If you say "The government should recognize this right"... But we've been over this.

You're (at best) misusing English on purpose. At worst, you can't tell the difference yourself.

You're confusing "right" with "ability". In any country in the world, you have the ability to do many things. What the government recognises is another story. What they're constrained from doing is yet another.

In theory, the USSR had freedom of speech. The "right" was right there in black and white. But it wasn't respected by the government, I think, needless to say. So did it "exist?"

The Bill of Rights enumerates some of the rights that were considered so basic, that any government who did not respect them/recognise them was invalid.

My rights exist whether the government confirms them or not.

Again, IN THAT SYSTEM, then everything is OK, because "right" is defined by each and every person.

Completely unworkable.

Just like your asseration that you can permit/deny people from looking at you (which you asserted you could, since you have explicit and exclusive rights to reflected radiation).

The government cannot take my rights away, only punish me for exercising them.

I don't think you understand the concept of "Right" in this context.

But *in your construct*, then everything everybody does is because of their "right" to it. Murder. Rape. Robbery. Genocide.

They've got a "right" to it.


Um.

Which is completely nonsensical.

I'll let you loop the loop and continue with this mental masturbation.. I'll just note that as of yesterday, you were berating people for not noticing that you said exactly what I said weeks ago...

And.. you're.. still.....arguing...

Have fun on the ride.

Um, I guess its your "right" to do that.

Addison
New Sorry. You ARE authoritarian.
when you say "I have this right", and its not supported by anybody but yourself, then that's usually considered to be wrong.

So - unless government grants you a right, you don't have it?

I can but hope that you really don't think this way.

In any country in the world, you have the ability to do many things. What the government recognises is another story. What they're constrained from doing is yet another.


"Everything not illegal is compulsory. Everything not compulsory is illegal".

I can but hope that you really don't think this way.

Again, IN THAT SYSTEM, then everything is OK, because "right" is defined by each and every person.

Completely unworkable.


So - since the government hasn't defined whether I have a right to do "X", I have no right to do "X"? Rights depend on whether the government decides/defines "X", or that system is "Completely unworkable"?

I can but hope that you really don't think this way.

which you asserted you could, since you have explicit and exclusive rights to reflected radiation


No. He didn't say that. You simply refuse to admit that recording devices, dossiers, and publication are any different than direct observation.

I can but hope that you really don't think this way.












Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait

  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
New However, I do have the ability to read and understand.
when you say "I have this right", and its not supported by anybody but yourself, then that's usually considered to be wrong.

So - unless government grants you a right, you don't have it?

Nope.

Didn't say that.

What *did* I say?

If you say something diametrically opposed to what EVERYBODY ELSE says and thinks, that's "usually considered to be wrong".

I'd have thought that to be self-evident.... but....

So - since the government hasn't defined whether I have a right to do "X", I have no right to do "X"? Rights depend on whether the government decides/defines "X", or that system is "Completely unworkable"?

Brandioch has claimed that he has the right to put your eyes out.

He has claimed he has EVERY RIGHT HE WANTS.

No external validation.

No constraints.

But they can put him in jail (somehow, I don't think he understands the concept of "rights') for exercising them. This is what he said. Talk to him about it. Stop telling me its not what he said. Peter certainly noticed what he said. Read the post above his reply.

which you asserted you could, since you have explicit and exclusive rights to reflected radiation

No. He didn't say that. You simply refuse to admit that recording devices, dossiers, and publication are any different than direct observation.

Learn to read.

If you can't, call 1-800-ABCDEFG. They'll send you helpful tapes.

He did say exactly that.

Go find it. That's EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID. He owns the rights to his image and HE CAN ARBITRARILY DECIDE WHO CAN VIEW IT.

And not only do I *not* "refuse to admit" the difference, I've MENTIONED IT SEVERAL TIMES. Click on the top post here. (After you get the helpful tapes). Read and see where I mention this on several occasions. See where I say that.. Oh, hell, why bother. This would presume you actually were PAYING ATTENTION.

