Perhaps you are simply realizing it, less and less?

Post #2,611 by Ashton 7/23/01 3:10:56 AM Reply	Perhaps you are simply realizing it, less and less? re. What's the objective difference? There's not one. Its subjective. And further, you may well consider youself to have lost something (and I might agree) - but it was privacy because there wasn't the tech/people to invade it. Not because you had a right to anything there. Here you and Scalia are arguing against the principle of "rights not specifically abrogated - belong to the people". Their fancy name for this is of course, 'strict constructionist' - we gots euphemisms for everything, even for Draconian misinterpretations of the Constitution. (And that: ya can't even call 'conservative' - it's plain reactionary) A second assertion contained above - is that we may simply ignore the effect of the tech people, as you put it! As if there is not, could not be any significant "difference" because we just happen to install one? a dozen, a million? er cameras (this particular time..) wherever. Nope, no difference at all because: While we have survived since 1776 or so WITHOUT massive surveillance systems operated by (whomever) - WE COULD have had such* and.. they weren't specifically prohibited you see, and... ergo: it's just a minor and unimportant development that, merely 'the tech people' have gotten around to doing. Just now. all we had to do was discover Germanium a bit earlier, refine it and do a little physics and - voila! Maybe we could have had these cameras so that McCarthy could have actually LOOKED under every Murican bed to see if there was a Com-symp hiding there. Same situation / earlier time / Wow! could those cameras have really Helped\ufffd "prove I'm not a Commyunist to the Senator, who surely then would have given me my job back?" Surely he would have. Wouldn't he? No, I really don't think you* get the importance. (Never mind whether Scalia does or doesn't - or gets to decide for the rest of us. As with the President Select.) We will remain on different sides of the barricade, it seems. I'll spray 'em and you'll go around cleaning 'em - to be safe from that er potential? likely? possible! guy who's... gonna be noticed making plans to burglarize yer stash of ___ later in the day. Or was it a laundry ticket he surreptitously scribbled on 'suspiciously' before that camera? (like the Senator's list of 52, later 55 'Comsymps in the State Department' = an actual er 'fact' BTW re "his laundry list", depending upon which historian's sources you want to verify) No sale. I've already seen the earlier effects. Right here in Murica. They weren't pretty then. They stink now. And we haven't gotten a lot smarter about 'creeping gradualism' since, IMO. You certainly haven't. Ashton
Post #2,615 by addison 7/23/01 8:23:13 AM Reply	Re: Perhaps you are simply realizing it, less and less? Their fancy name for this is of course, 'strict constructionist' - we gots euphemisms for everything, even for Draconian misinterpretations of the Constitution. And the euphemism for your brand of "It doesn't have to make sense, but its the way I feel" sort of non-interpretation (and particularly non-logic) of the law is what? (I'd have made one, but it would have been far more insulting.) Maybe we could have had these cameras so that McCarthy Maybe, one of these days, people will sit and think about what they're doing. Maybe, one of these days they'll actually ponder "Does this make sense, and is it consistant with my other beliefs". I'm not holding my breath, in the meantime, as far too many people flock to church without thinking about it, and far too many people advocate a society without sense, or reason, and then deny that's exactly what they're doing. We're talking about public, Ashton. Public. Perhaps you should save the insults. PUBLIC. What you did in the 50s *IN PUBLIC* wasn't protected. And had you done that on a movie set, in front of a camera, and it had been taken to those hearings (WHICH! you would have MORE of, as its "how you feel" thats important, not "what does the law say"). We're NOT talking about cameras in PRIVATE.(Funny thing that's all you can argue against them) Same situation Not at all. Not even close. However, according you you, who prefer mob rule and rampage to a specified, written, interpreted law, THE MCCARTHY HEARINGS WERE FINE! Mob rule, heck yeah. Cameras! Rip 'em down! Pigs on patrol? Kill 'em! No sale. I've already seen the earlier effects. Right here in Murica. They weren't pretty then. They stink now. And we haven't gotten a lot smarter about 'creeping gradualism' since, IMO. You certainly haven't. Speaking of smarter...... Why then are you agitating for the exact sort of irrational, emotional thinking that CAUSED THE SITUATION IN THE FIRST PLACE? That's what I don't understand, and it makes your insults (and insinuations that I, and others, are incapable of thinking) all the more hypocritical. Addison
