Post #2,424
7/20/01 8:30:51 AM
|
what the heck is wrong with scofflaws?
Are you prejuidiced? I am a proud scofflaw with many years experience and now you wish to persecute me? I obey my own laws and for the most part they co-incide with society's so there is not too much conflict but as a free American Man all powers not inherent to the federal government reside in the people, not some moron at city hall trying to shill a few bucks for his personal Hitleristic conduct. I spit on the inspector [link|http://www.pink-panther-films.com/rulesofspeech.html|Clouseau's] that surround me. They snivel and whine "its the leu, and do you have a permit for that mhanke!" Go cry a river that I didnt tie my shoe laces in the socially approved manner and any automatic method of forcing me into your square holes will be resisted with every breath I take.
thanx,
bill
can I have my ones and zeros back?
|
Post #2,441
7/20/01 11:00:35 AM
|
The root word of "justice" is "just".
And if you can sneer on the law, and I can't, then its not just.
I am a proud scofflaw with many years experience and now you wish to persecute me?
No.
Prosecute, perhaps.
I obey my own laws
So does Jeffery Dahlmer get to obey his own? What about Tim McVeigh? Your local congresscritter - do you expect him to pay his parking fines?
not some moron at city hall trying to shill a few bucks for his personal Hitleristic conduct.
So why did you vote for the moron?
Go cry a river that I didnt tie my shoe laces in the socially approved manner and any automatic method of forcing me into your square holes will be resisted with every breath I take.
I think you've jumped right over the edge, there, Bill.
The point is that you have to obey the law. AFAIK, there is no law proscribing shoelace tying. Nor it is forcing you into a square hole.
It does prevent you from tying your shoelaces around Ashton's neck and cutting off his air supply. It does prevent you from tying them across the bottom of an escalator to trip everyone.
So you'd have no problem with me "obeying my own law" and approprating all of your valuables? Or would you? If you would, why? After all, people who thumb their nose at the law are heroes, right?
You've got to have a baseline, you've got to have some semblance of an agreement. And you have to have some method of punishing those who break that.
Do you want the drunk with multiple DUIs on the road with you? After all, its the "leu" you scorn that he not be allowed to drive.
Or the serial killer on the street with you? After all, its such a square hole we try to put him into....
Addison
|
Post #2,449
7/20/01 11:30:15 AM
|
tim mcveigh did obey his own law
and he ran accross ours in the process. You catch me you can prosecute me and if I feel I am right I will continue do live as I live. Put cameras in my neighborhood they will be spraypainted over the lens.
"The sign said long haired hippy people should not apply, so I put my hair up under my hat and went in to ask him why?"
spying on people who are going about their business might be legal but it is sure as fuck immoral and should be resisted with maximum effort. Enforcing a speed limit as described in the UK story is horrendous. I dont like government interference in my life of any kind and will tolerate some for the general welfare but to assume that all people are lawbreakers and all you have to do is spy on them for long enough to prove is unholy as well as unamerican.
thanx,
bill
Im Free and intend to stay that way.
can I have my ones and zeros back?
|
Post #2,453
7/20/01 11:36:53 AM
|
And we as a society had a problem with that.
You're saying that a scofflaw - one who refuses to obey the law - is somehow "good".
You catch me you can prosecute me and if I feel I am right I will continue do live as I live.
And so everybody else can do the same thing?
That's anarchy. (well, close to it).
So the cops, when they arrest you for spraypainting, and they break your knees, that's OK, right, because they're following their own law?
Aren't you SURE you don't want to sit back and reconsider your position?
spying on people who are going about their business might be legal but it is sure as fuck immoral
So are you going to go put out everybody's eyes?
The issue is what you do in public, with that case. But yeah, why bother with the facts, its more fun to riot, and rape and pillage right?
After all, its your law you're following, and the poor saps you're rioting and raping and pillaging, that's just too bad for them.
If you've got a problem with the law, you've got to move to change the law.
Breaking it and presuming you have a "right" to is *not* sustainable. Society can't work with laws that apply sometimes to some people, and not to others, all else being equal.
Think about the rest of the day, the people you meet - if they were able to scoff at the law - how would you feel.
Addison
|
Post #2,472
7/20/01 1:49:43 PM
|
in response
you said
quote "That's anarchy. (well, close to it)." Yup so whats yer point? Are you an Inspector Clouseau who wears a pointy hat because the leau says so? Or are you le inspector who feels that people like us better damn well do as we are told and wear our pointy hats. Giving a ticket for a hollywood stop at 2am with no traffic is making someone wear a pointy hat. Feel free not to break the stupid infringing laws. I will feel free not to which is my point.
thanx,
bill
can I have my ones and zeros back?
|
Post #2,475
7/20/01 2:13:05 PM
|
Everybody who's name starts with "B", you're under arrest.
Or everybody who's white. Or black. Standards? Well, thereyre what we want them to be today. (See the problem) (Historically, this is a very bad idea)
That's the problem with selective enforcement. Sure, cops are people, I've sped past cops before. There's a road I drive on frequently thats posted 45, and I've caught myself going faster many times.
One time I passed a cop who motioned "down" with his hand, telling me to slow down.
And they often have speed traps on that road, and if you're going over 45, you'll get cited. But they don't pick who they cite, then.. its whoever's speeding.
But what you're saying is its OK to ignore laws you don't like. And more specifically, in this case, to damage public property.
I personally hate the condemnation laws. The ones governments have rediscovered as ways to get their projects, on the cheap. I hate the projects done with them.
Are you saying its normal, ethical, correct, for me to say, blow up a bridge on I-75 in protest?
Well, you *are* saying that. Its not a question.
Do you see the problem with allowing people to do that?
Sure, for small things, its minor. But it breeds a contempt for the law.
If the law is wrong, CHANGE IT. Then its *NOT* illegal, then its not wrong, and EVERYBODY is better off.
Or explain to me why me taking out a bridge on I-75 is wrong.
Addison
|
Post #2,494
7/20/01 4:33:26 PM
|
It is a judgement call usually
sometimes Police officers pull you over for a routine check, and you did nothing wrong. You just happened to have a car of a certain color they were looking for, or they are out checking for stuff. They check your ID and license plate, make sure you aren't wanted for something, and then after half an hour or more they decide to let you go. Unless they think, due to some vauge description given by an eyewitness or something, that you could be the person they are looking for. White male in his 30's with a black coat and brown hair driving a white car, black male in his 40's with a blue coat driving a black car, whatever they didn't get a good look at the perp. Pull them all in if they even remotely look like the suspect, break open their heads if they resist arrest. Guilty until proven innocent, lock them up in a jail and give them one phone call. Ah you know the rest, get a good lawyer, hope you can prove to a judge and jury that you were not the one who did the crime, yadda yadda yadda.
In any case, our system is not perfect, and people have been convicted of crimes they didn't do before. True that the technology has gotten better over the past 20 years, better DNA testing, better evidence gathering, etc. But still, mistakes can be made.
In any case I heard of a few Police Stations using cameras on highways to take photos of cars that go over the speed limit and then if they can read the license plate they send the owner a ticket by mail. If your son or daughter borrows the car, you get the ticket. If someone behind you went speeding and your car was in front of theirs and appeared in the camera, you get the ticket.
Remember that Big Brother is watching with hidden cameras. If you don't get arrested for something, it might appear on one of those TV shows. If you happen to look like someone who was caught on tape, and the video was a bit blurry so you cannot make out the face details, then you could be the one getting railroaded!
| "I can see if I want anything done right around here, I'll have to do it myself!" | Moe Howard |
|
Post #2,503
7/20/01 6:29:12 PM
|
Here's a simple syllogism, if not quite rational enough for
You to define it as a rationale
Always in the world there are the Puritans. In Salem they held all in their self-imposed santimonious terror, for awhile. Eventually - and after the town elders apologized for the dead, inspected and burnt teenage girls - their methods and their pholosophy was overturned by Popular demand. Not til that generation had pretty well fucked themselves for ever reaching maturity. Terror does that.
But always.. there are Those Who Know.. Exactly how: all the Rest of us Ought to behave. (As in the counterprayer: Lord, please protect me from your followers -also- Lord, please protect me from Those Who Know) Sorry that's as simple as I can characterize a certain unending War:
Between the Authoritarians (who always have a Manual they are sure was written for Everyone to Follow or Else) and then the Others: who do not agree with their idea of, say - what constitutes a Good Life in our daily pursuit of survival amidst the cacophony, the digital right/wrong yes/no folk who love to give Permission. Or Not.
See then? I - for just one of many - deem Puritans my natural and lawful *enemy*. They are ever Certain! of exactly how *I* "ought to think, behave, live and finally die" - quietly and in accord with their miserably circumscribed banal existence: fearful [of God's and a litany of Others'] Wrath - and a host of other fantasies they willingly apply to all: because They Know They Are Right\ufffd.
Now you personally may not subscribe to much? all? .. hardly any of the Puritan agenda For Our Own Good-ness. I make no assumptions about Your set of stuff to be imposed "for all our Goodness". But you often align yourself with the Authoritarian View of human societal construction, and - as is so often claimed by other folks who have it all mapped out:
You caution that Unless we have minute laws for every imaginable thus transcribable er 'tort' or statute: the Sky Will fall. Chaos shall replace our comfortable torpor and - people will jump lines at supermarkets or Hockey games or perhaps [horrors] just stop buying stuff! (Then of course, our umm 'civilization' Would Fall. Scary thought that..)
Well, that's as close as I can come off-hand to attempting to describe an attitudinal difference which separates: large blocs? blocks? 'demographics' of the current Murican looneybin. Different sides of that ol' barricade - y'see?
(You - I merely suspect - will become Irrational when they come for your guns. I OTOH shall become Irrational when I find myself being forced to behave like a OOP artifact, for the safety and convenience of sheep who deserve neither - as they see their liberties evanescing via creeping gradualism: they do not even notice, let alone 'care'.) Go Yankees! Dem Bums. What's on sale? Let's go shopping.
Ashton
Polite anarchy - one sperm one vote. Bring your extras to the poling place. Careful: they are all Citizens now! Or so I surmise from the Righteous.
|
Post #2,511
7/20/01 10:11:09 PM
|
mama said to save it until I was married
so I showed up at the polling place with a mason Jar.
thanx,
bill
can I have my ones and zeros back?
|
Post #2,521
7/20/01 11:16:29 PM
|
Yep, that's simple.
Far too simple. Mike did a far better job. :)
The world doesn't divide like that, Ash.
But if it did - you'd better check to see which "group" you're lumped into. :)
You caution that Unless we have minute laws for every imaginable thus transcribable
No. I caution what happens when you don't have laws, or a very subjective standard.
And its what's happened before. Heck, is happening *now*, on Death Row, for the best case.
But then, you appear to think that's a good system?
Addison
|
Post #2,505
7/20/01 7:27:08 PM
|
My slightly radical opinion.
Privacy.
The freedom from constant observation.
The cops can bust me for going 1 mph over the posted limit.
The cops can bust me for running a red light.
But I want them THERE, in person. They have to witness the offense. (for this example only, witnesses for other events and physical evidence found after a crime has been determined to have been committed are excluded).
Why?
Because I don't want a society that is constantly MONITORED.
And what _I_ want IS FUCKING IMPORTANT!
I'm not saying anything about selective enforcement. I'm already against that. But I want the cops to WITNESS my crime.
The distinction might not mean that much to others, but to me it indicates the point where we go from being a human society to be a machine society. You will follow the orders or the machines will report you.
I understand why people are destroying those towers and cameras. They are fighting to keep their culture/society.
I understand why those in authority are so interested in installing said towers and cameras. Machines obey the rules. 100%. Since you make the rules, the machines obey you. 100%. You can even set the mechanical machines to watch over the less-effective/conforming humans.
It comes down to a fight between freedom and authority.
|
Post #2,523
7/20/01 11:23:49 PM
|
Re: My slightly radical opinion.
And what _I_ want IS FUCKING IMPORTANT!
Fine. Great.
I'm just saying GET THE LAW PASSED.
I might hate the IRS *and* the USPS. Do you want me tossing molotov cocktails in every mail box near tax time?
I don't think you are, especially if I burn up your bills that you just mailed.
But that's the same thing these "scofflaws" are doing (in defererence to Mike's very good post, I'm not certain these are really scofflaws). They're destroying public property *and* putting people at risk.
(The police are expecting to have that coverage, and since they don't, they won't be ready for the loss).
To keep your example, what If I have a problem with the police having radios?
Should I go dynamite the towers? Or try to get them outlawed?
Which is more civic minded? Which is more likely to do more good?
Addison
|
Post #2,554
7/21/01 2:28:34 PM
|
Work all angles.
Work to get laws outlawing this crap.
Take non-violent counter-measures (ski-masks and such so they can't picture you).
Take less-than-violent counter-measures (cutting their power, painting the lenses).
Don't endanger others or damage other's property.
If you don't like the IRS, paint your opinion upon their buildings. But if you're bombing a mailbox, you might get my letters, also.
With your police radio example.......
Either through laws or via dynamite. As long as you're not damaging private property. (governmental property is another matter).
Yep, I know this is an opinion different from your's. But I don't view physical resistance to governmental actions to be wrong. In fact, I believe that they are justified in many instances.
But I also hold the rights of the individuals to be higher than the rights of governments.
|
Post #2,586
7/22/01 5:43:45 PM
|
Re: Work all angles.
Take non-violent counter-measures (ski-masks and such so they can't picture you).
Why not picture you? Courage of convictions and all that.
Don't endanger others or damage other's property.
But you *are* endangering others - at least potentially.
What happens when there's a violent crime committed under the blacked out camera? Heck, when you find someone vandalizing the cameras, is that because they have a moral objection, or merely find them obstacles in their crime career?
Can you make that determination?
But if you're bombing a mailbox, you might get my letters, also.
I'll certainly get the mail box you and I paid for.
But I don't view physical resistance to governmental actions to be wrong. In fact, I believe that they are justified in many instances.
Actually, I do as well.
The *problem* is that the best you and I can do is "Well, we LIKE that, and we don't LIKE this". Because there's *not a difference*, not an objective one.
If I spray paint the IRS building, you have to pay for me fixing it.
And does it really change anything?
Quite often, criminals are just criminals.
But I also hold the rights of the individuals to be higher than the rights of governments.
As do I. But I also don't think much of mob rule.
Addison
|
Post #2,600
7/22/01 8:52:35 PM
|
To work the system.
"Why not picture you? Courage of convictions and all that."
Simple. To show that we've moved beyond a human society to a machine society. Without my face, all they can identify me by is the machine. But anyone could be driving that machine. What they're doing is ticketing a machine that was operated by an un-identified human. So, the human associated with that machine in the legal records is faulted for the behaviour of that machine.
See where the societal issues are?
We already have this with the "drug property" seizure laws.
"But you *are* endangering others - at least potentially."
But such could be said of ANY action I take. Really. Give me an action and I can show how some poor innocent, hepless, promising, did-I-mention-innocent child's life would be snuffed out.
"What happens when there's a violent crime committed under the blacked out camera?"
Good point. And you know that most of the domestic abuse occures in the home. So, by that logic, we should install cameras in every one's house. This way, we can cut down on violent crimes.
"Heck, when you find someone vandalizing the cameras, is that because they have a moral objection, or merely find them obstacles in their crime career?"
Imagine how much more difficult it would be for criminals to coordinate their activities if we tapped every phone system in the US. Wouldn't it be hard to tell if it were a criminal protesting such activities or just a person interested in preserving his own privacy?
Hey, why not just install cameras EVERYWHERE. With sound, too. That way, the criminals wouldn't have ANYWHERE to plan their crimes.
And anyone who disagrees with this has something to hide and is probably a criminal too.
"Can you make that determination?"
Nope. But we do have this concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Can you prove that I'm going to commit a crime BEFORE you turn that camera on me?
"I'll certainly get the mail box you and I paid for."
Again, my letters. My property. The difference between individuals and governments.
"The *problem* is that the best you and I can do is "Well, we LIKE that, and we don't LIKE this". Because there's *not a difference*, not an objective one."
Actually, it is simple to me. I had more privacy BEFORE. Now I have LESS. Therefore, I have lost something I had.
"If I spray paint the IRS building, you have to pay for me fixing it."
Yep. Fighting against Fascism is never cheap. The question each person has to answer is whether they are willing to pay the additional cost of maintaining their rights or surrender them for a little more "security" from teh "bad peple".
"And does it really change anything? "
If only one person does it. Probably not. He's a flake. If more people do it.....
"Quite often, criminals are just criminals."
Yep. Now the question is, are there more honest citizens or more criminal citizens?
That is the essence of Fascism.
"As do I. But I also don't think much of mob rule."
But Democracy is (in the strictest sense) "mob rule".
Which is why we have laws to limit the power of the mob in this country. Democracy is not always just.
|
Post #2,603
7/22/01 10:14:43 PM
|
Work it, bayybeeeee.
But you're trying to change the discussion here. :)
But such could be said of ANY action I take. Really. Give me an action and I can show how some poor innocent, hepless, promising, did-I-mention-innocent child's life would be snuffed out.
Potentially, yes.
But what I mean, is that you are actually impacting "public safety". And there tends to be more of an importance placed on that.
If I go let the air out of your tires, you'll shake you head at me, and give me a Mentos.
But if you drive an ambulance?
Same action = very different impact and judgement.
Good point. And you know that most of the domestic abuse occures in the home.
Now note - this is *you* changing the focus from a *public* place to a *private* place.
Let me repeat that, you tend to be stubborn:
I didn't say that. You did.
So don't try and attribute that to me.
Its a different logic. Because of our arbitrary (largely) distinctions.
So, by that logic, we should install cameras in every one's house. This way, we can cut down on violent crimes.
Not by that logic. The logic is that when police cameras used for security/protection are destroyed, and people are hurt, that the person who didn't want to get a few quid worth of speeding ticket, how are they responsible.
You're changing the whole subject in an attempt to make it unpalatable. If you'd like to discuss that - its another subject. We're talking about *public* places. Public.
Imagine how much more difficult it would be for criminals to coordinate their activities if we tapped every phone system in the US. Wouldn't it be hard to tell if it were a criminal protesting such activities or just a person interested in preserving his own privacy?