So much easier to just scream and be reactionary.

I can but hope that you really don't think this way.

When you don't bother to read, I don't really care. I care about people's opinion who pay attention, and read.


Addison
New I'm not sure that's true.
Many of us deem that we have inalienable rights (those already enumerated and most.. not yet so). We would deem this, whatever the Constitution said; fortunately it also agrees - even provides a Rx for such time as our government should ever forget it.

Your consistent POV is the assertion and reassertion that: we haven't. We haven't 'rights' until this week's government list - enumerates such rights. Or last year's -- but never, next year's, in your mentation.

That's all: you wait for them to be 'allowed'. I and others know that the government is an imperfect, necessary institution - intended to ameliorate when disputes arise amongst the many and their interpretations.

Still and always: the rights inhere. The rest is only about managing their practical expression. It's a philosophical POV - the one this country was formed around.



Ashton
New Bullshit. Learn to use a dictionary.
Hell - if you don't own a dictionary, use [link|http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=Image|dictionary.com]

I'll cut and paste for you, though.

im\ufffdage
n.

1. A reproduction of the form of a person or object, especially a sculptured likeness.
2. Physics. An optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of an object, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror.
3. One that closely or exactly resembles another; a double: He is the image of his uncle.
4.
1. The opinion or concept of something that is held by the public.
2. The character projected to the public, as by a person or institution, especially as interpreted by the mass media.
5. A personification of something specified: That child is the image of good health.
6. A mental picture of something not real or present.
7.
1. A vivid description or representation.
2. A figure of speech, especially a metaphor or simile.
3. A concrete representation, as in art, literature, or music, that is expressive or evocative of something else: night as an image of death.
8. Mathematics. A set of values of a function corresponding to a particular subset of a domain.
9. Computer Science. An exact replica of the contents of a storage device, such as a hard disk, stored on a second storage device, such as a network server.
10. Obsolete. An apparition.


tr.v. im\ufffdaged, im\ufffdag\ufffding, im\ufffdag\ufffdes

1. To make or produce a likeness of: imaged the poet in bronze.
2. To mirror or reflect: a statue imaged in the water.
3. To symbolize or typify: a kneeling woman imaging the nation's grief.
4. To picture mentally; imagine.
5. To describe, especially so vividly as to evoke a mental picture of.
6. Computer Science.
1. To print (a file) using a laser printer, imagesetter, direct-to-plate press, or similar device.
2. To transmit (an exact replica of the contents of a storage device) to another storage device: imaged the hard drive to the server.
7. To render visually, as by magnetic resonance imaging.



Source: The American Heritage\ufffd Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright \ufffd 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


As to the rest, it's "govern"ment. Rights are regulated to allow people to live together succussfully, as in "my right to swing my fist ends at your nose". Do I have a right to free speech? I think so. Is it regulated? Yes. Is that a function of government and law? Yes. Is some compromise necessary to live with others that also want to execise thier rights? Yes. Tell me how this means that rights only exist when granted by some authority.

Further, I seem to remember his saying that 'civil disobedience' also means that one must be ready to pay the consequence - including going to jail. It seems to me that there is no misunderstanding of law and how behaviour is "governed" there.

And civil disobedience CAN in clude spray-painting cameras.

You, on the other hand, brook no disobedience to authority at all, it seems.

Such a "brave new world", that has such people in it!


Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait

  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
New Learn to read
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5048|[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5048|http://z.iwethey.or...ntentid=5048]]

Of course, I'm sure that you'll not read that, either.

You, on the other hand, brook no disobedience to authority at all, it seem.

Only to those too stupid to read.

Go back and read what I said 2 weeks ago on the subject.

At the start.

The exact same damn thing he JUST SAID YESTERDAY.

Damn, but I'm *good*.