Post #2,665 by Ashton 7/24/01 2:46:16 AM Reply	It's simple, really - but it won't be, for you. "Making sense" is about much more than your logical deductions from posits not universally shared. You imagine that The Law may be a nice intellectual recitation of all the things which matter in a society. And all those things which matter are neatly enumerated: are Authorized! one-by-one. Then you equate all emotional aspects of the human condition to ~ "Mob Rule, I Want, ___" Hell, create a few more silly syllogisms. Your er emotional attachment to digital logic shines right on through. "Public"? you say - so then, it's OK for a creeping Police State mentality to propagate.. everywhere that more than 3 are assembled? just so long as ya can retreat to your tiny little er "Private" stronghold - defended by the Gatling guns (legally single-shot modified o'course ;-) Fortress Freedom perhaps? amidst the er Public Recorders of All Things (\ufffdMicrosloth Corp - a Global Consortium). Join Passport to - view selected files we have on You. $1/second. We take PayPal. (OK - that's for 2004; I'm just a little.. ahead here.) Nope, we have Fundament-al disagreement about what makes a life worth the trouble of Living. You want nice, fully tabulated Authorized Rules for - just about anything you can imagine. And those who "feel that That Ain't a life worth Living" -?- well "feelings" cannot ever compete with a nicely documented Permission list - now can they? (Why then life would not be logical. What an idea.) By now a rather familiar attitude BTW, re the "entire pseudo-science of the law" [Fred C. Rodell, Dean Yale Law School - long ago] But a fatally flawed idea of the Majesty of the Law. And of how homo-sap Lives. IMhO. You appear not even to get the idea that, after all the verbal BS of which we are all so capable: NO ONE ever 'does' anything they are not Moved.. to do. Logic? Hah !! (It has its pedestrian uses of course - but you will find logic the Prime controller only in ROBOTS. Remember?) Ashton Nothing can go wrong with our surveillance recording and indexing software go wrong go wrong go wr {click}
Post #2,690 by addison 7/24/01 9:44:08 AM Reply	Its only simple if you're stupid. Because nothing is simple when you start looking at all the other ramifications. And its utter complete ignorance to stick your head in the sand and pretend otherwise, no matter what your motivation. You imagine I do you the favor of not trying to figure out what you're thinking (mostly because I can't imagine that much LSD), but because its just damn rude. You are consistantly wrong with what you say I think. So stop trying and telling me what I think, you don't know. Then you equate all emotional aspects of the human condition to ~ "Mob Rule, I Want, ___" Look at Brandioch flailing down below. See, he hasn't thought his point through. What he's said is "if I think a law is wrong, I don't have to obey it, and that's OK" (Now he's somehow trying to backtrack on that and say that he'll be punished. I might wait for him to re-read this thread and retry to integrate his answers (he'll have to change something). But that's what this thread started about "Hooray! Someone is breaking the law and I like it!" That's mob rule. No reference to law, and as much as you hate it, the POINT of law is to have a standard, a reference, something ABOVE the lynch mobs and gangs. And when you advocate/support things that break the rule of law, you create a situation where only Mob Rule exists. They're opposites. Either you have laws, or you have mob rule. Hell, create a few more silly syllogisms. Yeah. Silly. I notice you don't say WHY they're silly. Why you'd have a problem with some anti-authority figure disabling an ambulance while you lie bleeding. Or.. is that.. different? (I have a feeling I"m going to be insulted more for pointing that out). "Public"? you say - so then, it's OK for a creeping Police State mentality to propagate.. As opposed to Mob Rule? (Which then will lead to a Poilce State - just not a police state constrained by any laws?) Nope, we have Fundament-al disagreement about what makes a life worth the trouble of Living Yep. I don't like people hurting other people and taking their stuff. I believe in thinking things through. It would appear you don't. Because you don't believe anybody should have to have their "freedom restricted" with those silly laws that keep you from taking other people's stuff. Golly. How silly of me. To the Gates! With Torches! Addison