Yep, it would be much more difficult. Luckily, there are laws in place to protect your privacy there. (They start with the presumption that you are "private" on each end of the phone, you might want to notice). If you stand up on a street and yell "I'm going to go pick up they money I stole from the bank" - and the police come over and arrest you (which is a analogous (roughly, the roughness is because audio is questionable, depending how the wiretapping laws are)) this doesn't have anything to do with wiretaps, they don't need a warrent to hear you, and they aren't invading your privacy.
Because you're on a public street.
I don't understand *why* you're having a problem with "public" and "private". I really don't.
Nope. But we do have this concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Can you prove that I'm going to commit a crime BEFORE you turn that camera on me?
If I'm not following you - if I'm capturing everyone equally, no discrimination, its not an issue. At this point its not a question of "presumed guilty". Anymore than a police cruiser sitting by the side of the road running radar "presumes" that you're going to be speeding.
They look at the people going by, and stop the ones who speed. Pretty simple. They don't pull you on the presumption that you might.
Cameras in public places aren't there because they think YOU are about to commit a crime, they're there to observe what happens.
If you don't like it, get a law passed. Don't destroy public property (or explain to me how its different from my other example).
Again, my letters. My property. The difference between individuals and governments.
Not once you mail them, they're not. (I don't think. Someone might have to tell me the law there). But if I destroy the mailBOXes - that still impacts you - now you haev nowhere to mail your letters. And you have to pay to replace them.
Me: "The *problem* is that the best you and I can do is "Well, we LIKE that, and we don't LIKE this". Because there's *not a difference*, not an objective one."
Actually, it is simple to me. I had more privacy BEFORE. Now I have LESS. Therefore, I have lost something I had.
But that completly has nothing to do with what I said.
What's the objective difference? There's not one. Its subjective. And further, you may well consider youself to have lost something (and I might agree) - but it was privacy because there wasn't the tech/people to invade it. Not because you had a right to anything there.
I know, you don't see it yet.
Right now, if you're in public, you don't have privacy.
You didn't "lose" privacy if somebody puts up a camera... Not really.
You might have lost defacto privacy - but nothing stopped anybody before from filming in public (look at Zapruder), and catching things going on.
If you disagree, that's fine. Just explain to me the DIFFERENCE.
You're complaining about losing something you never had to begin with... You might have thought you had/the ability might have been too low/probability too low for you to worry, and that's changed, but that's still something you still didn't "own", so to speak.
(And if you want to change that, fine, lets get a law passed to protect your "privacy" in "public". How you manage to describe that, I don't know.).
Addison
And another point, slightly tangential - Do you trust government (which theoretically is more answerable to the people) less than the big corps, who can quite legitimately/legally capture video of you all day from their property....
|
Post #2,608
7/22/01 11:30:08 PM
|
so when you get a letter to show up for yer gps ass chip
and assure you it is only to differenciate between you and the bad boys are you going to show up for the implantation? Why not it is already in your 2002 high end vehicles?
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
|
Post #2,610
7/23/01 12:01:38 AM
|
You're changing the subject even more.
Which means that I infer that you might be realising the problem with your initial stand. :)
The question isn't of tracking software.
*YOUR* misunderstanding, no matter how I explain - is that MY problem, or YOURs?
(when you don't bother to assimilate new data).
So, lets stick to the same issues, shall we?
Addison
|
Post #2,611
7/23/01 3:10:56 AM
|
Perhaps you are simply realizing it, less and less?
re. What's the objective difference? There's not one. Its subjective. And further, you may well consider youself to have lost something (and I might agree) - but it was privacy because there wasn't the tech/people to invade it. Not because you had a right to anything there. Here you and Scalia are arguing against the principle of "rights not specifically abrogated - belong to the people". Their fancy name for this is of course, 'strict constructionist' - we gots euphemisms for everything, even for Draconian misinterpretations of the Constitution. (And that: ya can't even call 'conservative' - it's plain reactionary) A second assertion contained above - is that we may simply ignore the effect of the tech people, as you put it! As if there is not, could not be any significant "difference" because we just happen to install one? a dozen, a million? er cameras (this particular time..) wherever. Nope, no difference at all because: While we have survived since 1776 or so WITHOUT massive surveillance systems operated by (whomever) - WE COULD have had such* and.. they weren't specifically prohibited you see, and... ergo: it's just a minor and unimportant development that, merely 'the tech people' have gotten around to doing. Just now. *all we had to do was discover Germanium a bit earlier, refine it and do a little physics and - voila! Maybe we could have had these cameras so that McCarthy could have actually LOOKED under every Murican bed to see if there was a Com-symp hiding there. Same situation / earlier time / Wow! could those cameras have really Helped\ufffd "prove I'm not a Commyunist to the Senator, who surely then would have given me my job back?" Surely he would have. Wouldn't he? No, I really don't think *you* get the importance. (Never mind whether Scalia does or doesn't - or gets to decide for the rest of us. As with the President Select.) We will remain on different sides of the barricade, it seems. I'll spray 'em and you'll go around cleaning 'em - to be safe from that er potential? likely? possible! guy who's... gonna be noticed making plans to burglarize yer stash of ___ later in the day. Or was it a laundry ticket he surreptitously scribbled on 'suspiciously' before that camera? (like the Senator's list of 52, later 55 'Comsymps in the State Department' = an actual er 'fact' BTW re "his laundry list", depending upon which historian's sources you want to verify) No sale. I've already seen the earlier effects. Right here in Murica. They weren't pretty then. They stink now. And we haven't gotten a lot smarter about 'creeping gradualism' since, IMO. You certainly haven't. Ashton
|
Post #2,615
7/23/01 8:23:13 AM
|
Re: Perhaps you are simply realizing it, less and less?
Their fancy name for this is of course, 'strict constructionist' - we gots euphemisms for everything, even for Draconian misinterpretations of the Constitution.
And the euphemism for your brand of "It doesn't have to make sense, but its the way I feel" sort of non-interpretation (and particularly non-logic) of the law is what?
(I'd have made one, but it would have been far more insulting.)
Maybe we could have had these cameras so that McCarthy
Maybe, one of these days, people will sit and think about what they're doing.
Maybe, one of these days they'll actually ponder "Does this make sense, and is it consistant with my other beliefs".
I'm not holding my breath, in the meantime, as far too many people flock to church without thinking about it, and far too many people advocate a society without sense, or reason, and then deny that's exactly what they're doing.
We're talking about public, Ashton. Public.
Perhaps you should save the insults.
PUBLIC.
What you did in the 50s ***IN PUBLIC*** wasn't protected. And had you done that on a movie set, in front of a camera, and it had been taken to those hearings (WHICH! you would have MORE of, as its "how you feel" thats important, not "what does the law say").
We're NOT talking about cameras in PRIVATE.(Funny thing that's all you can argue against them)
Same situation
Not at all. Not even close.
However, according you *you*, who prefer mob rule and rampage to a specified, written, interpreted law, *THE MCCARTHY HEARINGS WERE FINE!*
Mob rule, heck yeah. Cameras! Rip 'em down! Pigs on patrol? Kill 'em!
No sale. I've already seen the earlier effects. Right here in Murica. They weren't pretty then. They stink now. And we haven't gotten a lot smarter about 'creeping gradualism' since, IMO. You certainly haven't.
Speaking of smarter......
Why then are you agitating for the exact sort of irrational, emotional thinking that CAUSED THE SITUATION IN THE FIRST PLACE?
That's what *I* don't understand, and it makes your insults (and insinuations that I, and others, are incapable of thinking) all the more hypocritical.
Addison
|
Post #2,665
7/24/01 2:46:16 AM
|
It's simple, really - but it won't be, for you.
"Making sense" is about much more than your logical deductions from posits not universally shared.
You imagine that The Law may be a nice intellectual recitation of all the things which matter in a society. And all those things which matter are neatly enumerated: are Authorized! one-by-one. Then you equate all emotional aspects of the human condition to ~ "Mob Rule, I Want, ___"
Hell, create a few more silly syllogisms. Your er emotional attachment to digital logic shines right on through.
"Public"? you say - so then, it's OK for a creeping Police State mentality to propagate.. everywhere that more than 3 are assembled? just so long as ya can retreat to *your* tiny little er "Private" stronghold - defended by the Gatling guns (legally single-shot modified o'course ;-)
Fortress Freedom perhaps? amidst the er Public Recorders of All Things (\ufffdMicrosloth Corp - a Global Consortium). Join Passport to - view selected files we have on *You*. $1/second. We take PayPal. (OK - that's for 2004; I'm just a little.. ahead here.)
Nope, we have Fundament-al disagreement about what makes a life worth the trouble of Living. You want nice, fully tabulated Authorized Rules for - just about anything you can imagine. And those who "feel that That Ain't a life worth Living" -?- well "feelings" cannot ever compete with a nicely documented Permission list - now can they? (Why then life would not be logical. What an idea.)
By now a rather familiar attitude BTW, re the "entire pseudo-science of the law" [Fred C. Rodell, Dean Yale Law School - long ago] But a fatally flawed idea of the Majesty of the Law. And of how homo-sap Lives. IMhO.
You appear not even to get the idea that, after all the verbal BS of which we are all so capable:
NO ONE ever 'does' anything they are not Moved.. to do.
Logic? Hah !! (It has its pedestrian uses of course - but you will find logic the Prime controller only in ROBOTS. Remember?)
Ashton
Nothing can go wrong with our surveillance recording and indexing software go wrong go wrong go wr {click}
|
Post #2,690
7/24/01 9:44:08 AM
|
Its only simple if you're stupid.
Because *nothing* is simple when you start looking at all the other ramifications.
And its utter complete ignorance to stick your head in the sand and pretend otherwise, no matter what your motivation.
You imagine
I do you the favor of not trying to figure out what you're thinking (mostly because I can't imagine that much LSD), but because its just damn rude.
You are *consistantly* wrong with what you say I think.
So stop trying and telling me what I think, you don't know.
Then you equate all emotional aspects of the human condition to ~ "Mob Rule, I Want, ___"
Look at Brandioch flailing down below.
See, he hasn't thought his point through. What he's said is "if I think a law is wrong, I don't have to obey it, and that's OK" (Now he's somehow trying to backtrack on that and say that he'll be punished. I might wait for him to re-read this thread and retry to integrate his answers (he'll have to change something).
But that's what this thread started about "Hooray! Someone is breaking the law and I like it!"
That's mob rule. No reference to law, and as much as you hate it, the POINT of law is to have a standard, a reference, something ABOVE the lynch mobs and gangs.
And when you advocate/support things that break the rule of law, you create a situation where only Mob Rule exists. They're opposites. Either you have laws, or you have mob rule.
Hell, create a few more silly syllogisms.
Yeah. Silly. I notice you don't say WHY they're silly. Why you'd have a problem with some anti-authority figure disabling an ambulance while you lie bleeding. Or.. is that.. different? (I have a feeling I"m going to be insulted more for pointing that out).
"Public"? you say - so then, it's OK for a creeping Police State mentality to propagate..
As opposed to Mob Rule? (Which then will lead to a Poilce State - just not a police state constrained by any laws?)
Nope, we have Fundament-al disagreement about what makes a life worth the trouble of Living
Yep. I don't like people hurting other people and taking their stuff.
I believe in thinking things through.
It would appear you don't. Because you don't believe anybody should have to have their "freedom restricted" with those silly laws that keep you from taking other people's stuff.
Golly. How silly of me. To the Gates! With Torches!
Addison
|
Post #2,696
7/24/01 10:09:07 AM
|
The issue (for me) is thresholds.
Hi All,
Addison wrote:
And when you advocate/support things that break the rule of law, you create a situation where only Mob Rule exists. They're opposites. Either you have laws, or you have mob rule.
I don't think Brandioch and Ashton are saying that. They're saying that in our society there comes a point where laws must be disregarded because they violate what's right. I think we agree that there were instances in the past when laws which were egregiously wrong were on the books and were enforced. It took people breaking the laws to have society change them.
I think they're arguing that there are some instances when that's the correct course of action. Not that all laws they find inconvenient/annoying/etc. should be disregarded. They're not advocating mob rule. They feel, as I understand it, that there are thresholds which are being crossed that they feel violate their freedom/rights/etc.
I think both sides are making good points. It's a shame that rather than the issues of public annonymity, privacy, the limits of what is acceptable datagathering of public places, etc., being clarified by this discussion it's instead being more muddled by extraneous issues.
I'll give my take again - I don't believe I have privacy rights as such when I'm in public. Newspapers and TV cameras can take my image when I'm part of a crowd or attenting a public event. I have no problem with that if I remain anonymous. I believe I have rights to annonymity. I don't like the idea of my motions, personal data, etc., being tracked in public even if, say, 20,000 other people at the same public event are being tracked the same way. It still causes me to lose my right to remaining anonymous. That's why I oppose things like the FL camera system we discussed a few weeks ago.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #2,702
7/24/01 10:27:11 AM
|
Are we civilised or are we not?
That, to me, is the issue.
One of the downsides in living in an organised and civilised society is that one cannot pick and choose the laws one wishes to obey today, because in order for laws to change, there *IS* a clear legislative and political process -- a process that is likely long, tedious and hard.
If one wants to circumvent that process, then one is effectively cutting the democratic process out of the loop. That's not grown-up politics and lawmaking, that's spitting one's dummy out and throwing a tantrum because one can't have what one wants.
We ignore two-year-olds who do that.
Just because one can shout very loudly doesn't make one any more right than the person who chooses to whisper.
--
Peter
Shill For Hire
|
Post #2,737
7/24/01 1:25:47 PM
|
I think you're overstating the case...
One of the downsides in living in an organised and civilised society is that one cannot pick and choose the laws one wishes to obey today, because in order for laws to change, there *IS* a clear legislative and political process -- a process that is likely long, tedious and hard.
If one wants to circumvent that process, then one is effectively cutting the democratic process out of the loop. That's not grown-up politics and lawmaking, that's spitting one's dummy out and throwing a tantrum because one can't have what one wants.
We ignore two-year-olds who do that.
One the things about living in an organized and civilizied society is the one CAN pick and choose which laws one wishes to obey and disobey. However, one who decides to disobey the laws must realize the risks and possible penalities that they may face for breaking those laws. MLK and others broke numerous laws; they knew the risks they were taking and the possible punishments that they may have to face. However, they willingly took these risks and penalities for what they believed in. Furthermore, such actions can not be considered to be cutting out the democratic process. The entire nature of a democracy is that these are the rules everyone agrees to. By that very nature, disagreeing with the law is a factor in democracy. In fact, is a very humanizing part of the lawmaking process and may be the ultimate in checks_n_balances: lawmakers can make whatever laws they want - but does it mean anything unless everyone agrees to follow them? Example: if Congress were to pass a maximum 25 mph speed limit, it would be law. But if the police do not enforce the law, courts refuse to hear cases on the law and people ignore the law, what real effect does the law have? Stainless steel traps breed stainless steel rats.
|
Post #2,739
7/24/01 1:31:38 PM
|
Minor correction
I don't know anyone here who lives in a democracy. in the USA, we live in a democratic republic, which is quite different. Those British and Austrailian members here also do not live in a democracy.
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
|
Post #2,762
7/24/01 6:45:33 PM
|
Fishing...
It's all a question of whether the police should be 'anglers' (rod and reel, trolling for individual law-breakers) or whether they should longliners, raking in everybody, and accepting the collateral damages. Anonymity IS important, but police use of 'facial profiling' basically removes any anonymity you have AND introduces a real possibility of error. Unless, of course, you move to the next logical step, and tattoo (via UV sensitive ink, perhaps, for the 'beautiful people'?) SS numbers onto the foreheads of citizens and green-card holders?
When DOES action essentially for the convenience of the police 'cross the line', anyway?
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...
|
Post #2,742
7/24/01 1:47:05 PM
|
Flailing?
"Look at Brandioch flailing down below."
Why is it that you are UNABLE to respond to questions about slavery?
Was it LEGAL?
Was it RIGHT?
Was breaking that law RIGHT or WRONG?
Your problem is that you equate LAW with RIGHT.
But such is not always the case.
So, you have a situation where RIGHT is NOT the same as LEGAL.
Which causes your world view to collapse upon itself.
If legal is not right and right is not legal
-then-
reality collapses and we have mob rule!
Now, let's see if you can grasp the fact that some laws are not "right".
Which will lead to the philosophical question of "do you obey laws that are not right".
Something to think about, we had this discussion in the military. The problem was very real there. Your commander could order you to perform illegal activities. Failure to follow his commands could result in your execution. So, what do you do?
|
Post #2,621
7/23/01 9:41:21 AM
|
not changing the subject at all
I as an individual think for myself. I do not accept that society should think for me.
You say all this surveilance gear is ok by you as you dont intend to be a lawbreaker and you are comfortable with the governments ability to track your everymove.
lets agree to disagree and I will remove and disable such devices and we will both pay for the re-installation until they put me in a camp or the constitution sets you free.
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
|
Post #2,638
7/23/01 11:19:52 AM
|
Ya, Bill, you are.
Drastically.
And you're not listening to what I'm saying.
Most importantly:
Public != Private.
You are talking about PRIVATE things, and said monitoring there.
I am talking about PUBLIC things.
That's a VAST gulf, right there.
I'm *not* telling you that society should think for you.
I *am* saying that vandals need to be punished.
I am *not* saying that surveillance gear is OK unless you're planning to break the law.
I *am* saying that its no different than any other piece of public safety equipment (Ambulance, Police Cruiser).
lets agree to disagree
I'm sorry Bill, I can't do that.
Because you aren't actually paying attention to the issue at hand. So I can't say "OK, we have a difference in opinion". What we have is a failure to communicate. Even after me explicitly explaining, you persist in attributing to me fallacies/strawmen.
And I can't agree with you on that.
You change the subject from night to day, and try and insist that they're related.
And I can't agree with you on that.
Not even to disagree.
Addison
|
Post #2,695
7/24/01 10:08:45 AM
|
ok then lets continue
quote
I am *not* saying that surveillance gear is OK unless you're planning to break the law.