Addison
New Good? At what?
You know how to code, no? Do you remember what substitution is? OK, since you didn't bother reading the definition that I so kindly provided you, we'll try substitution.

Since "image" is:
1. A reproduction of the form of a person or object, especially a sculptured likeness.
2. Physics. An optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of an object, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror.

for the purpose of your cite:
image="reproduction of my form, especially a sculptured likeness -or- my optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of myself, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror."

Now, let's substitue.

My [reproduction of my form, especially a sculptured likeness -or- my optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of myself, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror] is not public.

Even when I am in public.

My [reproduction of my form, especially a sculptured likeness -or- my optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of myself, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror] is my own.

I reserve all rights to my [reproduction of my form, especially a sculptured likeness -or- my optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of myself, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror].

You can look at me. (emphasis mine)

You cannot photograph me.

You cannot film me.


Now, you assert ([link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5298|here]) that he is saying that he has "explicit and exclusive rights to reflected radiation".

Bzzzzt. NOWHERE does he say that. In fact, he says EXPLICITLY that "You can look at me". Sure doesn't sound like he is saying he has "explicit and exclusive rights to reflected radiation".

Further, you become insulting to me when I say "You simply refuse to admit that recording devices, dossiers, and publication are any different than direct observation.", [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5329|here].

All because you (willfully?) don't know the meaning of the word "image".


Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait

  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Expand Edited by imric Aug. 15, 2001, 09:48:37 PM EDT
New howsabout we all chip in and Buy Addy a poloroid camera
and a round trip ticket to Kabul to nonchalantly take photo's of people in public. (sorry Addy medical and legal insueance is not covered) and while he celebrates his right to take pictures in public we can keep a team of mercenaries on standby to rescue him before he is stoned to death.
Now taking pictures in public kinda depends on which public you are in. Now I dont advocate stoning people to death for takin my picture, but under the freedom of religion claus you cannot take mine. (make no graven image)
thanx,
bill
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
New Re: Good? At what?
Do you remember what substitution is? OK, since you didn't bother reading the definition that I so kindly provided you, we'll try substitution.

He has claimed absolute and utter ownership of HIS IMAGE.

The implications of that, if not clear to you, I shouldn't pursue further.(but I guess I have to)

Further, you become insulting to me when I say "You simply refuse to admit that recording devices, dossiers, and publication are any different than direct observation.", here.

You mean, in reply to the insults directed at me? After for two weeks saying that if you want a difference you have to legislate said same?

I didn't say *I* didn't see a difference. I said that *legally* there wasn't, and trying to make those distinctions is splitting hairs, and is damn hard.

And I said that enough there SHOULDN'T be a problem understanding that. reading what OTHERS said I said, however...


All because you (willfully?) don't know the meaning of the word "image".

No, because I've pointed out the problem with (yesterday's) Brandioch (he's changed his tune today) statements that he OWNS his image, and has exclusive rights to it.

NOWHERE does he say that. In fact, he says EXPLICITLY that "You can look at me". Sure doesn't sound like he is saying he has "explicit and exclusive rights to reflected radiation".

BZZZT. According to his logic, he ALLOWS you to look at him - and he could change that.

Don't talk to ME about that - talk to him.

Oh, and anatomy note? You see an "image" on the back of your retina - after it goes through a lens.

There's no difference between that, and a 35 MM SLR, to that point.

Facts in the way. So how do you distinguish between them? I've been pointing out the problems with Brandioch's "solutions".

And your main point - that "You simply refuse to admit that recording devices, dossiers, and publication are any different than direct observation." isn't true. I HAVE stated that according to current laws, the are so close as not to be a problem.

Which unless you can prove otherwise, I'll stand by.

And that's what I've been saying for 2 weeks.

Currently, there is (essentially) no difference.

If you WANT there to be a difference, you should get the laws concering such changed, rather that just destroy things.

