sorry

Post #2,532 by boxley 7/21/01 1:20:41 AM Reply	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 by addison 7/21/01 2:29:29 AM Reply	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 by Brandioch 7/21/01 2:48:19 PM Reply	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 by addison 7/22/01 5:50:59 PM Reply	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 by Brandioch 7/22/01 8:31:44 PM Reply	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 by addison 7/22/01 9:53:13 PM Reply	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 by boxley 7/22/01 11:24:07 PM Reply	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 by addison 7/23/01 12:01:07 AM Reply	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 by DonRichards 7/24/01 8:55:57 AM Reply	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 by addison 7/24/01 9:34:23 AM Reply	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 by DonRichards 7/24/01 10:06:17 AM Reply	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 by addison 7/27/01 12:04:53 PM Reply	Not really. Its just an incorrect analogy. So its not "over my head", just wrong. Addison
Post #2,972 by DonRichards 7/27/01 4:54:24 PM Reply	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 by addison 7/28/01 11:23:20 AM Reply	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 by Ashton 7/29/01 5:21:07 PM Reply	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 by addison 7/29/01 10:38:38 PM Reply	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 by CRConrad 7/30/01 7:38:00 AM Reply	"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 by Ashton 7/30/01 5:13:58 PM Reply	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 by addison 7/30/01 6:56:10 PM Reply	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 by boxley 7/30/01 9:36:40 PM Reply	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 by addison 7/30/01 11:39:49 PM Reply	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 by boxley 7/31/01 8:14:07 AM Reply	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 by Another Scott 7/31/01 9:54:07 AM Reply	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 by boxley 7/31/01 11:17:09 AM Reply	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 by addison 7/31/01 11:44:25 AM Reply	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 by boxley 7/31/01 9:18:50 PM Reply	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 by addison 7/31/01 10:18:41 PM Reply	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 by imric 7/31/01 9:43:54 PM Reply	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 by addison 7/31/01 10:10:42 PM Reply	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 by imric 7/31/01 10:29:27 PM Reply	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 by addison 7/31/01 11:04:47 PM Reply	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 by imric 8/1/01 1:05:50 PM Reply	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 by addison 8/1/01 1:47:25 PM Reply	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 by drewk 8/1/01 1:55:06 PM Reply	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 by DonRichards 8/1/01 3:20:25 PM Reply	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 by Ashton 8/1/01 4:36:41 PM Reply	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 by imric 8/1/01 7:41:36 PM Reply	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 by addison 8/1/01 8:19:24 PM Reply	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 by wharris2 8/1/01 8:49:39 PM Reply	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 by mhuber 8/2/01 12:05:07 PM Reply	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 by Ashton 7/31/01 3:51:00 PM Reply	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 by addison 7/31/01 4:14:41 PM Reply	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 by Ashton 8/1/01 12:58:11 AM Reply	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 by addison 8/1/01 11:06:07 AM Reply	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 by Ashton 8/1/01 4:08:54 PM Reply	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 by addison 8/1/01 8:14:09 PM Reply	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 by Ashton 8/1/01 9:58:21 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 7/31/01 7:59:31 AM Reply	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 by Simon_Jester 7/31/01 12:47:51 PM Reply	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 by drewk 7/31/01 1:47:07 PM Reply	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 by mhuber 7/31/01 4:35:19 PM Reply	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 by CRConrad 7/30/01 7:24:23 PM Reply	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 by Ashton 7/31/01 2:16:58 AM Reply	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 by DonRichards 7/30/01 9:36:02 AM Reply	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 by addison 7/30/01 10:41:46 AM Reply	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 by DonRichards 7/30/01 12:13:51 PM Reply	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 by addison 7/30/01 2:10:14 PM Reply	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 by deSitter 8/3/01 2:42:46 PM Reply	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 by CRConrad 8/3/01 3:22:22 PM Reply	Oh, POAD, fuckwit! And STAY pissed offa here this time. Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #3,766 by DonRichards 8/3/01 3:22:38 PM Reply	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 by CRConrad 7/30/01 10:51:40 AM Reply	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 by Ashton 7/30/01 6:17:24 PM Reply	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 by CRConrad 7/30/01 8:02:32 PM Reply	"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 by Ashton 7/31/01 2:54:39 AM Reply	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 by pwhysall 7/31/01 3:06:54 AM Reply	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 by Ashton 7/31/01 3:37:28 AM Reply	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 by addison 7/31/01 12:47:31 PM Reply	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 by CRConrad 7/31/01 4:21:21 AM Reply	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 by boxley 7/31/01 8:16:03 AM Reply	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 by CRConrad 7/31/01 9:06:37 AM Reply	Yeah - follow the link in Peter's post...
Post #3,283 by Ashton 7/31/01 3:31:04 PM Reply	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 by a6l6e6x 7/31/01 10:01:23 AM Reply	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 by Ashton 8/1/01 12:16:41 AM Reply	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 by dpeterson 7/30/01 9:06:05 AM Reply	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 by DonRichards 7/30/01 9:48:56 AM Reply	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 by Ashton 7/30/01 6:35:58 PM Reply	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 by boxley 7/30/01 9:39:53 PM Reply	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 by Brandioch 7/23/01 12:26:03 PM Reply	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 by addison 7/23/01 11:23:59 PM Reply	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 by Brandioch 7/24/01 12:44:18 AM Reply	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 by addison 7/27/01 12:21:20 PM Reply	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 by boxley 7/21/01 8:59:17 PM Reply	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?

Welcome to IWETHEY!