I *am* saying that its no different than any other piece of public safety equipment (Ambulance, Police Cruiser).
end quote
perhaps this is where we differ, cameras to me eqal wiretap on all the phones = monitoring all ip traffic things that normally need a specific target and a warrant from a judge to be allowed. to allow such things without a warrant to me is creeping big brotherism. I cannot escape that thought and since I cannot I will resist. Wether I am right or wrong will not be judged by you and me but by history.
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
|
Post #2,954
7/27/01 12:26:46 PM
|
Re: ok then lets continue
cameras to me eqal wiretap on all the phones = monitoring all ip traffic things that normally need a specific target and a warrant from a judge to be allowed.
Then that's a bad equasion.
Those other things - they apply to things where you can exclude others. Where you can have privacy.
You can refuse to open the trunk of your car to an officer - that's private. To open it, he must comply with the laws pertaining to the 4th amendment.
If you have something illegal sitting on the back seat of your car, and he can see it, then he's in full compliance for arresting you based on the sight.
Cameras in public do NOT equate to wiretapping private conversations.
Addison
|
Post #2,512
7/20/01 10:20:05 PM
|
another point of view
Watching the O'Reilly factor where he was discussing the banning of pitbulls with a panel that included breeders of the dogs as well as opponents. It was extremely surprising to me to see O'Reilly supporting the ban of those dogs. He said that your existing dogs could live until they died and then you couldnt have any more. Excuse me? If my dog doesnt bite anyone (unless I give it instructions) what right does anyone have to barr me from owning a dog when I personally have not ever been accused of having an out of control animal? Now if you would like to rebut this argument I would like you (and remember we are prolly on the same side) to substitute the word gun for dog. Now dont bring up the second ammendment because arms are weapons and I have trained war dogs.
thanx,
bill
can I have my ones and zeros back?
|
Post #2,525
7/20/01 11:31:49 PM
|
Re: another point of view
I'm completely lost with what you're talking about here.
*I'd* make the owners responsible for the dogs. Slightly harder than with a gun - guns stay put, dogs don't - but I'd do the same thing.
The issue here is people vandalizing public property, because they don't want a few quid of speeding ticket.
And I'll say that if those cameras offend you, or the tickets offend you, taht the PROPER thing is to get the law changed.
Just like if I don't like the USPS, I don't think you'd think it heroic or good, if after you dropped in all your bills, if I destroyed the mailbox, say, tossed in gas and a candle..... Would you?
Addison
|
Post #2,532
7/21/01 1:20:41 AM
|
sorry
I was hoping you saw the same O'Reilly bit so could discuss what he was speaking about.
Getting the laws changed.
I remember in Anchorage when a quiet man who was a baker was spending his spare time killing exotic dancers. After the bodies had built up some bright child assembly person "decided" that the solution was banning hitch hiking. After the assembly voted to do same some wag noticed that hitch hiking was banned circa 1962 and also noticed that the law had not dettered the perp one whit. In high dudgeon the assemblyperson doubled the fine for the non enforced law. My point is that indefensable laws deserve ignoring at minimum and flagrant ignoring at maximum. The destruction of a camera aimed at me without my express permission allows me to disable the mechanism to ensure my privacy is not invaded. If the camera is aimed at Cameron Diaz while Im in the act of making her nipples stand up(Iwish) I reserve the right to extract said film from some jamokes camera. If the camera is publically owned I reserve the same right to my privacy.
thanx,
bill
can I have my ones and zeros back?
|
Post #2,539
7/21/01 2:29:29 AM
|
I'm going to have to ask you, as painful as it is, to come
back to reality, Bill. :)
I asked you, would it be reasonable to say that its "OK" for me to firebomb mailboxes, if, in my opinion, the USPS and the IRS are doing things illegally?
And if *not*, please explain the difference between that, and vandalising security cameras.
That's what I'm asking you.
The destruction of a camera aimed at me without my express permission allows me to disable the mechanism to ensure my privacy is not invaded.
That is *not* the case in either the UK or the US. If you're in a public place, doing anything to Cameron Diaz on anybody else, then you can't stop me, or the police, from taking a picture. Ask Sean Penn about the nights he spent in jail.
If the camera is publically owned I reserve the same right to my privacy.
Just explain to me the difference.. and why you should be allowed to vandalize a camera, but not, say a police cruiser used to give tickets.
Addison
|
Post #2,557
7/21/01 2:48:19 PM
|
I can handle that one.
Because of the focus (get it? camera joke!).
If I destroy a camera, I am focusing my efforts on the item that is causing the problem.
If I destroy a mailbox, I might damage other people's letters.
If someone points a camera at me, I can destroy that, but not the camera that was not pointed at me.
|
Post #2,587
7/22/01 5:50:59 PM
|
I don't think you did.
If I destroy a camera, I am focusing my efforts on the item that is causing the problem.
To you, perhaps.
So do you go spray paint over the lenses of ATMs that are on the street (and taking your picture in public?)
Would you have a problem with someone who did?
And then someone was robbed and murdered at that ATM?
Its far more complex than that.
In this case, you have a camera, which is legal, performing a public legal service, and someone destroying it.
The case someone was using, where a city set speed traps on the interstate. If I have a problem with that, and I go firebomb the cruisers, is that heroic and laudable?
(What about when there's a crisis and no cruisers to respond?)
If someone points a camera at me, I can destroy that,
Ask Sean Penn about that.
And then tell me where you can take my property and destroy it because I took a picture of you in public.
Addison
|
Post #2,597
7/22/01 8:31:44 PM
|
Legallity vs. right.
Sean Penn is a public figure. I am not.
"And then someone was robbed and murdered at that ATM?"
Nope. This argument could apply all the way down to installing cameras in your house. But what if someone came in and robbed you and killed you? Then the cameras in your house would be a "Good Thing" (tm).
"In this case, you have a camera, which is legal, performing a public legal service, and someone destroying it."
But it is the bank's private property. The ATM is on the bank's property. The camera is to record who uses the bank's property on the bank's property. The only thing I would see as similar is if the bank was aiming it's PRIVATE camera OUTSIDE of its PRIVATE property to capture the images of PRIVATE citizens who were NOT using the bank's facilities.
Allow me to give you another example of such. Suppose I setup a camera and film a young woman's apartment. I record the times she enters and leaves. Would this be legal? Or would this be "stalking" behaviour?
Now, suppose I set up cameras that only captured my doors and windows. But, on occasion, she came over and her image was captured.
See the difference?
"If I have a problem with that, and I go firebomb the cruisers, is that heroic and laudable?"
Again, the FOCUS. You've moved beyond taking out the offending items to taking out things that are not directly related to the issue. The difference between freedom fighters engaging in guerilla warefare and terrorist bombings.
"And then tell me where you can take my property and destroy it because I took a picture of you in public."
Again, right/wrong/illegal/legal. If I do something that I believe is "right", it isn't always "legal". But laws can be changed.
|
Post #2,602
7/22/01 9:53:13 PM
|
I think the point is going over your head.
Sean Penn is a public figure. I am not.
I think you're being obtuse here, since it is rather detrimental to your point.
Someone took a picture of Sean Penn, on a public street. Sean Penn destroyed his camera, and spent the night in jail.
If I'm taking pictures, of a public street, and you destroy my camera, you'll likely do the same thing.
(There's some limits on what I can do with said picture, but by and large if I'm just taking pictures, you can't stop me, other than leaving.)
What you're forgetting is this is *when you're in public*.
But it is the bank's private property. The ATM is on the bank's property. The camera is to record who uses the bank's property on the bank's property. The only thing I would see as similar is if the bank was aiming it's PRIVATE camera OUTSIDE of its PRIVATE property to capture the images of PRIVATE citizens who were NOT using the bank's facilities.
Lets sing.... B....I.....N....G....O......
Those ATMs (the ones on the street, especially) - they look out, on the public street. More than once tapes from them have been used to look at things that occured inside their field of view, nowhere on the Bank's property, or having to do with the ATM.(And if you'll go back, you'll see I was VERY EXPLICIT on what ATMs I was asking you about)
(In fact, its a defacto system, and I've heard some big city police departments "encourage" banks to have those, coincintially aimed at high-risk areas)
But that's *EXACTLY* what happens - they image EVERYTHING. Is this wrong? Not really, because you're IN PUBLIC when it occurs.
So, care to revist your ATM argument?
Suppose I setup a camera and film a young woman's apartment. I record the times she enters and leaves. Would this be legal? Or would this be "stalking" behaviour?
Depends on the laws. In many cases, yes, its legal - the stalking laws were passed IN RESPONSE to people doing this, and having no recourse.
And they're not uniform.
But your argument is that you should be able to stalk somebody *anyway*, cause, hey, the law, its bogus, duuude.
Again, the FOCUS. You've moved beyond taking out the offending items to taking out things that are not directly related to the issue.
Yeah, FOCUS. You're changing it.
My focus was "I don't think its legal to use cruisers for speedtraps - should I then be able to firebomb them?"
That is the *item* that offends me in that situation.
Allow me to go to khasim mode.
Cruiser = Camera
Destroy cruiser = destroying camera.
No Difference.
So why are you trying to make one?
(khasim mode off, and it wasn't a very good one, I didn't made any insinuations)
Again, right/wrong/illegal/legal. If I do something that I believe is "right", it isn't always "legal". But laws can be changed.
Why are you bitching at *me* about focus?
I said "that's not legal, if you have a problem, change the law".
You said "but that's RIGHT, screw the law". I said "its no different than" you said "But I can do something [blatantly illegal] (grabbing someone's camera). I said "no you can't"> you said "But you can change the law.
Who's got the lost focus here?
I'll kinda go into khasim mode again.
The points you missed:
ATM (that they capture "public" areas outside the bank property)
Public (that taking pictures in public isn't illegal (unless other laws have been passed)
Cruiser = Camera (in my situation, they're analogous, the cruiser's use offends me)
Not legal. (to just destroy something that you don't like)
Addison
|
Post #2,607
7/22/01 11:24:07 PM
|
the point vs pointy head
If it is illegal your point (coreect me if it is wrong) is that the law is always right until you make the authorities change the law thru legal means. Until then you will blindly accept and obey that law and accept penalties.
In my case when I find a law that is wrong to my moral opinion I feel obligated to ignore it and activly defy it (depending on how much it pisses me off) and protest same with violence, some towards property some towards violence.
Germany 1938 would you If you were a Jew wear the yellow star of David on your chest or would you head for the woods with a goodly supply of ammo for your illegal gun and either escape or stay to fight the injustice? Mcveigh may had a valid point but his response was to include non combatants and children. That is immoral, what if he targetted only the decision makers? Is that lawful? obviously no. Is it morally legal? Depends on your point of view. Me I carry the convictions of my arguments and am willing to bet my life on same. the day they declare me and mine illegal and seek to jail and wipe me out I will not show up at the camps with my pj's in hand, I will resist.
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
|
Post #2,609
7/23/01 12:01:07 AM
|
Re: the point vs pointy head
If it is illegal your point (coreect me if it is wrong) is that the law is always right until you make the authorities change the law thru legal means.
My point is that if you DON'T, then you're on a VERY VERY slippery slope.
And its all subjective. We're in a country that lionizes a bunch of drunks who got mad at the King and started a war.
There is *no* difference between vandalizing a public camera, and disabling a police cruiser. NONE.
(either that, or explain it to me)
Germany 1938 would you If you were a Jew wear the yellow star of David on your chest or would you head for the woods with a goodly supply of ammo for your illegal gun and either escape or stay to fight the injustice?
American, 1941. Should you be drafted to go fight for the freedom of Europe, or run to the hills and defend your right to live (Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness), shooting draft board members who want to send you overseas?
Mcveigh may had a valid point but his response was to include non combatants and children.
McVeigh had a lot of valid points. And *according to you*, he's a hero for protesting the government, (and according to Brandioch), he's justified, for attempting to remove the item (federal government) that offended him.
See the slippery slope yet?
*THAT'S* the problem.
And damnned if I don't see a problem with a $10 speeding ticket (or whatever) versus breaking public property that belongs to everyone.
the day they declare me and mine illegal and seek to jail and wipe me out I will not show up at the camps with my pj's in hand, I will resist.
As will I.
But not when they say "hey, you just broke the law, and we've got this proof, $10, please".
Addison
|
Post #2,677
7/24/01 8:55:57 AM
|
Addison, your laundry called. Your brown shirts are ready.
"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 #2,687
7/24/01 9:34:23 AM
|
Um...
For those of you with piss-poor memories (and no rememberance of history)....
The "Brown Shirts" were breaking the law (Even at the time), and were doing what they wanted.
In other words, the opposite of what you're insinuating *my* point is.
Insults are so much easier than thinking, aren't they, Don?
Addison
|
Post #2,693
7/24/01 10:06:17 AM
|
Zoom. It goes over his head.
Could it be that the reference was "insinuating" that you display characteristics of a fascist? Think about it. Since you are (in your own mind) the only one with valid thought processes.
"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 #2,949
7/27/01 12:04:53 PM
|
Not really.
Its just an incorrect analogy.
So its not "over my head", just wrong.
Addison
|
Post #2,972
7/27/01 4:54:24 PM
|
Whatever
Once again, one who disagrees with you is shown up as having inferior thought processes. How .... nice 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 #2,973
7/28/01 11:23:20 AM
|
Whatever
No. was shown to have inferior thought processes.
Course, you could accuse anybody who points out factual/logical. flaws of that.
Attacking someone for being smart, provinf you wrong is a lot easier than saying, "Oops", I suppose.
Did you used to beat up the smart kids in class out at recess, too, and justify that with they had it coming?
Addison
|
Post #2,982
7/29/01 5:21:07 PM
|
You poor dear. Why *of course* your Logic is superior
to anyone else's Reasoning.
We just keep forgetting that you can't tell any difference between the concepts.
|
Post #2,992
7/29/01 10:38:38 PM
|
Re: You poor dear. Why *of course* your Logic is superior
We just keep forgetting that you can't tell any difference between the concepts.
And keep failing to show any difference (between what concepts?)
Addison
|
Post #3,007
7/30/01 7:38:00 AM
|
"Reasoning" with your emotions in stead of logic???
That's not "Reasoning", that's un-reason(-able).
That way lie witch-hunts, mass hysteria, mob rule and oppression.
Like accusing whole small towns (in Norway) or everybody with the *remotest* connection to some day-care centre ("Giraffe" ring a bell?) of Satanic paedophilia; "New Age" (Waco, Hale-Bopp, Scientology, and everything in between) cultism; political "systems" like those in Liberia, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, and most of what used to be Yugoslavia, or, not to put too fine a point on it, most of what used to be the Soviet Union...
That way lies the only political ideology of the last century to EXPLICITLY put emotional "Reasoning" above logical and FACT-based reasoning: The Blut und Boden romanticism espoused by the Nazionalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.
THAT, nothing more and nothing less but EXACTLY that, is what you are actually and in effect advocating. Shame, shame on you, Ashton!
(Oh, the irony: If only you'd thought this trough logically before spouting off, you would have seen that! :-)
Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
Post #3,097
7/30/01 5:13:58 PM
|
Now then CRC. We may eventually get this done,
in spite of the difficulties of sharing a common language.
'Logic' is a powerful tool. When it is honed sharpest, so is it two-edged -- for all which is omitted in one's mentation whenever one is irresistibly drawn to the wonderful simplicity of
EITHER __ OR __.
Imagining that Mr. Boole has captured the essence of 'wisdom creation' via a simple transmissible algorithm / recipe - is tantamount to falling hook, line and sinker into the imagination that 'selected facts' constitute er 'knowledge' and - collect enough umm 'knowledge' -- and ya gets Wisdom (?!) Bzzt. Wonderful what-if, of course. And yes - the species *longs for* just such an 'assembler'.
(Why else would so many have just given up on the really Important Questions, and just delegated these.. to an Authority in which they 'Believe'. Never mind! how many er are 'differently believing' - nor how rarely are the harder Beliefs acted upon! when it is uncomfortable to do so.)
So if you are arguing that intellect shall ever become the both necessary and *sufficient* quality of 'Reason', and even if you disregard the seminal truth within ...
Le coeur a ses raisons qui raisonnent seul ne percevront jamais
Then I doubt I can shake your er Faith in the triumph of codified process over - innate nature of homo-sap. I doubt too, that you will acknowledge the assertion that (~~) after all the internal dialogue, *what always we do* next, is - that which feels 'Right' (Never mind.. what we Say we always do).
I can't think of too many better examples just now than - the topic of this thread: "the Feeling of Being Under Surveillance!. Addison claims ~ 'it don't much matter too me' (or? "I'll trade Anything for er - a better Feeling of Safety from all them Criminuls everywhere")
Is his argument 'logical' - surely. There Are criminals, and more surveillance means: a better chance to Catch one. (That it means much Else - may be elided, when one may select the 'facts', call this sub-set er 'data' and throw in the Boolean calculations). So then: was logic enough.. to describe a (let's call it) "environment one would Want to Live in" - if you had a choice ??)
Yes there were, are and ever will be - Nazis, Fascists and other scum. And yes, their basic rationale (note how that differs from other meanings of rational and reason, not to mention sweet-Reason) -- is fairly easily dissected and shown to be - more than fatally flawed - could 'monumentally Stupid' do in a pinch?
But it isn't mere logic which illuminates the cesspool-minds of those who welcome, embrace! tyranny. Much *More* negates diseased mindsets than mere 'logic'. Could I possibly 'explain' what are the ingredients of that More ?
I think not. Why would you think it 'logically explainable', like some industrial process ?
{sigh}
Ashton
|
Post #3,113
7/30/01 6:56:10 PM
|
Not likely.
Not when you're inventing positions for other people to hold.
Addison claims ~ 'it don't much matter too me' (or? "I'll trade Anything for er - a better Feeling of Safety from all them Criminuls everywhere")
That's not even close to what I said. That's so far away as to be an outright fabrication.
Addison
|
Post #3,139
7/30/01 9:36:40 PM
|
I think that your position is
it doesnt bother you as much as it bothers us suspicious of government folks. A camera is equal to a wiretap on everyones phones and a piece of software to syphon out the criminal elements. I know that is illegal as Echelon of Euro fame cannot be used b y law in the US.