Addison
New Heh.. You__still__don't__ Get!__it__...____a-tall.
New Again, strawman.
"No, because I've pointed out the problem with (yesterday's) Brandioch (he's changed his tune today) statements that he OWNS his image, and has exclusive rights to it."

Because you want to misunderstand does not mean that I've changed my position.

"BZZZT. According to his logic, he ALLOWS you to look at him - and he could change that."

No. You are free to look at me. You are not free to take pictures of me.

We've been over this again and again and again.

But, because it is important to your position that I be the one who is making unreasonable demands here, you do not want to see the distinction.

You do not have the right (moral) (inherent) to photograph me.

You do have the right (moral) (inherent) to look at me.

The distinction is whether a physical copy of my image is made.

"There's no difference between that, and a 35 MM SLR, to that point."

And you can LOOK at me through a camera.

You just cannot capture my image on film.

"Facts in the way. So how do you distinguish between them? I've been pointing out the problems with Brandioch's "solutions"."

Again, the "problems" you've been pointing out have been clarified in the past.

It isn't about VIEWING me. It is all about CAPTURING my image. Film, tape, whatever. Anything other than the cells in your brain.

"If you WANT there to be a difference, you should get the laws concering such changed, rather that just destroy things."

And until such time as the laws are changed, civil disobediance is an option.
New Agree except for one point

...And until such time as the laws are changed, civil disobediance is an option.

I would say that civil disobediance in response to unjust government is, at least among right thinking men, a requirement, not an option.

"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"
"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"
New Amen (to coin a phrase)
Brevity Award ****
New Its not a strawman if its exactly what you're saying.
Your inability to understand what you, yourself, are saying, ain't my problem.

Because you want to misunderstand does not mean that I've changed my position.

Nope.

Because you've changed your tune means you've changed your position.

Golly, how that works.

No. You are free to look at me. You are not free to take pictures of me.

As I keep pointing out, this means that you are establishing a criteria. You.

You are establishing an arbitrary criteria - and as such, can be as arbitrary as you'd like.

Unfortunately for you, it doesn't work that way. Because that's called "anarchy".

You're in public, I certainly can look at you. Even take pictures of you. Not just because its legal, but because its (damn near) impossible to make a disctinction between the two.

You may not like it. You don't have to. Tough. That's what happens when you're in public. You do not have privacy.

We've been over this again and again and again.

Yes, we have. And as long as you continue to misuse the English language, there isn't a way past it.

The distinction is whether a physical copy of my image is made.

Which is your distinction. Thus, accepting that for the sake of argument, means you can then make ANY distinction. (such as ordering no one to look at you) Which I keep pointing out, and because it ILLUSTRATES exactly how ridicolous your argument is, you say that I've "misunderstood".

By that logic, you HAVE to outlaw cameras. You CANNOT have ANYBODY taking ANY PICTURES at Disney World. This isn't *my* logic, its *yours*.

This does *not* mean that there isn't a distinction between the two. But you making it as Emperor Brandioch "Thou shalt take no picture of me, but of my good side" doesn't change that the distinction isn't recognized, BECAUSE of how slight it is.

In fact, the distinctions now made, are not in the *image*, but the *use of said image*. (as I've pointed out many times). I can take your picture. I have to meet certain conditions to publish for profit.

I've had my picture in the newspaper, and on the evening news. (For making a really good looking tackle in a football game, actually). Could I have forbidden anyone from taking my picture, as you claim that I can?

Again, the "problems" you've been pointing out have been clarified in the past.

Just ignored.

ch time as the laws are changed, civil disobediance is an option.

I suppose it is, but under your system, its total anarchy, meaning there isn't any such thing as "civil disobediance".

You advocate anarchy. You demean and reduce "rights" to nothingness in your system. (if anything anybody does is a "right", then the "right" to murder is on a par with the "right" to free speech, and the "right" to molest children....)

Fine. Its you making these unbacked assertations.