Radio waves travel in public for cellphone use just like the light waves the camera is using yet it is illegal to listen in on cell calls. Camera=public wiretap.
Dirty little secret. It is illegal for the NSA to listen into US conversations. If you need that kind of intel we ask the British (who share the facilities and the take as well as Canada) to do it for us and in return we do the same as it is illegal to be done by their own governments.
You dont see the connection that radio waves are as public as light waves, ergo illegal to use without a warrant.
a note on a point you made earlier, the above is different between a cop (human) looking at a receiver from a publicly owned surveilance camera.
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
|
Post #3,159
7/30/01 11:39:49 PM
|
You really haven't read me in my posts.
I don't think *ANYBODY* here mistrusts the government (as a group) LESS than I do.
But I try and trust individual people, because they usually behave in a certain fashion.
I certainly don't *TRUST* the government with data. But on the other hand, neither can I reasonably *DENY* them data that isn't exactly private.
A camera is equal to a wiretap on everyones phones
No, Bill, its *not*. I keep trying to show that it is, and all you're doing is saying "don't bother me with the facts".
A camera in *public* is not tantamount to a wiretap. Not even close.
And either give *something* to back it up, or stop *saying that*.
Because its bullshit, Bill. Utter bullshit.
Radio waves travel in public for cellphone use just like the light waves the camera is using yet it is illegal to listen in on cell calls. Camera=public wiretap.
Illegal because of? (people have a reasonable expecation of privacy on the phone) (And how many people were actually prosecuted, BTW? It wasn't until it was obvious that people were scanning cell phones that laws were passed (Notice! *LAW*! Golly!) - and *even then* can you cite me prosecutions?
Nope - cellphones started encrypting their transmissions.
But the laws were *based* on the fact that you had a *presumption of privacy*. If someone were sitting next to you - they could testify to what you said. If you sad on the bus next to a cop, and talked about a drug buy......
You dont see the connection that radio waves are as public as light waves, ergo illegal to use without a warrant.
No.
Not even close. If I put a *camera* in your house, that's illegal. If I invade your privacy, that's illegal. If I listen to you in a resturant, that's not illegal.
Its illegal for someone to *invade your privacy*. Which you *do not have on a city street*.
the above is different between a cop (human) looking at a receiver from a publicly owned surveilance camera.
You've said it. You've not told me what the difference is.
And until *I* can come up with something logical, I really can't complain about "government invasion of (non-existant) privacy".
Mischaracterizing my point(s), and assigning me to beliefs that (if you read anything I've ever written) are laughable (for me) doens't help.
What's the difference, Bill?
Between a cop on the street, and one watching a TV screen? IF cops on stakeout see another crime, are they "allowed" to stop it, and bear witness?
But please stop that utter bullshit that that's "what *I* think".
Addison
|
Post #3,177
7/31/01 8:14:07 AM
|
dont bother with the facts
cell transmissions go thru the air outside which is public. light travels thru the air outside where it is public. You cannot tap cell phones without a warrant. You can use recognition software on light waves without a warrant. Light wave in public radio wave in public, is the same thing. That is a fact that you seem oblivious to.
Proof that cell phone onterception is illegal? The tape of Newt Gingrich talking over a cell about how to weasel out of his punishment was obtained by a scanner. The 2 people that made the tape were charged with an illegal wiretap.(although I dont know what the end result was)
Using a camera with software that scans everybody and picks out the bad guys is the same as scanning all cell calls using software to pick up illegal conversations.
Now anything you dont agree with is not a fact and you insist that everything you opine is a fact so ther is not much to do about that except say bon chance, we arnt going to even agree on the argument here.
over and out.
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
|
Post #3,200
7/31/01 9:54:07 AM
|
You're still missing Addison's point Bill.
cell transmissions go thru the air outside which is public. light travels thru the air outside where it is public. You cannot tap cell phones without a warrant. You can use recognition software on light waves without a warrant. Light wave in public radio wave in public, is the same thing. That is a fact that you seem oblivious to.
IANAL, but it's not whether something happens outside or inside which makes someting private or public. It's whether the law regards the participants as having an "expectation of privacy". This is what Addison's been trying to point out.
Your home is private because the law says you have a reasonable expectation of privacy there. Your garbage on the curb is not, according to the law. The courts have ruled that telephone conversations have that expectation of privacy so they're protected as being private conversations and require a warrant for a tap. Conversations in a park are not. Cell phone conversations involve transmission of photons through public airspace. That doesn't mean that cell phone conversations are public. They're not because they have the "expectation of privacy" protection in the law.
All Addison's been trying to do is to get you folks who are arguing with him to give a basis other than "I don't like it" for opposing the laws under discussion. What laws would you change and on what basis would you change them?
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #3,220
7/31/01 11:17:09 AM
|
I understand the point just disagreeing with it
RICO would be the first to go.
Cleanup the firearms list, if you are not a felon or have a history of pychological problems you should be able to buy any gun, rifle, shotgun, semi auto around if you pass the instant check you get yer weapon. A little deeper check to buy full auto with get rid of the local cop provision.
Extend the expectation of privacy to being in the open air where you hope that all the cameras, infrared detectors parabolic antenaes may only be directed in your direction after a Judge has decreed there is probable cause that a crime has been commited.
Conspiracy laws need to be overhauled.
Forfeiture of property without a court hearing would disappear.
Laws banning certain breeds of dogs.
That is just a short list. Actually every law on the books should have a sunset claus so it can be examined in case of changes needed or thrown off the books.
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
|
Post #3,230
7/31/01 11:44:25 AM
|
No, you don't.
RICO would be the first to go
I won't bother with the history behind that - and the reason it was passed. (I don't like how its misused by prosecutors, but that's a refinement that's needed). (You' just ignore all the cases of murderers and other organized crime members who were able to manipulate the system with conspiracies).
Extend the expectation of privacy to being in the open air where you hope that all the cameras, infrared detectors parabolic antenaes may only be directed in your direction after a Judge has decreed there is probable cause that a crime has been commited.
Based on what?
You just said that you have "privacy" when you're in public, so what evidence could anyone offer against you?
It would all be "protected" under your privacy!
I don't think you understand, and I think you need to think this through a bit more. If you want to extend this, well, OK, I don't think you've got a logical leg to stand on, but feel free to try.
But the way to get that, (and not decend into anarchy) is to make the law, the definitions, etc work. *not* by vandalizing public property.
The automatic sunset is something that I've often wanted to see, but its probably impractical.
Addison
|
Post #3,318
7/31/01 9:18:50 PM
|
heres another reason (thanx, freep!)
[link|http://www.freep.com/news/mich/lein31_20010731.htm|http://www.freep.co...20010731.htm]
RICO was bad to begin with from the getgo. Wanna catch a mobster? Get a reasonable cause, get a warrant and tap him up the ass. RICO is an excuse for frustrated prosecutors who wanted more than charging a mobster with the crime at hand. Too fscking bad. You cant catchem dont change the law to provide criminal charges by denying the constitutional right to freedom of association. Aside from that you are right it is heavily abused in both criminal and civil cases.
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
|
Post #3,334
7/31/01 10:18:41 PM
|
Re: heres another reason (thanx, freep!)
You're complaining about the police keeping and having (unlogged and unmonitored) access to a database.
I have the same concerns.
So I want the access logged and (the ability to) monitor.
Wanna catch a mobster? Get a reasonable cause, get a warrant and tap him up the ass.
And when your witnesses disappear, and your jury is threatened or bribed, (or the judge)... what then?
That's when RICO was passed.
Yes, its abused as hell now by prosecutors. I don't like its use.
You cant catchem dont change the law to provide criminal charges by denying the constitutional right to freedom of association.
It was more to deal with the "organized" crime part. The planned murders - now if you were *part* of it - even if you didn't pull the trigger - you could be held liable.
If you planned the bank robbery, you could be charged. If you drove the getaway car, they could charge you with more than running a red light.
And more importantly - when you caught more than 1 person, they couldn't all point the finger in a circle, making it hard to convict anybody.
I don't have a problem with convicting on conspiracies. Its not who you hang out with. Its who you hang out with when planning to break the law.
Addison
|
Post #3,323
7/31/01 9:43:54 PM
|
*sigh*
Based on what?
You just said that you have "privacy" when you're in public, so what evidence could anyone offer against you?
It would all be "protected" under your privacy! So - prior to surveillance cameras, in order to solve crimes, police had to be stationed every streetcorner, taking notes, and asking for ID (facial recog. software) in order to solve crimes? This is not about the ability to assign surveillance on an individual - with 'probable cause', that's always been possible. This is about the police monitoring all of our movements in public, 'trawling for crime' without evidence that any specific crime has been committed. You have no problem with being unmonitored being the exception to the rule (something you would have to do by hiding on private property). I do - so do many others. Why should we be punished for the convenience of the police? And that's what it is - convenience. To insist that law enforcement requires constant monitoring of the populace is ridiculous - or do you insist that law enforcement has been impossible until now?
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...
|
Post #3,330
7/31/01 10:10:42 PM
|
That's not what I said.
So - prior to surveillance cameras, in order to solve crimes, police had to be stationed every streetcorner, taking notes, and asking for ID (facial recog. software) in order to solve crimes?
That was not what I said.
Go back and read it again.
I was using *Bill O*'s stated case.
The way he described it, police *could not witness anything* without a warrent.
And that's what I was replying to.
And that's what it is - convenience. To insist that law enforcement requires constant monitoring of the populace is ridiculous - or do you insist that law enforcement has been impossible until now?
Nope.
But if we did it according to Bill's rules, we'd either have inconsistant, impossible-to-follow laws, or none.
Under *what he said*, it would be near impossible, yes.
Not what I said, his hypothesis. I was just expanding on the extention of that.
Addison
|
Post #3,338
7/31/01 10:29:27 PM
|
What he said:
quote: Extend the expectation of privacy to being in the open air where you hope that all the cameras, infrared detectors parabolic antenaes may only be directed in your direction after a Judge has decreed there is probable cause that a crime has been commited. He seems to include probable cause and the assignation of a warrant very clearly....
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...
|
Post #3,341
7/31/01 11:04:47 PM
|
Yep.
Extend the expectation of privacy to being in the open air where you hope that all the cameras, infrared detectors parabolic antenaes may only be directed in your direction after a Judge has decreed there is probable cause that a crime has been commited.
(emphasis mine).
And I was pointing out that that expectation of privacy - that the police can't observe you without a warrent - means that there would be almost an impossibility of *getting said probable cause*.
"we saw....." "I object" "Objection sustained".
In order to change that, you have to differentiate between the police watching with their eyes, and a camera. (Hasn't been done so far). Given that - when the police can only watch AFTER a warrent has been answered, then how do they get the warrent?
Addison
|
Post #3,444
8/1/01 1:05:50 PM
|
Hasn't been done so far?
Sure it has.
Police can use what they hear as testimony, yet cannot record without a warrant.
This does not seem to stop them from fighting crime, or testifying in court.
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...
|
Post #3,454
8/1/01 1:47:25 PM
|
No.
I started to say... "That's the *way it is now*. (the police can observe)"
Not under the Boxley situation, however. There, he's saying the police can only observe ONCE a warrant has been issued. Since they can't observe to get a warrant...... Then how can they get one? (Bill's not explained the difference between a cop, undercover cop, and a camera. So if you restrict the actions of one, you restrict them all. (per current law)).
This is Bill's hypothesis - that a warrent is needed for police attention. Of course that's silly - but its *what he said*. Talk to him about the silliness, I"m just pointing it out.
But then it hit me - Wait. No its not.
Police can use what they hear as testimony, yet cannot record without a warrant.
That's not true. Notice the police cruiser cameras? No warrant needed for sound and video for them.
So, no, that's not right at all. Because what they're taping and recording is *public*. Not private.
So no, they *don't* need a warrent for taping public events.
Addison
|
Post #3,455
8/1/01 1:55:06 PM
|
Question about recording
As I mentioned elsewhere, laws vary state-to-stae on who has to be aware of recording for it to be legal. I've never considered how that applies to dashboard cameras. I suspect that what law exists specifies audio recording, with no mention of video. If that's the case, it's bad law, IMO.
So does anyone know: In the states where it's illegal to record your own phone conversations without informing the other party, are the police allowed to record audio or video of you without your consent?
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
|
Post #3,469
8/1/01 3:20:25 PM
|
Not sure about other places.
But in georgia, they have something called "implied consent". If you get a drivers license, one of the caveats is that by accepting the license, you give implied consent for a breathalizer test in case of a dui stop and you also give implied consent to be video recorded in any traffic stop.
"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 #3,490
8/1/01 4:36:41 PM
|
Heh.. Kinda like the Windoze EULA, no ?
You wanna drive? OK - sign away a few rights right ____ here.
Want medical care for that punctured lung? OK - sign away that house ___ here.
Wanna report illegal actions of your Corp employer? OK Mr. Unemployed with no insurance, sign ___ here.
Murica. Love it or Leave It\ufffd
(Still and all - the cops' dash cameras are a two-edged sword - and it isn't clear what all the implications are. Bad cop behavior may be as easily shown as bad driver behavior.) Nothing is *really* 'simple'. We just so *want* it to be..
A.
|
Post #3,530
8/1/01 7:41:36 PM
|
Interesting point.
Notice the police cruiser cameras? No warrant needed for sound and video for them.
Is court testimony based on them then, legal? It's possible that such recordings might be used (until some lawyer challenges it, anyway). Police powers now encompass so many things now, some directly in conflict with the constitution (if a cop mentions "drugs", for instance, property can be siezed, and sold at auction without restitution to the owner, even if the charges never go to court. DUI checkpoints allow basic searches without probable cause... etc., etc) and precedent. An officer can 'run' a license plate (public) without any overt reason; asking for identification, license, insurance, registration, etc. requires probable cause. So - is a face a 'license plate', or 'ID'? Can the police legally use face-recognition software to trawl for 'perps'? Since, as many love to quote, driving is a privelege, not a right, license plates might be spot-checkable - I suspect that since "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is a holy canon here in the 'States, 'face checks' don't fall into the same category. And if they are tested legally, and are considered legal, watch hoods and masks become commonplace fashion statements. Not everyone is comfortable with the police watching everything you do, with the only respite being to hide on private property.
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...
|
Post #3,536
8/1/01 8:19:24 PM
|
Re: Interesting point.
Is court testimony based on them then, legal? It's possible that such recordings might be used (until some lawyer challenges it, anyway)
As far as I know, yes.
I did a quick web search, and didn't find any news to it being every challenged. (found a couple Canadian articles decrying it).
Again, since this is a public issue, I don't think they can be.
Maybe we can ask LAM,E for an opinion. :)
watch hoods and masks become commonplace fashion statements. Not everyone is comfortable with the police watching everything you do, with the only respite being to hide on private property.
And the West thinks the Arabs are old-fashioned and archaic. :)
As to the police powers - the seizure law is so obscene as to be worthy of question how it ever was passed.
Addison
|
Post #3,541
8/1/01 8:49:39 PM
|
Cruiser cams
Presumably the cruiser cameras are used to back up the testimony of the officer - at least that's what I've seen. They aren't used in a vacuum, like the street cams. Officer testifies "I did this and thus, and the perp did this." Produces cruiser video in support. Problem is that without other evidence, people can claim they were roughed up or evidence planted; with that camera, it's harder to do the claim.
Also, remember, the street intersection cams have been associated with deliberate shortening of the yellow light period. Of *course* when the yellow light interval is shortened, there will be more people caught in the intersection. Pure dollars at stake here.
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
|
Post #3,615
8/2/01 12:05:07 PM
|
And as such, I have no problem with them
The cruiser cam is limited in a very practical sense - there are only as many out there as there are cruisers. You can't blanket the city with them without blanketing the city with cruisers. You can't use them to track everybody everywhere without spending too much money and scaring the straights.
A cruiser cam is equivalent to a cop seeing things that happen in public.
Not only that, they encourage professionalism and acceptable behavior on the part of the police. Sure, they can be turned off, but the officer's testimony is so much more compelling when there is video.
I suppose the software could be used, and the database built, on the images anyway. But considering the limited resources, it is likely that the cameras will be focused on problems, not fishing for crimes.
White guys in suits know best
- Pat McCurdy
|
Post #3,294
7/31/01 3:51:00 PM
|
But aren't you eliding the "powers reserved to the people"
here? (Again). You observe, Your home is private because the law says you have a reasonable expectation of privacy there.
And I say that - just as universal presence of cel-fone info in the \ufffdther qualifies for protection from Corp/Govt snooping - so do other electromagnetic 'waves' like light (as Bill opines). That's plain bloody physics BTW - not that that has much to do with 'laws' we invent.
And if you think that's a stretch: *that* appears to be what the 'reserved powers' phrase was intended to cast light upon -- there bloody well *can't* be a specific 'granting of video wave protection' explicitly stated! (And here we enter the Strict Consructionist realm: if'n the Founding Mothers didn't say we couldn't: We Can\ufffd) A variant of daleross' little doggerel? "if'n it's legal it's ethical".
Now Addison may not *mean* that he agrees with the SConstructionists, nor necessarily believe that constant surveillance is a Good Thing (??) - but he surely is arguing that we all ought to see the Problem in their er 'light'.
This POV is tantamount to yielding to that antediluvian mindset: without a fight - because "it's the law - or the absence of": a nicely granted specific "permission" from some authority, which is 'required'.
I demur.
A.
|
Post #3,296
7/31/01 4:14:41 PM
|
I don't think so.
And I say that - just as universal presence of cel-fone info in the \ufffdther qualifies for protection from Corp/Govt snooping
Not, you'll notice, merely because of constitutional grounds, but because of *additional* laws passed to give such protection.
so do other electromagnetic 'waves' like light (as Bill opines)
Which - given similar laws passed, sure.
The two are somewhat - but not perfectly - analogous. (The commonality in EMR notwithstanding) The problem(s) are because 1) Images on a public street are not protected by any law. 2) Sounds on a public street, likewise. Conversations in private, images in private *are*.
but he surely is arguing that we all ought to see the Problem in their er 'light'.
I've yet to find a better way to suggest a good law (or counter a bad one) than to think about how to explain it.
I do consider myself to be a Constructionist, who you mistakenly lampoon, BTW.
Is Government survellience illegal under the constitution? Not so far - but if it *invades privacy* (other than what is *publically accessable*), then there must be a due process.
Nothing in the Constutition specifies speed limits, or mandates a car registration.... but you can't (with much support) say that the "right" to speed as fast as you want with an unsafe car is a "right not enumerated".
Doctors, therapist records - those are sealed *by legistlative fiat*.
(Because of privacy concerns). Not, apparently, because it was a 4th amendment violation to inspect them. But police can observe someone's activities, on the street, without warrents or needing to show cause.
And that's *exactly* where this discussion is about.
If you want to define an arbitrary difference, (as we have for certain things) be my guest. But since it *is* arbitrary, it *will* be debated/argued. That it doesn't go far enough, or it goes too far.
But these analogies where exactly that occured are reinforcing *that*, which is *my* point.
But don't go smashing cameras and police cars because you don't want a speeding ticket. (or claim that that's a "right reserved to the people".
Addison
|
Post #3,345
8/1/01 12:58:11 AM
|
Forget.. mobs dressed in black, smashing cameras.
And: all which would have had to go Very wrong before.. that many folk would get off asses and away from a Tee Vee.
Our fundamental disagrement is over the significance of a program of increasing presence of video cameras everywhere. You appear to deem this a small (?) escalation over the numbers of such devices as are already at ATMs, stoplights (allegedly triggered Only on a moving car + red signal state), airports and such.
I OTOH see that the reasons currently being bandied - have to do with crowd surveillance, face recognition - allegedly OK because "they mean well", want to see IF any of those faces are Wanted faces. Of necessity such pix must be compared with file pix - and if not stored this week, the techno is available and cheap - to store All pix. Just in case. Even to coordinate face-matches with time-codes of a variety of locations = tracking. And much more, as we well know: essentially a search warrant for NO probable cause - a fishing expedition 24/7.
"A series of quantitative changes eventually constitute a qualitative change." I say that the direction of a possible, impending ramping-up of just plain surveillance is itself a qualitative change in the way Muricans might next live their lives.
I also deem your public/private precise dichotomy a Red Herring. This because: it simply Is Not Enough for there to be merely and *only* a private locked door.. where certain measured activities might be permitted (except sex of some kinds, ingesting plants of some kind, reading __ (not quite yet))-- while *everywhere else*, all shall be taped, and results indexed, saved and shared.
No, we aren't there yet - but if we actually Get there: IMhO very much ugliness Will have occurred all along the way. And by that stage - we shall already have lost too much to list.
Meanwhile, vigilance and action is the obviously sane course - and we shall soon enough see, how many Muricans care or do not care - if their daily activities are fodder for nothing less serious than, universal dossiers.
Everyone reading this forum is capable of extrapolating the fact of many cameras + all which can be done with the images. And all can see what occurs (has already occurred) when techno makes something, once impossible: very very easy. This is far from a trivial prospect, or a mere 'quantitative change'.
Protest all you like that - there is no real difference between a policeman observing faces in a crowd and happily matching One -- and, all of the above. I disagree in toto.
Unless many munis follow the lead of the mayor (Not his own c. council) of the Fla backwater - all of this sound and fury shall be moot. We can see who will man the barricades if and when these have appeared. Meanwhile we may all hope this IS seen to be a moot topic. Via countless next rejections of the idea.
A.
|
Post #3,423
8/1/01 11:06:07 AM
|
Not the only thing forgotten.
Our fundamental disagrement is over the significance of a program of increasing presence of video cameras everywhere. You appear to deem this a small (?) escalation over the numbers of such devices as are already at ATMs, stoplights (allegedly triggered Only on a moving car + red signal state), airports and such.
No, Ashton.
Our fundamental disagreement is over the fact that I speaka English.
You no speaka English, you speaka emotion.
I have fundamental, basic PROBLEMS with cameras being everywhere.
I don't *like* them everywhere. But they're NOT ILLEGAL. And I *realise* this. Nor, can I realistically point to any given case law and scream "THIS IS WRONG". I don't LIKE cops having databases. But I accept the realistic fact that they DO, and WILL. *I* want laws governing *access* and *logs* to said data, and accountability.
I've said this many times.
allegedly OK because "they mean well",
Allegedly who? I never said that. I've disabused you twice of that notion.
Are you illiterate or just stupid? (Sorry for the insult there, but I didn't know how else to *ask* that, since its *been covered*, and its what you said, not I).
I didn't say that it was OK because they 'meant well'. I said that they weren't any different from any other public safety equipment. I still stand by that.
Now, stop telling me what I "said" and stick to what I did say. I know its harder - a lot. But either that, or I have to presume that you're doing it *intentionally*. And intention deception - how do you classify that?
I also deem your public/private precise dichotomy a Red Herring.
You can deem the law of Gravity to be a crock of butter. It doesn't change it.
That *is* the issue at hand. You ignoring it is *your* problem, not mine. Your focus is at issue, not mine. You wanting to redefine it away is.. well, you get the picture.
In fact, that's the problem with your argument - you don't LIKE the actual issue, so you change it. "Red Herring?" No.. changing it away from that (or attempting to) is a red herring....
This because: it simply Is Not Enough for there to be merely and *only* a private locked door.. ... while *everywhere else*, all shall be taped, and results indexed, saved and shared.
That's *how it is*. If you're in a public place, its public. If you are in a private place, its private.
If you don't like the concept of a permanent record - then you'll have to get a law passed FOR THAT PURPOSE.
This isn't (merely) *my opinion*, its the *law*. And right now, the law doesn't cover what you do *in public*.
Do what you will. Its your ignorance showing there.
Unless many munis follow the lead of the mayor (Not his own c. council) of the Fla backwater
Ya know.
For all your insults, all your derisions, you've yet to provide one really tangible piece of evidence why this sort of thing is bad.
Just one.
I know its easier to insult, and to toss straw onto me. But c'mon, Ash. Just one.
If they do, well, hell, why wouldn't they? Why *not*?
When you're at the meeting frothing and declaring that things done in public is a red herring, and everybody looks at you and asks "What kind of mushroom did he have on his salad?" well, I don't think you'll do very well.
I can tell you reasons I don't *like* the idea. I can come up with likely abuses of the system(s).
But those are not legal reasons that they aren't allowed to put them up.
Addison
|
Post #3,480
8/1/01 4:08:54 PM
|
Once again you speak of The Law, monolithically
..as if it were utterly unambiguous. Implicit in that view IS digital think ultimately ending as Right/Wrong.
If you are insulted by my characterizing the mindset behind this view of The Law as I have done - consider that your expressed idea of The Law is not uniformly shared. Libraries have been written about the nuances. And considering 'emotional' as pejorative is just another piece of cant. The people who elected to fight the Redcoats were &^#$^ emotional! about what they decided, and what consequences they accepted.
Then after redefining emotion you presume to be sole possessor of *correct* English too. Ah it's so lovely when One Knows One is Right\ufffd
While denying that you are spouting digital think: you persist in ignoring, no matter how many times I mention it - the "reserved powers" clause - as much *The Law* as any of the countless statutes officially on someone's books and - often contradictory and varied, from locale to locale.
Lastly you adhere to your digital idea of Public/Private - also in your mind but not all minds. We #&@* *LIVE all over* and not just behind our locked doors (which are hardly our 'castles' either - given the laws regulating behavior *even there*).
For you: The Law is permission from authority, already written. For me and my ilk - the State must prove it has the license from Constitutional implications, before it may embark upon any new program of limiting my "reserved powers" - not vice versa.
It is only in *your mind* that there is NO limit to the state's powers to employ surveillance at will. You think it's cut & dried - and why can't I just See that You are Right !? Hah. That's ~ same message as the folks that ring doorbell and will explain to me all unasked: how the Universe works! - and Why can't I just See it ? You emotional, about your purely intellectual perfectly logical / legal exercise here? Nahhhh.
I demur. More cameras soon? Barricades sooner.
A.
|
Post #3,534
8/1/01 8:14:09 PM
|
What can I say?
But you are a low-down, out and out, dirty liar.
If you are insulted
I am insulted by direct falsehoods, and their repeated assertations after being (mistakingly presuming they were innocent mistake) corrected.
I see there is no point. If you get in a corner, you lie.
It is only in *your mind* that there is NO limit to the state's powers to employ surveillance at will.
Nope.
Been stated many times.
The only way you could say that was that you - you are implementing the "Big Lie".
Like I told you before - you are the falsehood-spouting mouthpiece of irrational 'meedja'... Talk not of Rush, of the Meedja - for you speak of yourself.
Except now I realise you're doing it on *purpose*.
So while I attempt to use facts, and correctly state what (at least I think, and beg pardon if I misunderstand) people are saying, you are out spreading lies. Lies lies and more lies.
What more can I say? I tell the truth, you lie.
I presume its a mistake, you lie more. So fine - continue your dishonesty. Not a lot of my business - and I'll just tarnish *my* reputation and *my* honor - which I guard scrupulously - trying to discuss with you as you continue to lie time and again.
So if you insist on being known as a hypocrite, and worse - a direct, unabashed liar - more power to you.
For you have no excuse for that description being any sort of mistake, or accident. Not any more.
(I also would presume this means the end of rants about the "Repo lying", were you not as blatant a hypocrite as a liar.)
Addison
PS - My very sincere apologies to the rest of the people here, especially those who, despite disagreeing with me, do the honor and favor of discussing with me. I've attemped to keep the vitrol down, and merely state what had happened here in the name of civility, and if I failed, again, my apologies.
|
Post #3,553
8/1/01 9:58:21 PM
|
I regret you are taking a characterization of a mindset
- one which I see you apparently defending, in each reply - as if I imagined that *You* personally ARE that mindset. I have treated your assertions as being (your best understanding of) "what The Law states / does not state" currently. I am arguing with *the mindset* for which you appear to be an apologist:
A) The law is clear about cameras - they are allowed and more will be allowed (whether you or I like it).
B) Short of making new laws - any other actions are ~ despicable (my summary not your word).
I have noted your also stated 'reservations': as each new er flaw of present legalistic application, is mentioned by one or another. Obviously! you are not "happy" with The Law as it is often interpreted. Either.
Yet you rebut my comments re the Source of (at least our) Law, the means for gaining attention to unworkable ones, and the occasions where civil disobedience has been required in the past: as if those concepts are foreign to you / anathema to Murican behavior / irresponsible if not scurrilous, even to speak of.
I do not *need* to LIE about "what you might, would? will!~ do" re say, some next proliferation of surveillance equipment near-to home or far away. I have never pretended to know (since: I couldn't).
Your reductio of the emotional quality which lies behind every action (which anyone ever deems "important") is as insulting as the LIES you claim I am telling about YOU.
Can we get this straight? I have No Idea what you might do or not do re any aspect of this topic. I argue with your IDEAS, and your characterization of ~ "what the problem is" - and do not confuse those with YOU.
It is always and everywhere Devil's Advocacy IMhO unless and until a proponent says: "this is the way it is supposed to be". (Rush allegedly does that a lot, for ex.) THEN it may become 'personal' - the self-ID with the POV has been made.
Argue as passionately for a POV as you want. Expect ridicule of the POV by those who find it flawed. (They certainly will, if mine is flawed) If it really is your POV - the ridicule is *STILL* about the POV.
Personally, I consider any discussion of 'surveillance' to go to the heart of "whatever 'personal freedom' might mean", anywhere at all. And I will oppose its ascent in Murica, as assiduously as I would have opposed nascent Nazism in Germany (and would likely be dead as consequence - if I hadn't fled the country in time.) If such a trend occurs here: I cannot ever claim ignorance of where it was leading. And choices will be ~same, I expect: fled or dead.
I doubt you are 'for increased surveillance', either; just a guess. I know what I will tolerate - not what you will. Nor do I presume that I know that.
If this is not clear enough.. then ditto:
What can I say?
A.
|
Post #3,176
7/31/01 7:59:31 AM
|
I think you might be slightly mistaken...
...in that it is illegal to tap a landline phone but NOT illegal to listen to cellphone conversations which are broadcast over public frequency.
I could be wrong, too...but I thought that was the rule...which makes cellphones a really bad idea for crooks.
Um...er...well...
I have no choice!
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #3,243
7/31/01 12:47:51 PM
|
Actually, I believe it is illegal to listen in on
cell phone transmissions. (Not that it's stopped anyone from doing so.) I seem to recall from a 2600 friend that was quite annoyed that scanners, computers and a few other things were now classified as thieve's tools.
Stainless steel traps breed stainless steel rats.
|
Post #3,260
7/31/01 1:47:07 PM
|
Isn't recording the problem, cell phone or live?
I know it's state-to-state but isnt' the prohibition against recording? Some states, at least one party to the conversation has to have given prior consent to recording, so you can record your own telephone conversations without the other party knowing. In some states, both parties have to know.
This, I think, is the hook Addison has been looking for: an existing legal precedent that can be used against the Florida surveillence system. The system simply doesn't work without recording everything and comparing the captured images. What are the laws in Florida about covert recordings?
Now, this would become an issue again once the hardware is fast enough to do the recognition in real time and notify a human operator. Then they could work out procedures for notifying police to contact a possible suspect. But by then, hopefully, we would have been able to have a better debate on what we want.
Then again, if Microsoft and RIAA and friends have been able to define copying from hard drive to RAM as "copying" for the purposes of copyright enforcement, then I imagine capturing an image of my face to a computer system in order to do a comparison -- even if that comparison is done in real time -- could be considered "recording."
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
|
Post #3,297
7/31/01 4:35:19 PM
|
And that's my problem with the cameras
It isn't exactly privacy in the usual sense. You are out in public, and anybody can see you. If a cop is watching, you have no cause to complain.
But if the cop is recording your every public move, that's wrong unless there is a real specific reason. And that's what the problem is with the system - not that the camera allows the cops to see you, but that the database allows the cops to easily compile a detailed record of your movements. If there is a specific investigation and they are watching you, they can do that already, but this allows them to do it with everybody all the time.
That's just plain creepy.
And there are plenty of lawful things that I might be doing that I don't want recorded. I may drop in at the local pr0n shop (the resolution on glossy paper is so much better than anything on my monitor) or do a little gun shopping, and I have even been known (don't tell anybody) to enter the offices of [link|http://www.shepherd-express.com|that hippy rag] that sometimes publishes stories that some cops find annoying. Now, all of those are legal, and all out in public where I can't expect privacy, and if I'm being investigated for a crime those are valid things to look for. But I don't want the cops keeping track of me doing them all the time. Even if the cops are on the up-and-up. And if they hire human beings as cops, the potential for abuse is rather major.
A few years ago, Milwaukee had a police chief named Harold Brier. He was chief for many, many years, and had a kind of agreement with City Hall that as long as he kept the Maffia out of Milwaukee, they wouldn't ask any questions, put any restrictions on him, or replace him. One thing he did was maintain the red files - a set of dossiers on local communists, socialists, political activists, prominent jews, and other problem people. The information was (as far as I know) gleaned from photographs of demonstrations, news reports, regular police files, etc. Harold, when asked about those files, said that he kept them because these people were vulnerable to being attacked by intolerant individuals and groups, so he needed the information in order to better protect them. Riiiiiiiiight. As far as anyone knows, those files didn't contain any information that wasn't public. And yet, there were quite a few people who had a big problem with those files. Among those people was the next police chief, hardly a libretarian privacy freak.*
Loss of privacy has real, concrete consequences - my daughter didn't to go to a doctor for more effective birth control because she mistakenly thought that Wisconsin has a parental notification law. She is now 16 and pregnant. We have an excellent relationship, she was just trying to avoid embarrasment.
-------------------------
* The new police chief promised to destroy the files as his first official act. But then he said that it would be illegal for him to do that, because of the Freedom of Information Act. He did promise to lock them away from any use other than responding to FOIA requests.
And the Maffia thing? The Feds investigated right around the time he retired. Harold hadn't been keeping up his end of the deal for a long, long time. He was no more effective in keeping them out than any other police chief.
White guys in suits know best
- Pat McCurdy
|
Post #3,121
7/30/01 7:24:23 PM
|
Je crois que vous avez misaperc,u cet expression:
Le coeur a ses raisons qui raisonnent seul ne percevront jamais Do you think this pointing-out of the BLINDNESS * of the emotional _heart's_ "reasoning" is supposed to be _praise or endorsement_ of it?!? Not that I can place the quote... But if that is really what it is saying, then that only goes to confirm what we all already knew: The French are *nutz*! You seem to be misunderstanding me, thinking I'm arguing we should all be computers in stead of the emotional animals we are **. No, I never mant to say that -- I'm saying Feeling is all well and good. For one thing, all our values are of course based in it; for another, our admiration for some particularly elegant argument in support of some value over another, is also an emotion. But, when it comes to *evaluating* values, *choosing* between conflicting goals which are often *both* good... Then, *informed* reasoning is better than blind emotion. For that, "cooler heads", as opposed to "hot hearts", must prevail. Lemme put it this way: Which are the more respected statesmen -- the ones that throw temper tantrums, or the ones that manage to hang on to their cool? To take an example, your Founding Fathers probably weren't all perfectly unanimous on everything all the time -- I can imagine there were some pretty deep discussions as the Constitution was hammered out. In those debates, which would you have wanted to "win": Hot-headed incoherent sputterers of Emotion, or persuasively _Reasoning_ advocates of (their surely equally emotion-based) rational value systems?
*) "[Ils] ne percevront jamais" = "[they] never percieve [anything]". **) These over-convoluted attempted put-downs like "Imagining that Mr. Boole has captured the essence of 'wisdom creation'", "Faith in the triumph of codified process", and so on... Are getting rather annoying, BTW. And old. Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
Post #3,162
7/31/01 2:16:58 AM
|
Re: apres mois le deluge..