If you're in public, there is *no* difference in me witnessing something you do, and videotaping/photographing it. Not currently, and not logically.

If you're worried about the ramifications this implies for the government, by all means, lets put some (arbitrary) limits on what they can do with it.

But that would be useful.

Addison
New utter agreement
My rights exist whether the government confirms them or not
Im free!
doesnt matter whether the rest of thew world aknowledges that or not Im free!
(break into a rousing chorus of magic bus)
thanx,
bill
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
     To beat Bill to it - Tampa Survellience cameras as seen on - (addison) - (153)
         Anecdotes won't cut it. - (Ashton)
         That isn't the technology, that's the privacy. - (Brandioch) - (151)
             Well...have to agree with you there... - (bepatient)
             Yup. - (addison) - (149)
                 Actually, isn't the technology a dismal flop? - (wharris2)
                 And the starting point is.... - (Brandioch) - (147)
                     Ok. - (addison) - (146)
                         Think guns. - (Brandioch) - (145)
                             So umm.... - (Fearless Freep) - (144)
                                 it is if you sell it or use for monetary gain - (boxley)
                                 There is not law, yet. - (Brandioch) - (142)
                                     *Shrug* your parallel, not mine - (Fearless Freep) - (1)
                                         You didn't read the other thread, did you? - (Brandioch)
                                     Re: There is not law, yet. - (addison) - (139)
                                         Again, guns. - (Brandioch) - (138)
                                             Strawman. - (addison) - (137)
                                                 Nope. Note the qualifier. - (Brandioch) - (136)
                                                     Yes. - (addison) - (135)
                                                         You don't know what "strawman" means. - (Brandioch) - (134)
                                                             I understand the implications and ramifications - (addison) - (133)
                                                                 Once again, legal vs "right". - (Brandioch) - (132)
                                                                     You have a choice. - (pwhysall) - (131)
                                                                         Also "Hero". - (Brandioch) - (129)
                                                                             Apples and Oranges - (pwhysall) - (128)
                                                                                 'Struth. - (imric) - (1)
                                                                                     1984 ___ Brave New World - (Ashton)
                                                                                 That was covered in the other thread, also. - (Brandioch) - (125)
                                                                                     Perhaps. - (pwhysall) - (124)
                                                                                         Yep. - (Brandioch) - (118)
                                                                                             Well said! - (imric) - (82)
                                                                                                 Is it? - (addison) - (81)
                                                                                                     So? - (imric) - (80)
                                                                                                         Nope. - (addison) - (79)
                                                                                                             Nope, you're wrong. - (Brandioch)
                                                                                                             Fair enough. - (imric) - (77)
                                                                                                                 From their point of view - (Fearless Freep)
                                                                                                                 Its all in the Point Of View. - (addison) - (75)
                                                                                                                     And you repeatedly use the idea of 'public' - (Ashton)
                                                                                                                     Nope. - (Brandioch) - (73)
                                                                                                                         look at the gov of Minnesota - (boxley) - (4)
                                                                                                                             Does that protect against photos or just publication? -NT - (Fearless Freep) - (3)
                                                                                                                                 publication -NT - (boxley) - (2)
                                                                                                                                     So he's trademarked the use of his image... - (Fearless Freep) - (1)
                                                                                                                                         yup thats my point, take my picture - (boxley)
                                                                                                                         Nope - (Fearless Freep) - (9)
                                                                                                                             "Happens all the time." - (Brandioch) - (8)
                                                                                                                                 Oh c'mon!!!! - (Fearless Freep) - (5)
                                                                                                                                     I gotta get back in time! - (Brandioch) - (4)
                                                                                                                                         Ya gotta read the posts - (Fearless Freep) - (3)
                                                                                                                                             More philosophy for you to consider. - (Brandioch) - (2)
                                                                                                                                                 Give that man a cookie - (Fearless Freep) - (1)
                                                                                                                                                     And why do you think I would NOT do that? - (Brandioch)
                                                                                                                                 In other words, your stance is unsupported by facts. - (addison) - (1)
                                                                                                                                     I should have been more clear. - (Brandioch)
                                                                                                                         Come now - (pwhysall) - (15)
                                                                                                                             Where do you see that? - (Brandioch) - (14)
                                                                                                                                 Re: Where do you see that? - (addison)
                                                                                                                                 complete the thought - (Fearless Freep) - (12)
                                                                                                                                     You're almost there. - (Brandioch) - (11)
                                                                                                                                         Funny. - (addison) - (2)
                                                                                                                                             ROTFLMAO - (Brandioch) - (1)