Might have been Pascal (!) but there are various wordings - my pref. en Anglais: The heart has its reasons which reason alone shall never perceive.Sorry about the Boole repetition - but you were arguing IMO for a large dollop of logic. Again. Doesn't mean you know no other, or that I imagine same. I respond to your editing of what you focussed upon. Why would you imagine anyone sane would substantially disagree with: But, when it comes to *evaluating* values, *choosing* between conflicting goals which are often *both* good... Then, *informed* reasoning is better than blind emotion. For that, "cooler heads", as opposed to "hot hearts", must prevail. Nor this: In those debates, which would you have wanted to "win": Hot-headed incoherent sputterers of Emotion, or persuasively _Reasoning_ advocates of (their surely equally emotion-based) rational value systems? Well to name just one - Tom Paine was certainly hotheaded; nor were the 'debates' paragons of cool-headed "reasoning together". Yet in the end we had a genius like Jefferson to clean up, Edit! (most important literary job there is) all the mess into a coherent whole. Still: "evaluating values" comes perilously close to oxymoron or possibly just different scales - meaning of meaning yada yada. But sometimes a poem or story may illustrate a 'meaning' better than a prose 'analysis'. No rules govern clear transmission of intertwined ideas - or limit the political hackery of those into something lesser, when no one is noticing. (Ever read the language in our congressional output?) Yes too - the extremes ever fail. I consider it 'extreme' to treat the idea of surveillance cameras in proliferation, as - No Big deal. I consider it equally extreme to begin opposition by trashing such as exist (under currently many \ufffdgis-es or \ufffdges). But if one never 'feels' what surveillance *means* - nothing much will occur to prevent its installation. That would go for its proponents as well. And I still believe that there is an overemphasis upon 'logic' re human affairs; of course one must not ever suspend logic, as we see works so well in lesser endeavors: But it is mainly useful in pointing out flaws - of lesser use in drafting laws - such as homo-sap just might live by, if they are worded quite wisely. Though George thought his 'algebra' would be quite useful in human discourse (I've read) - I believe he overestimated the possibility of Any 'algebra' making matters much easier amongst large numbers of us. (For one thing, each believes s/he is Gawd, or very close-to Her yada yada. Logic? where is thy counter-sting to That!) (So I don't need much reminding either - about Erwache and the rise of Brown Shirts et al. Man is at absolute lowest-consciousness when fullest of self-importance, spouting inane God-slogans and - with guns to back the mob. Mob = nohumanspresent. It's a different beast, en masse.) A.
|
Post #3,020
7/30/01 9:36:02 AM
|
I observe, I see a pattern.
Let's see if I have this straight.
The pattern of argument you have used in this thread is of the "my country, right or wrong" type.
That is a characteristic of fascist thinking.
I make an inference, not an anology, to this with my "Brown shirt" post.
You lose the point entirely, contrasting the brown shirt's lawbreaking with your own pristine existence instead of recognising that the fascist thinking was what I was referring to.
I use your own post title in another portion of this thread (Zoom...) in an attempt to show irony and use the body of my post to clarify my original intent (for those who missed the original inference) with an assertion of the observed fascist tendency of your "reasoning".
You say it's an incorrect analogy.
You are wrong.
It did go over your head.
You missed the point.
You failed to understand.
You attacked.
Hmmm. A valid response. Just not too "thoughtful"
"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 #3,024
7/30/01 10:41:46 AM
|
But you didn't, that's the problem.
The "pattern" that you saw wasn't the right one, in other words.
The pattern of argument you have used in this thread is of the "my country, right or wrong" type.
Not even close.
So either I'm doing a piss-poor job of elaborating, or you're not reading.
I *thought* I was being very clear, that I was talking about the *problems* with lionizing vandals. That the people mentioned in the first story - the ones who are breaking the law, and destroying public safety equipment to avoid fines for breaking the law - were as serious a problem as overreaching police.
Its entirely possible that I failed utterly with that.
But its not possible that when you compared me to the Nazi thugs (who broke the law), instead of explaining what gave you that impression (which would then be discussable), just insulting me, and I explained why that was wrong, that that then "reinforces" what you thought. Well, let me take that back. Its *possible*, but its even more illogical.
That is a characteristic of fascist thinking.
But it 'tain't what I'ma doing.
Its typical of fascist thinking to tar your opponent with lies and analogies, lacking any factual basis... Like, um "Your brown shirts are ready?"
You say it's an incorrect analogy.
You are wrong.
*Sigh* Only, apparently, because I have a better (or any) understanding of history.
You attacked.
Hmmm. A valid response. Just not too "thoughtful"
And explained (and it still stands, unrefuted) *WHY* (it was wrong). Very thoughtful. Best I could do, given the mere insult that was typical of who you were trying to categorize me with. Ironic, don'tcha think?
Or are you trying to tell me that the "Your brown shirts are ready" was a thought out, explained comment?
Addison
|
Post #3,045
7/30/01 12:13:51 PM
|
I apologize
I'm sorry. I was wrong. The brown shirts comment was out of line. I could have made my point in another way. For what it's worth, it wasn't intended as insulting. I was thinking of the original Mussolini brown shirts when I wrote that, not the Nazis. That doesn't make it any less insulting, but I thought (admittedly feeble thinking) it was a mildly humorous comment. I see it wasn't.
Once again, my sincere apologies. I should wait a few minutes before I post something like that and ask myself if it was said to me, how I would feel.
I still don't agree with you on this and many other things. On the other hand, there are many times I find myself saying, "I wish I had said that" when reading your posts.
"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 #3,066
7/30/01 2:10:14 PM
|
Thanks.
Its not that the comment was out of line - but that you didn't explain why you were making it.
For what it's worth, it wasn't intended as insulting.
C'mon, I didn't fall off the turnip truck *yesterday*. :)
still don't agree with you on this and many other things.
That's fine - heck, if you think there's a real parallel, say so.
But if you don't explain, then its hard to have a discussion. Might as well be slashdot. :)
Addison
|
Post #3,761
8/3/01 2:42:46 PM
|
Wimp!
You had him!
I had to give up arguing with him, it's like digging your own grave with a plastic spork. I'm finally over being pissed after two weeks.
You, Boxer, Aston and I could easily wipe out Conrad, Laurent, Scott2 and a cohort of their choosing, in any battle of wits. A gauntlet is thereby tossed earthward.
|
Post #3,765
8/3/01 3:22:22 PM
|
Oh, POAD, fuckwit!
And STAY pissed offa here this time.
Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
Post #3,766
8/3/01 3:22:38 PM
|
Had?
I beg to differ. The argument was won. The insult was retracted.
"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 #3,026
7/30/01 10:51:40 AM
|
No, I think it's *you* who are "los[ing] the point entirely"
The "my country, right or wrong" pattern of argument in this thread, Don, exists only where *your* side have used it: It is YOU who are arguing AGAINST the Rule Of Law -- "my *feelings*, 'objective' right or wrong be damned!"
Without a Rule Of Law, what do we get? We get Anarchy -- _or_, as an alternative and/or (more likely) reaction to a period of Anarchy, we get "Might Makes Right": A dictatorship that is (despite possibly being clad in legalistic trappings, as the German Nazis so excelled in doing) based on anything BUT legitimate Rule Of Law.
To digress a little, in historical terms, fascism was -- is -- a revertion from the principles of Enlightenment, to capricious mediaeval absolute monarchy; something that has appealed -- and *still* appeals -- to romantics everywhere. Witness the success of the Knightly Romance from sir Walter Scott in the nineteenth century, to the settings of trash-romance a la' Barbara Cartland or Margit Sandemo in the twentieth; also note the type of society and rule in most -- almost all -- Fantasy novels so popular among Romantics today. Monarchies and feudalism abound, almost to the point of surfeit, don't they?
And believe it or not, but this "literary surfeit of monarchies and feudalism" is a pretty incontrovertible link between emotion-based "reasoning" on the one hand and "Might Makes Right" dictatorship on the other. Trust me, better scholars than I (and if you don't want to take my word for *that* fact, then look them up directly! :-) have noted that on the Intellect-vs.-Feeling scale, it's fascism that's waaay out there on the Feeling end of the see-saw. Which, if I recall correctly, is what *you* are advocating, in opposition to Addison's "bloodless, sterile actuarialism" or whatever Ashton would (and probably has) call it. (Or, in your rather petty-sounding attempt at a put-down, his "pristine existence".)
So what YOU have failed to understand here -- although I personally think that *this* pattern is pretty damn obvious to observe -- is that the side that's closer to "advocating fascism" in this thread _I_S_ *yours*, not Addison's.
That, Don, is the point YOU entirely lost here. (And that, in turn, is why your attempt at irony elsewhere was also rather misplaced, AFAICR.)
Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything About Fascists And Romantics
|
Post #3,108
7/30/01 6:17:24 PM
|
All true, as far as it goes. Just too simplistic.
Agree entirely! that the appeal of the Fascists always was - on the same level of base-emotion mongering as that of any Tee Vee preacher exhorting the flock -- subliminally or sometimes outright! -- to Kill a Fag because Jesus Loves You and That's What Jesus Wants You to Do!\ufffd
But to thus imagine that Emotion! is some dark and tamable? constrainable? unWanted - also superfluous - aspect of homo-sap -- is just as simplistic a dogged unawareness of What We Are.. as I can imagine. No 'discovery' of any enduring kind - has ever come about sans Emotion! Wonder! is Emotion. Intellect is only about 'how' - never (alone) about 'what' to do. Science is by very design (and capability, fortunately) "what-blind".
And to worship! The Law as currently codified in literally millions of words unread, intentionally turgid, often Special-interest created ...[fill in a hundred more] - is neither Reasonable nor IMhO even sane. The Law is a necessary Good/Evil, that's all it can be. It Giveth and it Taketh away -- all depends upon what it's doing for *you* today, how you will describe that elephant - blindfolded 'Justice' indeed! It's the right metaphor.
We have The Law as *A* bulwark against the lengthy catalog of things homo-sap often does to other homo-saps. It *IS* better than anarchy: we all er sorta voted! in a "social contract" (an abstraction I trust that most would ~ agree with). But Deifying this ever-imperfect, constantly in-need-of-revision 'code': is supposed to be the *Other* bulwark we rely upon in our search for maximum individual choices / amidst a mass of others with different ones.
When *THAT* process of ~ er upgrading :-\ufffd becomes too bogged-down then, even and especially [here, anyway] the US Constitution [also not a Holy Book; merely a damn good collection of wise words] even declares that,
[in so many words] Revolution! may become the Right, the Honorable, *the Murican* choice, should __ and __ occur and there is no workable redress.
Now as to destroying public property - *illegal* - or sitting in at lunch counters - *illegal* - or publishing the Pentagon Papers - *illegal* - [etc.]:
Yes of course! that is a Last resort, yet many will and always do - disagree upon *how long* a perceived (dare we say Wrong?) may be tolerated before it is concluded:
This government / local-govt. / regime? - displays no awareness of the problem nor, when confronted - any aim to even consider a referendum or other public chance to make efforts at correction..
How long is.. long enough to wait? No two persons will name the same number re the same 'problem'. And so it goes.
So if it hasn't been obvious, as we have engaged in the usual lazy play-of-Boolean-opposites in this thread (surprise!):
No one here imagines (I think) that "it is time to spray paint on all cameras you happen to spot". If there is any consensus among the Anti-Surveillance crowd, I'd guess it might be ~
Should there develop.. a trend whereby municipalities are flocking to install cameras - many as they can afford now and next - a la Florida hick town: THEN we shall see the 'early raiders' begin and.. a nationwide effort at coordinated opposition.
Spray-painting *IS* a last resort, then. D'Oh - was that not clear? In every situation there will be all those infinite varieties of responses. Some do behave as anarchists - fortunately most often just ego-talking that to death. Most do not, being quite as well aware of the concept of anarchy as you are.
ie THERE *IS* NO EITHER/OR in 'real life'. Only in academic fanciful musings, mathematical fantasies and.. longings for Perfect Authority. (that's why so many people's heads hurt)
There is 'mind' and there is 'heart' - only sometimes do they work in accord. And those in whom this is a common daily experience (that accord) - we call wise.
{sheesh}
Ashton
who believes there are many more things we know about which, "don't work well" than - do. Or - ya can always spot the defects much better than ever - the virtues.
|
Post #3,130
7/30/01 8:02:32 PM
|
"Too simplistic"??? That's fucking rich, coming from *you*!
But to thus imagine that Emotion! is some dark and tamable? constrainable? unWanted - also superfluous - aspect of homo-sap
[ . . . ]
And to worship! The Law as currently codified in literally millions of words unread, intentionally turgid, often Special-interest created
[ . . . ]
But Deifying this ever-imperfect, constantly in-need-of-revision 'code' These fucking over-simplifications from YOU are beginning to SERIOUSLY piss me off. Is it that you don't realize how fucking insulting they are, or that you don't realize you're making them all the fucking time?!? THERE *IS* NO EITHER/OR in 'real life'. Gee, really? Whod'a'thunkit! It's not as if the rest of us were taking that for granted, eh? No, we NEED Wise Old Papa Ashton to *tell* us obvious shit like this... Yes of course! that is a Last resort, yet many will and always do - disagree upon *how long* a perceived (dare we say Wrong?) may be tolerated before it is concluded: Too fucking bad you only get around to mentioning that NOW, then, after having argued all the time as if it should be Standard Operating Procedure. How long is.. long enough to wait? No two persons will name the same number re the same 'problem'. And so it goes. And that's why everybody letting their own personal emotions run away with them isn't going to work. Why "civil disobedience" must, yes, MUST, be and remain a LAST resort, not -- as you and your cohorts have so far seemed to be advocating -- SOP. Why, as SOP, ones fucking Holy Emotions MUST be held in check by informed Reason. (Q. E. fucking D, BTW.) And why Khasimioch, if he really means it about going around smashing cameras, is being a whacko. No one here imagines (I think) that "it is time to spray paint on all cameras you happen to spot". You "think"?!? Dunno if you've just forgot what the debate was about, or if you're seriously trying to claim that that isn't exactly what Khasimioch has SAID he'd do. Spray-painting *IS* a last resort, then. D'Oh - was that not clear? Re-read the thread, and TRY (for fucking *once*!) to act as less of a parody of a James Joyce novel and more of an ordinary Mensch: "Clear" is usually the *last* thing you are. Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
Post #3,166
7/31/01 2:54:39 AM
|
So.. you want clarity and simplicity - with 'romantics'?
Make up your mind.
Here's simple: when a 'legally passed' law proves to be despised - it Will be violated. Just as in English law, nullification by jury was its logical antecedent.
Ditto re cameras + the absolutely
Inevitable Fucking Databases and their misuse.
We have seen only the barest hint of what existing dbs shall wreak, once interconnected - for Corp and other nefarious purposes. The hints are bring noticed.
To equate civil disobedience against this potential horror - with mobs n'torches - fails. There will be plenty of reasoning and calculation IMO. (Certainly the GPL counter to Corporate patent of Everything - was the epitome of That!)
We have already seen One US municipality attempt this - and against his own City Council's vote: that mayor persists! Tell me this is some 'overreaction' - or that an emotional overview of it's.. yes! *meaning* is somehow a violation of governing principles!
Cameras indeed may come to be smashed, eventually - a lot will depend upon what many city councils imagine is meant by 'surveillance' - and the Murican way of dealing with anything we call 'controversial'. (Muricans don't like that)
Like I said - the style of these forums is almost inevitably: a play of opposites -- then one or another moves away from the fringe. We could try another style, but it doesn't seem popular.
A.
And pissed off or not, I see LOTS of fucking Boolean 'advice' in these forums - though usually less from you.
|
Post #3,169
7/31/01 3:06:54 AM
|
Here's why "direct action" is a bad idea...
...People are *stupid*.
In the UK, at the height of the paedophilia hysteria, a mob [link|http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/wales/newsid_901000/901723.stm|attacked ] the home of a paediatrician, because they were TOO FUCKING STUPID to realise that a paediatrician is a doctor who specialises in children.
THAT, my dear Ashton, is what scares the CRAP out of me about "direct action" and violent civil disobedience - not the kinds of people who post here, but the knee-jerk nutters with room-temperature IQs.
--
Peter
Shill For Hire
|
Post #3,172
7/31/01 3:37:28 AM
|
Point taken. and.. Ugh!
Words fail on this incident.
Yet too - spray cans means: government has utterly failed to address legitimate concerns, presented in lawful ways. Of course mobs suck - but I doubt this issue would galvanize more than a handful of people actively disabling a fait accompli (array of new cameras or such).
Were the Freedom Riders in the segregated south - a mob action? If so - certainly a well-organized one, with the screaming and rioting occurring on the opponents' side. The demonstrators' forbearance was almost super-human.
Somewhere in between - villagers unclear on the concept of paedo- and the utter nonviolence of the Freedom Riders - is what might occur. IF..
(No occasion for pitched battles.)
Ashton
It's really hard to calculate the dumbth card, though.. as you say.
|
Post #3,242
7/31/01 12:47:31 PM
|
Re: Here's why "direct action" is a bad idea...
What else to quote but:
[link|http://us.imdb.com/Title?0072431|Young Frankenstein]
Inspector Kemp: A riot isss an ugly thing. And vonce you get one started, there is leettle chance of stopping it, short of bloodshed. I think, before we go around killing people, we had better make daeemned! sure! of our evidence. And we had better confeerm the fact that Young Frankenstein is indeed following in his grandfather's footschteps.
All: What?
Inspector Kemp: Following in his grandfather's footschteps, [stomping feet] footschteps, footschteps.
All: Oh, footsteps.
|
Post #3,174
7/31/01 4:21:21 AM
|
No - I want clarity and simplicity *from YOU*, here.
If you want to discuss, then please discuss clearly and reasonably -- yes, "logically", if you want to call it that. (But if so, *please* ferfuxxake spare us the "simplistically Boolean!" stupid insults!)
If, OTOH, you want to be ruled by your emotions, then WTF are you doing here? Remember, discussions such as these are a meeting of the *minds*, not hearts. Just grab a can of spray paint and run out and find a camera!
Or a paediatrician.
Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
|
Post #3,178
7/31/01 8:16:03 AM
|
inneresting my kids go to a pediatrician
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
|
Post #3,183
7/31/01 9:06:37 AM
|
Yeah - follow the link in Peter's post...
|
Post #3,283
7/31/01 3:31:04 PM
|
You've defined a 'clarity/simplicity' which doesn't exist:
An "emotion free" logical sequence. Works fine for .. lots of things - doesn't apply *at all* to actual persons' responses to actions they (always via personal judgment) deem unjust? dangerous to such Biggies as "personal privacy" - YES, even in so-called 'public"! Does *that* idea need to be parsed again, too? (The upper limit of, 'constant surveillance' is, I think the opposite of No surveillance. What we have thus-far is: somewhere in between.)
As we have seen demonstrated in just this thread.
No one can agree upon a perfect 'definition' of "privacy" - let alone how much? little? of that concept -- exists in 'public' today - ought to exist? - Will exist if ___ such and such occur next.
Now if you imagine you Can reduce this dilemma to nice neat description and deduction, and even capture the *feeling* of being watched, logged and indexed - in a neat intellectial syllogism:
Go for it.
A.
|
Post #3,203
7/31/01 10:01:23 AM
|
Re: Spray painting.
Here in Charlotte, North Carolina, we have at many intersections cameras capturing images of folks "running" a red traffic light. It is apparently a very cost effective revenue generator for the city. When people pay their fines that is. There is one character that had over 50 unpaid "tickets".
Anyway, to get to the point of the post. The preferred method of "getting even" with the city by those that were caught is to shoot paint balls at the transparent panel on the box housing the camera. The boxes are positioned at a height beyond easy reach for spray painting.
Alex
This is my sig. There's another almost like it, but this one is mine.
|
Post #3,343
8/1/01 12:16:41 AM
|
Small prediction
Should very many munis follow the lead of the mayor in the Fla backwater (not even the lead of the city council BTW) - paint-ball gun sales shall somewhat follow camera sales.
We may hope this is all tempest in a teapot - there just Can't be that many folk around who never read even 1984 and Brave New World. Can there?
A.
|
Post #3,017
7/30/01 9:06:05 AM
|
Re: Whatever
And anyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi or Fascist or some other evil bastard from hell?
Quote: "Addison, your laundry called. Your brown shirts are ready."
Addison might annoy the hell out of me, but you scare me.
Once you label someone as evil, it's easier to remove their humanity and justify whatever actions are needed to remove them.
Darryl A. Peterson
I'm not as funny as I think I am.
|
Post #3,021
7/30/01 9:48:56 AM
|
Lighten up.
I disagree with many people here. I argue with them. I dislike the political views of many. I still consider them friends. While I may get carried away and go over the top with the argument, I don't think of anyone here as "evil".
"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 #3,109
7/30/01 6:35:58 PM
|
Hey.. a little Evul is Good for the Soul!
I mean.. look at all the Authority figures who'd have to get 24/7 real jobs if.. Evul took a vacation!
I mean.. what Good is Good without opposition? Could we even tell?
George Boole got our Number reel well: we *Love* to dissect stuff down to atomic Good/Bad, Right/Wrong inanities. Keeps the entire Lawyer class rich - doing exactly what *we* want them to do:
Make *my* case look *Good*; his *Evul*. OK sir: $300/hr + expenses. Or did you want to remain in jail over the Groundhog Day weekend, sir?
Hope Kurt V. has a new book soon - so much to satirize, so little time before the next airing of Fantasy Looser Millionaire's Island / with Sex :[
Ashton Voyeur
of increasingly predictable comedy, Saturday Night Dead
|
Post #3,140
7/30/01 9:39:53 PM
|
if there was no evil all the cops would be on welfare :)
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
|
Post #2,648
7/23/01 12:26:03 PM
|
Not over my head.
"Someone took a picture of Sean Penn, on a public street. Sean Penn destroyed his camera, and spent the night in jail."
Okay.
"If I'm taking pictures, of a public street, and you destroy my camera, you'll likely do the same thing."
Likely. But, you're changing your focus here. Are you taking pictures of me or the street? An example, Seattle has, for some strange reason, various statues of pigs on the streets now. People take pictures of said pigs. I walk down those streets. The people are pointing the cameras at the pigs and I can step out of their focus without them following me.
Now, if they do turn their cameras to follow me, they are invading my privacy.
If they take a picture, they've lost their camera to me.
Yes, I will likely spend a night in jail.
What is right is not always legal. If I were constrained to only legal acts, the Fascists will have won.
"Lets sing.... B....I.....N....G....O......"
Let's wait until you see my point.
"(In fact, its a defacto system, and I've heard some big city police departments "encourage" banks to have those, coincintially aimed at high-risk areas)"
Government encouraging the abuse of individual freedoms. Amazing. I'd have never considered that.
"Those ATMs (the ones on the street, especially) - they look out, on the public street."
Not when they're being used. Then they are pointed at the person standing in front of them. Yes, they might be pointing at the street when not in use. No, I don't think that was the purpose behind their design.
"More than once tapes from them have been used to look at things that occured inside their field of view, nowhere on the Bank's property, or having to do with the ATM."
Possibly. But I don't see what that has to do with my point. Individual privacy.
"But that's *EXACTLY* what happens - they image EVERYTHING. Is this wrong? Not really, because you're IN PUBLIC when it occurs."
But I still have rights to my image even when I'm on a public street.
Don't believe me? Check out Hollywood. They get exceptionally pissed when unlicensed individuals wander on their sets during filming. Because they can't market the film with someone's image in it if that person hasn't signed away those rights.
They can't sell my image BUT you think it is okay for other people to RECORD my image?
Legal - yes. Right - no.
"In many cases, yes, its legal - the stalking laws were passed IN RESPONSE to people doing this, and having no recourse."
Again, something that was LEGAL but wasn't RIGHT eventually become ILLEGAL. Because people fought to make it illegal. Your image and your actions are PRIVATE. Even when someone could film them from a public vantage point.
"But your argument is that you should be able to stalk somebody *anyway*, cause, hey, the law, its bogus, duuude."
News flash: People do stalk other people. Even though it is illegal. And they get jailed for breaking the laws.
"Yeah, FOCUS. You're changing it."
I don't see how.
"My focus was "I don't think its legal to use cruisers for speedtraps - should I then be able to firebomb them?""
Then state it as such. But I don't think you'll find much support for that position. But you can hold it. And you can act upon it. But you will be jailed if caught.
"Cruiser = Camera
Destroy cruiser = destroying camera.
No Difference."
I'm not saying that it isn't so. In that format.
But my point was about individual privacy and the observation of said individuals by machines. It is the rational behind the actions that differentiates the actions. Not whether two items are physical objects belonging to the police force or not.
"I said "that's not legal, if you have a problem, change the law"."
Yes. But I'm not going to be constrained by following the law until (if) it is changed. There are sufficient examples of bad laws that people broke (and those people are now considered heros) for me to skip over them.
"You said "but that's RIGHT, screw the law". I said "its no different than" you said "But I can do something [blatantly illegal] (grabbing someone's camera). I said "no you can't"> you said "But you can change the law."
No.
I stated my position. It's about personal privacy.
I will not follow the laws that I feel impact my privacy.
If someone is impacting my privacy, I will act to preserve it.
I will also work to change those laws.
I might end up in jail. Many people who advocate personal freedoms are jailed by the oppressive governments.
If I were to base my actions solely upon what would not land me in jail, the Fascists would already have won.
"The points you missed:
ATM (that they capture "public" areas outside the bank property)
Public (that taking pictures in public isn't illegal (unless other laws have been passed)
Cruiser = Camera (in my situation, they're analogous, the cruiser's use offends me)
Not legal. (to just destroy something that you don't like)"
ATM's - judgement call. The one's I use don't seem to be setup particularly to capture private individuals.
Public - as long as you aren't taking my picture, you're fine. If you are, then I will act to preserve my privacy. Jail is not a deterent.
Cruiser - you have to live your beliefs. I don't believe they are the same and I will not support you when you are arrested.
Not legal - This isn't about not liking something. This is about preserving my rights as a private individual.
Again, to turn your argument back, installing cameras in everbody's homes would prevent crimes. So, that's a good thing. And, if it were legal, good citizens wouldn't have a problem with them.
|
Post #2,656
7/23/01 11:23:59 PM
|
Zoom.
I don't know what else to say.
But it almost seems like you've realised how badly you thought this through. But the progress might be false.
Likely. But, you're changing your focus here.
No. My focus is unchanged. I already explained before.
Now, if they do turn their cameras to follow me, they are invading my privacy.
If they take a picture, they've lost their camera to me.
Which is illegal. Mob rule. Might makes right.
And its *me* who's changing focus here?
If I were constrained to only legal acts, the Fascists will have won.
And when you violate the law, then society has a problem. Picking and choosing what law(s) you want to obey on a daily basis isn't a stable situation. If I decide you drive a nice car, I'll take it, golly, that's the same thing.
"Lets sing.... B....I.....N....G....O......"
Let's wait until you see my point.
I think you forgot who you're talking to.
*Your* point was that ATMs "only" covered "private" property (when I specifically talked about the ones on the street - which by definition covers the public street).
Then you said "But it is the bank's private property. The ATM is on the bank's property. The camera is to record who uses the bank's property on the bank's property. The only thing I would see as similar is if the bank was aiming it's PRIVATE camera OUTSIDE of its PRIVATE property to capture the images of PRIVATE citizens who were NOT using the bank's facilities."
And that's *exactly* the case at hand.
So, are you now going to go spray paint over all of the ATM cameras now?
Possibly. But I don't see what that has to do with my point. Individual privacy.
Errrrr. Its kind of simple.
You don't have an expectation of privacy on a public street.
Deny it all you want, it doesn't change anything. You DON'T have it. Period. Anywhere.
You're trying to change the focus to "private". We're talking PUBLIC.
And I can take a picture of you. And if you break my camera, you're breaking the law. If the police put up cameras, and you break them, there's no difference.
I asked to enumerate the difference, if you thought so.
You didn't.
But I still have rights to my image even when I'm on a public street.
Don't believe me? Check out Hollywood.... They can't sell my image BUT you think it is okay for other people to RECORD my image?
Believe you, holy shit, I already talked about it. Pay attention already.
And, being an ex-journalist, I'm VERY aware of what you can and can't do (and it changes per state) with said images. And no, Hollywood can't sell your image in a movie, without your permission.
But any paper in the nation can take a picture of you on the street and run it. On the front page. Even if you don't like it.
Again, something that was LEGAL but wasn't RIGHT eventually become ILLEGAL. Because people fought to make it illegal. Your image and your actions are PRIVATE. Even when someone could film them from a public vantage point.
Um.
Do you remember what my point was?
That if you want to do something about it, change the law.
Now you're... telling me... to... Are you sure you're not sleepposting?
"But your argument is that you should be able to stalk somebody *anyway*, cause, hey, the law, its bogus, duuude."
News flash: People do stalk other people. Even though it is illegal. And they get jailed for breaking the laws.
Late Breaking News: Yep. And... Errr. you're the one (see above) advocating breaking any law you don't like. (like stalking) Which is exactly what I drew the comparision to..... and... err. are you *sure* you're paying attention?
OK. So I point out the analogous situation, and you don't refute it, but lecture me?
*Who's* the one changing focus?
"Yeah, FOCUS. You're changing it."
I don't see how.
(then you're not looking)
"My focus was "I don't think its legal to use cruisers for speedtraps - should I then be able to firebomb them?""
Then state it as such. But I don't think you'll find much support for that position. But you can hold it. And you can act upon it. But you will be jailed if caught.
I *DID STATE IT AS SUCH*. And I drew the parallel, and asked you to explain the difference. And you are.. telling.. me.. to.. tell you.. what I did?
Yeah, you'll go to jail. Just like if [should] you destroy a public camera. If you disagree, then tell me, don't tell me the obvious.
Cruiser - you have to live your beliefs. I don't believe they are the same and I will not support you when you are arrested.
"My beliefs"? You're the one ripping cameras and stomping on them. You're the one telling me that shooting out cameras and ripping them down is legit.
So when I point out an exact analogy - you now are giving me lectures on the law?
Focus.. Right now, you don't have it. You'e changed your focus at least three times in that post alone.
Again, to turn your argument back, installing cameras in everbody's homes would prevent crimes.
No. That doesn't turn it back, its not my argument. I've been very clear on that. "Preventing crime" is your strawman, not mine.
I'm *only* discussing *public* images. Public. Crime prevention isn't the focus.
Having a discussion when the "opposition" isn't even reading what you're posting, much less continuing to make up positions isn't a lot of fun. Wasn't fun when Bob Lewis did it, isn't fun when you do it.
So unless you wake up, (or whatever is keeping you from at least staying up with what I'm saying (and not trying to lecture me on what I just said)), I'm not going to try and force you to realise what you're saying.
Addison
|
Post #2,659
7/24/01 12:44:18 AM
|
You're going to have to do better than that.
"But it almost seems like you've realised how badly you thought this through. But the progress might be false."
Because I disagree with your position does not mean that my position is badly thought out.
"No. My focus is unchanged. I already explained before."
Really?
I seem to recall this discussion started about cameras, INSTALLED BY THE GOVERNMENT, being aimed at roadways to monitor traffic speeds and automatically issue tickets based off of registration records.
But I see in your current posting, references to banks (privately owned) aiming their ATM cameras at private property and happening to catch public property in their viewing sector.
But you haven't changed the focus of the discussion at all?
Whatever. I can handle tangents.
I said:
"If they take a picture, they've lost their camera to me."
You replied:
"Which is illegal. Mob rule. Might makes right."
What?
Sorry. But I seem to have missed the mob reference. Are you saying that I have to get a group of people together to take the camera from the person that has violated my privacy? I don't see where _I_ stated such. So it must have been you.
But you aren't changing the focus of the discussion.
My point is ME. My point is MY RIGHTS.
"Picking and choosing what law(s) you want to obey on a daily basis isn't a stable situation."
Okay, simple question. Were the laws allowing slavery "right" or "wrong"?
Another simple question.
Were the people who opposed the laws allowing slavery "right" or "wrong"?
"Society" is NOT ALWAYS RIGHT.
The LAWS of the society ARE NOT ALWAYS RIGHT.
I accept this. And I am free to act upon my beliefs.
Again, I believe that the INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS are the most important.
You do not believe that.
Which does NOT mean that my position is badly thought out.
"*Your* point was that ATMs "only" covered "private" property (when I specifically talked about the ones on the street - which by definition covers the public street)."
Fine. Whatever. If I think the bank is collecting information on me from its cameras I will take them out.
You have not provided any evidence that they are.
But your position requires them to be doing such.
So, let's go with that hypothetical situation.
If I believed the banks were violating my privacy with their cameras, I would take them out.
Note the phrase "If I believed".
Convince me that they are and I will act. Otherwise.......
"So, are you now going to go spray paint over all of the ATM cameras now?"
On the basis of YOUR word that they are? I'm sorry, but you have a seriously over-inflated sense of your position in my belief system.
"You don't have an expectation of privacy on a public street."
You don't.
I do.
That's where we disagree. (and the part about the banks spying on me).
"Deny it all you want, it doesn't change anything. You DON'T have it. Period. Anywhere."
Shall we talk about political prisoners in China?
They don't have rights that we take for granted.
Just because YOU don't think that I have that right, and the laws are not constructed to support that right, does NOT mean that I don't have that right. It's just being violated under the present regime.
Do people in China have the right to protest for democracy?
Well, that depends upon how you define rights.
#1. Are they something that can only be granted by the government?
#2. Are they inherent in the individual?
You seem to believe #1. I believe #2. Again, this does not mean that I haven't thought out my position.
"You're trying to change the focus to "private". We're talking PUBLIC."
No. We're talking about a PRIVATE PERSON in a PUBLIC SETTING.
I still have rights to my privacy while in a public setting.
"And I can take a picture of you."
Yes you can.
"And if you break my camera, you're breaking the law."
Okay, one last time. Freeing slaves was illegal. But it was right.
What you don't seem to be able to understand is that I'm placing a higher value on "right" than on "legal".
Again, freeing slaves. Illegal, but right. Protecting my privacy, illegal, but right.
"If the police put up cameras, and you break them, there's no difference."
Freeing slaves, illegal, but right.
Freeing slaves, illegal, but right.
Freeing slaves, illegal, but right.
Did people who freed slaves spend time in jail? Yes.
Did people who freed slaves spend time in jail? Yes.
Did people who freed slaves spend time in jail? Yes.
Do you understand YET that I'm placing a higher value on RIGHT than on LEGAL?
So I don't care if it is "illegal" or not. Is it "right" or not?
"But any paper in the nation can take a picture of you on the street and run it. On the front page. Even if you don't like it."
And in China, they can jail anyone at anytime for speaking out against the state.
Since when did "legal" equate to "right"?
"Do you remember what my point was?"
Yes.
"That if you want to do something about it, change the law."
Did you read anything in my post? Did you manage to MISS the part where I said that LEGAL is not the same as RIGHT?
Did you miss the part about me believing that "right" is more important than "legal"?
FUCKING OKAY. I ADMIT IT. IT IS ILLEGAL.
IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE LAW FORBIDS IT.
I WILL GO TO JAIL.
SOCIETY WILL INCARCERATE MY ASS.
IT'S BUTT SEX TIME IN THE BIG HOUSE!
ILLEGAL!
CONTRARY TO THE LAWS OF SOCIETY!
ILLEGAL!
I WILL BE ARRESTED!
There, have I managed to convey the fact that I recognize what is illegal and what is not illegal in this country?
Now, let's try one more step.
I
Don't
Care
What
Is
Illegal
If
It
Is
NOT
Right.
If I believe the law is not right I will violate that law. (insert repetative rant about recognizing that I have violated a law and will go to jail if caught violating the laws of society).
"Now you're... telling me... to... Are you sure you're not sleepposting?"
After reading my previous posts, you still feel the need to inform me that I'm going to jail if I break a law, and you think I'm the one asleep? Right.....
"Late Breaking News: Yep. And... Errr. you're the one (see above) advocating breaking any law you don't like."
Yep. You're definately asleep. Yep, I advocate breaking laws that you do not feel are "right" or "just".
Yep, if other people did this, chaos could result, looting, rioting, dogs and cats living in sin.
Oh, you mean people are ALREADY violating laws?
And these people are being sent to jail when they're caught?
Gee. I guess that means..........nothing.