                                                                                                                                                 I think you hit your head. - (addison)
                                                                                                                                         Bingo!!! - (Fearless Freep) - (7)
                                                                                                                                             Thank you. - (Brandioch) - (6)
                                                                                                                                                 Try again - (Fearless Freep) - (5)
                                                                                                                                                     You didn't read my posts. - (Brandioch) - (4)
                                                                                                                                                         And again reread - (Fearless Freep) - (3)
                                                                                                                                                             Try it with comprehension this time. - (Brandioch) - (2)
                                                                                                                                                                 sheesh - (Fearless Freep) - (1)
                                                                                                                                                                     Context. - (Brandioch)
                                                                                                                         Sorry. But now you're fighting physics. - (addison) - (41)
                                                                                                                             Oh, come ON. He didn't say PEOPLE couldn't look. - (imric) - (40)
                                                                                                                                 No, you come on and read what he did say. - (addison) - (39)
                                                                                                                                     Cameras != eyeballs. - (Brandioch) - (38)
                                                                                                                                         Actually - (Fearless Freep) - (11)
                                                                                                                                             Already addressed in your previous post. - (Brandioch) - (10)
                                                                                                                                                 yawn - (Fearless Freep) - (9)
                                                                                                                                                     Re: yawn - (addison)
                                                                                                                                                     It's called "reading with comprehension". - (Brandioch) - (7)
                                                                                                                                                         Whoa! Here's a radical thought! - (Brandioch) - (4)
                                                                                                                                                             Been waiting for that one - (Fearless Freep) - (3)
                                                                                                                                                                 I was much older then, I'm younger than that now. - (Brandioch) - (2)
                                                                                                                                                                     because - (Fearless Freep) - (1)
                                                                                                                                                                         You cannot shoot me. - (Brandioch)
                                                                                                                                                         Too bad the posting lacks said same. - (addison)
                                                                                                                                                         No kidding - (Fearless Freep)
                                                                                                                                         Not currently. - (addison) - (25)
                                                                                                                                             There is a distinction. BTW, have they even worked? - (wharris2) - (2)
                                                                                                                                                 Not in this context, and I don't know. - (addison) - (1)
                                                                                                                                                     That only has one solution - (wharris2)
                                                                                                                                             Thanks for your participation. - (Brandioch) - (21)
                                                                                                                                                 I've gravely mistaken... - (addison) - (20)
                                                                                                                                                     Because you don't agree with me does not make me wrong. - (Brandioch) - (19)
                                                                                                                                                         Nope, it doesn't. - (addison) - (18)
                                                                                                                                                             And man will never fly. - (Brandioch) - (17)
                                                                                                                                                                 So after 2 weeks... - (addison) - (16)
                                                                                                                                                                     And the loop starts again. - (Brandioch) - (15)
                                                                                                                                                                         I can but hope that you really don't think this way. - (addison) - (13)
                                                                                                                                                                             Sorry. You ARE authoritarian. - (imric) - (12)
                                                                                                                                                                                 However, I do have the ability to read and understand. - (addison) - (11)
                                                                                                                                                                                     I'm not sure that's true. - (Ashton)
                                                                                                                                                                                     Bullshit. Learn to use a dictionary. - (imric) - (9)
                                                                                                                                                                                         Learn to read - (addison) - (8)
                                                                                                                                                                                             Good? At what? - (imric) - (7)