So, if I advocate breaking laws that I don't feel are right, then other people will break laws.
But other people have been breaking laws since before I was born.
But I'm advocating breaking the laws that aren't right.
But others are breaking the laws.
It's a connundrum without a solution.
"*Who's* the one changing focus?"
We start with the government putting up cameras to track vehicles and automate the ticketing system and we end up with you talking about banks aiming their ATM cameras in such a manner that people on the street might be taped.
I'd say it was you who's changing the focus.
"(then you're not looking)"
Okay, I will accept that the banks are aiming their ATM cameras at the streets and deducting the cost of tickets from your account automatically. I do not know of a specific instance of this happening, but if you say it is....whatever.
Re: firebombing cruisers you said:
"I *DID STATE IT AS SUCH*."
Okay, now we're away from banks and drifting towards police activity. Are the cops at the drive up teller in their cruiser when you firebomb it (the cruiser)?
"And I drew the parallel, and asked you to explain the difference. And you are.. telling.. me.. to.. tell you.. what I did?"
The parallel?
If you believe that the cruisers are being used to violate your rights, then take them out.
That is my position.
BUT!!!!!!!!
As I've said before, do not expect support from me for your activities as I do not see how they are being used to violate your rights.
Act upon your beliefs.
But don't even THINK that I will share your beliefs or support you in specific activities.
"Yeah, you'll go to jail. Just like if [should] you destroy a public camera. If you disagree, then tell me, don't tell me the obvious."
Well, at least you finally agree with reality. If I violate a law, I can go to jail.
I said:
"Cruiser - you have to live your beliefs. I don't believe they are the same and I will not support you when you are arrested."
You said:
""My beliefs"? You're the one ripping cameras and stomping on them. You're the one telling me that shooting out cameras and ripping them down is legit."
No I did not. "Legit" implies "legal". I am talking about "right" here.
Do I really HAVE to go through the whole slavery / legal / right / illegal thing again?
"So when I point out an exact analogy - you now are giving me lectures on the law?"
A lecture on the law? What lecture? If you break the law, you can end up in jail. That's a lecture?
"Focus.. Right now, you don't have it. You'e changed your focus at least three times in that post alone."
I have it.
You are the one that went from traffic cameras to bank ATM's to police cruisers to Sean Penn.
My focus has been consistent, my rights take precedence over the laws of society.
You are the one trying to find a flaw in that reasoning by wandering all over the map looking for examples. You brought up the ATM's. You brought up thecruisers. You brought up Sean Penn. I did not.
Re: Cameras in homes:
"No. That doesn't turn it back, its not my argument."
Your point was that the cameras MIGHT film somebody committing a violent crime. My point was, if that was the goal of the cameras, putting them where the crimes are most likely to occure would be the logical procedure.
You sacrifice a bit of privacy for more "security".
What was that quote about rights and security and such?
""Preventing crime" is your strawman, not mine."
Nope. You were the one that claimed the cameras MIGHT film a violent crime. I ddid not. The straw is back in your court.
"I'm *only* discussing *public* images. Public. Crime prevention isn't the focus."
Then do not talk about it in this discussion.
"Having a discussion when the "opposition" isn't even reading what you're posting, much less continuing to make up positions isn't a lot of fun."
I know. But I'm used to it. I just keep repeating the parts that the other person missed. Like when I have to repeat the parts about "right", "legal" and "illegal".
Have I mentioned slavery yet?
What about China? The imprisonment of political prisoners? Did I mention that?
Slavery was legal, but it was right to oppose it. At least, that's what I believer.
And many people who opposed slavery were jailed.
People were jailed for breaking an unjust law.
People acted upon their beliefs and were jailed for such because their actions violed the laws of society.
"So unless you wake up, (or whatever is keeping you from at least staying up with what I'm saying (and not trying to lecture me on what I just said)), I'm not going to try and force you to realise what you're saying."
Again, because I disagree with you does not mean I don't understand your position.
Yes, if people did what I recommended, and some of those people held beliefs such as "ambulances interfere with my rights", then people could be injured.
Or "police cruisers are infringing upon my freedoms". The police would be ineffective against crimes.
Anarchy would result.
Chaos.
So?
You believe that.
I don't. Look at the rights we routinely exercise in this country. Now compare that to China. Are we an anarchistic state? Yet we have more rights. Are our police more or less effective? And so on.
|
Post #2,952
7/27/01 12:21:20 PM
|
Why?
I've stated my point, clearly.
You've perverted what I said, tried to change the subject/focus, tossed straw on top of me.
And honestly, you're better at that than I am at countering such things. So perhaps I might have to do "better", but I have "better" things to do with my time than try and keep you on track.
Because I disagree with your position does not mean that my position is badly thought out.
No, it doesn't [necessarily]. However, as evidenced by what you *did* say, its not well thought out, and you're flailing.
But I see in your current posting, references to banks (privately owned) aiming their ATM cameras at private property and happening to catch public property in their viewing sector.
Um.
You're the one who changed the focus to that.
When you said if someone [private person] takes your picture, you'll take their camera. So I asked, given your statement, what you were doing with those ATM cameras on the street? [Notice that I've not changed the focus, but merely asked you if you're doing what you say you will, (destroying the private cameras taking your picture today, on the street) or just talking] And you told me they didn't take pictures of people in public. Then I got you to realise that they do.
Now you're trying to say that I changed the conversation. Sorry, bub. *I* didn't.
I can't *make* you have a logical conversation. I've certainly tried.
And I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your flailing. That's all that you can call it.
I stand with what I said initially.
Its a slippery slope when people break the law, because they feel it unjust.
Because most people who you [may] disagree with, have a "reason" for doing what they do. Legal or illegal. In support, or in violation of the law.
Which is what the "law" is. A codified, single set of rules that [is supposed to] apply to EVERYBODY. If you don't like the law, work on changing it. Breaking it to protest it is said slippery slope. You destroying a camera, a criminal shooting a cop - the distance between those is arguable. I promise you the criminal will have plenty of "justifcation" for his action.
As I pointed out, slashing tires on the police cruisers is about on the same spot on the slope as destroying the cameras.
If you feel the law is so wrong that its worth you spending your life in prison/dying for your beliefs, and you can't get it changed, by all means, by $DIETY, get out there and go wild. There are times when that is needed and required. Or was, and nobody did. (Tim McVeigh felt that to be the case, one might note.)
But when you're talking about breaking the law, destroying public safety equipment to avoid a measly ticket for breaking the speed laws? I won't be there with you., bro, you're going that one, alone.
Addison
|
Post #2,571
7/21/01 8:59:17 PM
|
a police cruiser usually
contains a police officer a duly appointed officer of the courts and yes I have damaged same in past. Dont come onto my private property at 3am when I have had a few drinks and try to order me to do anything when I havnt broken the law. I will and do get pissed. If I am in public and the duly appointed officer of the court observes illegal behavior and tickets me that is fine, a machine is not a duly appointed officer of the court. Anchorage had photo radar for school zones. I got a ticket and 2 points against my licence because a car I had sold over a year ago was observed going thru the light. A lot of people were pissed, I devised reflective tint for the windshield and a drop down flap for my licence plate. We the people gathered a petition that went onto the ballot that only a duly appointed officer of the court could issue any traffic ticket only if he personally observed the offence. This also got rid of the parking cops who were chasing people into parking lots to hand out expired plate tickets and noise violations. Now down here where people are totally cowed by the local money grubbers and are used to knuckling their forheads everytime thyeir betters nod at them will allow this kind of stuff. I wont. I am willing to go to jail to defend my rights. Always have and always will be. Like Muhamid Ali who said why should I go to Nam, dont know no vietnamese who call me nigger. He stood up at a tremendous personal cost for his personal rights as a human being. I will do the same.
thanx,
bill
tha
can I have my ones and zeros back?
|
Post #2,476
7/20/01 2:14:34 PM
|
Genoa is a current case.
[link|http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Summit-Protests.html|Police Clash with Protesters in Genoa]
Geee. What heros. To storm a small town, destroying it. Setting fire to innocent people's cars.
(Heros cause its not YOUR property they're demolishing in their protest, right?)
Addison
|
Post #2,489
7/20/01 4:16:36 PM
|
not my hero's it is an organised
violent act not to protest any one action but to violently oppose the authorities in question for the sake of violence itself. That movement is an outgrowth of soccer hooliganism. Good thing the Italians arnt Israeli's or the world would be howling condemnation. The stupid SOB who got shot took his chances and didnt win. If I ever went up against tanks I woudnt be throwing stones. ]:->
I am an individual, I dont like or participate in mob action. I think and act for myself. Would I blow up a bridge on I-75? Only if I needed to.
thanx,
bill
can I have my ones and zeros back?
|
Post #2,482
7/20/01 2:57:02 PM
|
There was a time in the US,...
perhaps before your time, when turning right on a red traffic light at an intersection was forbidden everywhere. This is still true in New York City, today. In North Carolina there are "No Right on Red" signs at selected intersections to enable particular traffic flow. But really, "right on red" is the rule in most places and most intersections. So a red traffic light is equivalent to a Stop sign, (but only if you want to make a right turn). If it's safe, i.e. at your own risk, you can turn right.
This is progress. With some rules, choice of action is left to the driver. I guess Bill wants to extend that kind of thinking to other circumstances.
Alex
|
Post #2,454
7/20/01 11:44:38 AM
|
Puke
You're such a smarmy, slimy little thing.
|
Post #2,473
7/20/01 1:57:02 PM
|
now now
he just doesnt know any better.
thanx,
bill
can I have my ones and zeros back?
|
Post #2,493
7/20/01 4:32:56 PM
|
Scofflaws are part of the system of checks and balances
Scofflaws are to the Constitution what the oceans are to the military.
They provide a basic level of defense that requires no maintainance.
I'm not talking about Ghandi-style organized civil disobediance, which is a final last-ditch effort. Ghandi himself didn't try it until even war had failed, although that may be just because he didn't get the chance. I'm talking about people just plain not following rules because they don't want to. What Ghandi did was provide a method to elevate the everyday petty scofflaw to a kind of warrior. The everyday scofflaw is the guerrilla scurrying behind the tree. Ghandi marched them in rows standing tall.
Dahmer wasn't following his own laws, he was a deeply conflicted and pathetic person who knew he was doing wrong, like most criminals. McVeigh considered himself at war - war means you don't follow the regular laws. Neither of these guys was a scofflaw.
Most of the time, people casualy ignoring laws are balancing the govornment more profoundly and effectively than any vote.
Most people follow good laws most of the time, without enforcement. The first thing that happens to a bad law is that people ignore it. Next, there is the formal process. And if that fails, jury nullification. There are even cases of refusal to prosecute. All of these, and the whole Ghandi thing, are flavors of scofflawry.
Speeding laws are particularly susceptible to scofflaws. There was a recent situation in Wisconsin where the legislature had decided to raise the already exessive fines again, and it was stopped because the last time they raised speeding fines, there was a drop-off of revenue. Police officers were issuing more warnings, because they didn't think the fines were reasonable.
A certain level of personal fireworks use is permitted on the Fourth of July, thanks to scofflaws. You have to get pretty obnoxious with the explosives on that particular day in order to get prosecuted. If it weren't for the vast number of people ignoring that law on that day, you could get in a lot of trouble celebrating that way.
Most sodomy laws in the US have fallen to scofflaws. In most parts of the USA, things most people do with their consenting adult partners are technicaly major felonies. And if the vast majority of people respected the laws that regulate exactly where and how a husband and wife can touch each other, there would be cause for law enforcement to investigate every letter to Penthouse.
Scofflawry would be in the Constitution except that the self-referential effects would be too messy. It is in the penumbra, right next to privacy and about three paragraphs up from the part that says the President doesn't have First Night privleges.
OK, let's not be too confusing - the penumbra is the unwritten part of the Constitution. And in the UK, which matters because US law is based on Brittish Common Law - to the extent that if there isn't an appropriate rule in US law, a US court will accept BCL as binding - that means the whole entire thing. The UK is considered a Constitutional Monarchy and they have no written constitution at all. The Magna Charta isn't one.
White guys in suits know best
- Pat McCurdy
|
Post #2,524
7/20/01 11:24:38 PM
|
Re: Scofflaws are part of the system of checks and balances
Nicely said.
I tend to agree with you, mostly.
The problem is that "scofflawry" also has a slippery slope - at some point, its too far.
And that point is hard to determine ahead of time.
Addison
|
Post #2,567
7/21/01 7:34:06 PM
|
Speed enforcement
95% of all speed enforcement is for revenue raising purposes only. Not for reckless driving. Not for being dangerous to other motorists. There's one town in Ohio that has something like 500 feet of Interstate highway within its borders. They don't even have an on or off-ramp. They vigorously "enforce" the speed limit to such an extent that the Ohio legistlature passed a law that (I forget) either requires an interchange or a mile of interstate or something before a town/community can pull people over.
Theoretically, I agree with your statement of princciple.
Practically, when *everyone* breaks the law, the law is bad. And *everyone* breaks speed limit laws - in fact, if you don't break the law, you very likely are endangering yourself and other drivers by driving so much slower than the prevailing traffic.
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
|
Post #3,028
7/30/01 10:52:39 AM
|
Re: Speed enforcement
95% of all speed enforcement is for revenue raising purposes only. Not for reckless driving.
After having almost been run off the road this weekend, I've got a slightly differnent thought on that.
That's 95% of the offenses noted, correct?
But, what do you do if you're not enforcing the speed laws? There's more variables there.
If you *never* stop people for speeding *unless* something happens or it seems to be dangerous, then there will be a lot *more* dangerous situations. Look at say, highway work zones. People have typically blasted through them... so many states now aggressively enforce the lower limit there, so people slow down and accidents in work zones (and fatalities to the workers) have dropped drastically in those states.
What if police never enforced school speed zones?
Its like a lot of things - you have to have the *possibility* there, to enforce behavior. And waiting until there's an accident to assign blame... especially when people presume/delude themselves that *they* won't have a problem, *they* are good enough.
And I damn sure wish there'd been a cop last night, when this jackass passed me in a no-passing zone, passed traffic at the next light in the turn lane (and then went into the intersection to cut in front of the van at the light), and was doing easily 120 on a rain-slick road, speed limit 55.
Without enforcement - that's what would be much more common.
Addison
|
Post #2,756
7/24/01 3:30:32 PM
|
Jumping off the slippery slope
Scofflawry is people jumping off a slippery slope.
But it doesn't matter. It isn't something that anyone can control. It isn't to be encouraged, exactly. It simply is the way people are.
I don't tell my kids it's OK to ignore laws. I'm probably a bit more scrupulous than most people in following laws, but I don't claim to be entirely clean either. I've been known to drive five over the limit from time to time, and I'm not about to apologize. I see laws as part of how we manage to live together as a society, and as such to be respected, but not as same mystical higher good. Which means those lovely statues of blindfolded women holding scales are wast..., um, no, actualy no well constructed statue of a woman wearing an outfit that only covers one breast is truly wasted on me. Still, I don't think that's what the architect had in mind.
And while scofflawry isn't pretty (unlike those statues) if it weren't for scofflaws, beverage-grade alcohol would be illegal in the USA right now.
White guys in suits know best
- Pat McCurdy
|
Post #2,589
7/22/01 6:12:33 PM
|
After some reflection, I'm going to have to disagree with
a lot of that.
Not that you're wrong.. .not totally, (i've got a couple issues) but the issue is totally subjective.
The parallels with Dalhmer and McVeigh I still think apply - they knew the law, and they broke it anyway. (With the possible exception that McVeigh was trying to change something, (somehow)).
And Bill O's and Brandioch's defense would - under circumstances - defend McVeigh (who saw the federal government, said that it was dangerous to his/our rights, and took action).
And the issue is that it is *very* subjective. Sure, we all break the law sometimes. And the system can deal with that - to a point - sometimes.
And that's where the slippery slope comes in.
If we all park illegally, say, for 10 minutes here and there, then the system can likely deal with it. If we do, all day, then no, the system can't, and something's got to be done.If 10 people park in front of the Emergency Room and an ambulance can't get to it....
Some things, say, rape, murder, there's to most people's mentality, no room at all there for that elasticity.
Speeding laws are particularly susceptible to scofflaws.... Police officers were issuing more warnings, because they didn't think the fines were reasonable.
Yes, they are, but that's not really an example, is it? The police officers weren't NOT pulling people over, they were still doing that, but they were using their discretion to not ticket them, due to the price.
They were catching lawbreakers, and warning them, not ignoring the law.
A certain level of personal fireworks use is permitted on the Fourth of July, thanks to scofflaws.
Aren't you in NC? They're legal. :)
(as long as you don't endanger anybody)
What you're talking about a lot is the failure of prosecution. I think, more so than scofflawing. Yes, some people ignore sodomy laws - but in cases where its come up, charges have been filed and people prosecuted, with those laws on the books.
But the problem is that in my opinion, you can't just "ignore" bad law (and hope that nobody enforces it). You should get it off the books.
And destroying public property to keep from getting a speeding ticket doesn't strike me as being heroic or particularly patriotic or really defending rights.
Addison
|
Post #2,660
7/24/01 12:48:10 AM
|
Not a defence.
"And Bill O's and Brandioch's defense would - under circumstances - defend McVeigh (who saw the federal government, said that it was dangerous to his/our rights, and took action)."
If you knowingly break the law, you go to jail.
What I'm saying is not a defence of any kind. Until the laws are changed, you are breaking them. Knowingly and with forethought.
Think about China, again. Is the fact that some people want democracy a "defense" of their actions?
Not in that country.
Nor in our's.
When the laws are changed, then the people who took the risks are recognized for their works. Until then, they are just breaking the law.
No one is saying that people should not be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
|
Post #2,700
7/24/01 10:20:25 AM
|
defend mcveigh?
defend his right to take the action he took? Yup
Defend MY right and societies right to fry his sorry ass for the action he took? Yup
think about it,
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
|
Post #2,953
7/27/01 12:23:30 PM
|
Um.
defend his right to take the action he took? Yup
Defend MY right and societies right to fry his sorry ass for the action he took? Yup
think about it,
If he had a "right" to kill people, why did we kill him?
Addison
|