                                                                                                                                                                                                 howsabout we all chip in and Buy Addy a poloroid camera - (boxley)
                                                                                                                                                                                                 Re: Good? At what? - (addison) - (5)
                                                                                                                                                                                                     Heh.. You__still__don't__ Get!__it__...____a-tall. -NT - (Ashton)
                                                                                                                                                                                                     Again, strawman. - (Brandioch) - (3)
                                                                                                                                                                                                         Agree except for one point - (DonRichards) - (1)
                                                                                                                                                                                                             Amen (to coin a phrase) - (Ashton)
                                                                                                                                                                                                         Its not a strawman if its exactly what you're saying. - (addison)
                                                                                                                                                                         utter agreement - (boxley)
                                                                                             What about *their* rights? - (drewk) - (1)
                                                                                                 Err on the side of more freedoms. - (Brandioch)
                                                                                             Errrrrrr..... - (addison) - (32)
                                                                                                 Yep! - (Brandioch) - (31)
                                                                                                     But that flies in the face of what you said earlier. - (addison) - (30)
                                                                                                         'Privacy' appears to distress you. Try - (Ashton)
                                                                                                         I own my image. - (Brandioch) - (28)
                                                                                                             Problem is... - (Fearless Freep) - (24)
                                                                                                                 Bulls**t - (DonRichards) - (20)
                                                                                                                     Try it - (Fearless Freep) - (19)
                                                                                                                         Still don't agree - (DonRichards) - (14)
                                                                                                                             Disconnect - (Fearless Freep) - (13)
                                                                                                                                 and Clarification - (Fearless Freep)
                                                                                                                                 Cough. That's Declaration of Independence... - (Simon_Jester) - (6)
                                                                                                                                     Not really. - (addison) - (5)
                                                                                                                                         Umm..actually.... - (Fearless Freep) - (4)
                                                                                                                                             Errr. He was? -NT - (addison) - (3)
                                                                                                                                                 Yeah... - (Fearless Freep) - (2)
                                                                                                                                                     Oh. - (addison)
                                                                                                                                                     NCRs unite! - (DonRichards)
                                                                                                                                 There's a flag on that play. - (Brandioch) - (4)
                                                                                                                                     Pick the flag up - (Fearless Freep)
                                                                                                                                     Others have stated it more elegantly - (DonRichards) - (2)
                                                                                                                                         Not sure who you are talking to... - (Fearless Freep) - (1)
                                                                                                                                             The journey is the destination. - (Brandioch)
                                                                                                                         oops... - (Fearless Freep)
                                                                                                                         That's one way to look at it. - (Brandioch) - (2)
                                                                                                                             One and the same - (Fearless Freep) - (1)
                                                                                                                                 Insert standard example here. - (Brandioch)
                                                                                                                 "legal" == "right" - (Brandioch) - (2)
                                                                                                                     Without all the detail - (Fearless Freep) - (1)
                                                                                                                         You can't handle that from the context? - (Brandioch)
                                                                                                             Actually, I think you own your painted image too... - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
                                                                                                                 I'm wrong. - (Simon_Jester)
                                                                                                             Not currently, you don't. - (addison)
                                                                                         Wrong verb - (jb4) - (4)
                                                                                             Ahem - (pwhysall) - (3)
                                                                                                 but the repos and dems ARE left wing, at least to some of us -NT - (boxley) - (2)
                                                                                                     Well Ox, if you Really think that, - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                                                                         naw both a buncha commies :) - (boxley)
                                                                         welcome to ox island diplomatic passports fer sale - (boxley)

No matter what I accomplish in this life, nobody's going to sculpt my head in thermoplastic resin and make it spit water into the bedrooms of sick children.
465 ms