Post #2,696 by Another Scott 7/24/01 10:09:07 AM Reply	The issue (for me) is thresholds. Hi All, Addison wrote: And when you advocate/support things that break the rule of law, you create a situation where only Mob Rule exists. They're opposites. Either you have laws, or you have mob rule. I don't think Brandioch and Ashton are saying that. They're saying that in our society there comes a point where laws must be disregarded because they violate what's right. I think we agree that there were instances in the past when laws which were egregiously wrong were on the books and were enforced. It took people breaking the laws to have society change them. I think they're arguing that there are some instances when that's the correct course of action. Not that all laws they find inconvenient/annoying/etc. should be disregarded. They're not advocating mob rule. They feel, as I understand it, that there are thresholds which are being crossed that they feel violate their freedom/rights/etc. I think both sides are making good points. It's a shame that rather than the issues of public annonymity, privacy, the limits of what is acceptable datagathering of public places, etc., being clarified by this discussion it's instead being more muddled by extraneous issues. I'll give my take again - I don't believe I have privacy rights as such when I'm in public. Newspapers and TV cameras can take my image when I'm part of a crowd or attenting a public event. I have no problem with that if I remain anonymous. I believe I have rights to annonymity. I don't like the idea of my motions, personal data, etc., being tracked in public even if, say, 20,000 other people at the same public event are being tracked the same way. It still causes me to lose my right to remaining anonymous. That's why I oppose things like the FL camera system we discussed a few weeks ago. Cheers, Scott.
Post #2,702 by pwhysall 7/24/01 10:27:11 AM Reply	Are we civilised or are we not? That, to me, is the issue. One of the downsides in living in an organised and civilised society is that one cannot pick and choose the laws one wishes to obey today, because in order for laws to change, there IS a clear legislative and political process -- a process that is likely long, tedious and hard. If one wants to circumvent that process, then one is effectively cutting the democratic process out of the loop. That's not grown-up politics and lawmaking, that's spitting one's dummy out and throwing a tantrum because one can't have what one wants. We ignore two-year-olds who do that. Just because one can shout very loudly doesn't make one any more right than the person who chooses to whisper. -- Peter Shill For Hire
Post #2,737 by Simon_Jester 7/24/01 1:25:47 PM Reply	I think you're overstating the case... One of the downsides in living in an organised and civilised society is that one cannot pick and choose the laws one wishes to obey today, because in order for laws to change, there IS a clear legislative and political process -- a process that is likely long, tedious and hard. If one wants to circumvent that process, then one is effectively cutting the democratic process out of the loop. That's not grown-up politics and lawmaking, that's spitting one's dummy out and throwing a tantrum because one can't have what one wants. We ignore two-year-olds who do that. One the things about living in an organized and civilizied society is the one CAN pick and choose which laws one wishes to obey and disobey. However, one who decides to disobey the laws must realize the risks and possible penalities that they may face for breaking those laws. MLK and others broke numerous laws; they knew the risks they were taking and the possible punishments that they may have to face. However, they willingly took these risks and penalities for what they believed in. Furthermore, such actions can not be considered to be cutting out the democratic process. The entire nature of a democracy is that these are the rules everyone agrees to. By that very nature, disagreeing with the law is a factor in democracy. In fact, is a very humanizing part of the lawmaking process and may be the ultimate in checks_n_balances: lawmakers can make whatever laws they want - but does it mean anything unless everyone agrees to follow them? Example: if Congress were to pass a maximum 25 mph speed limit, it would be law. But if the police do not enforce the law, courts refuse to hear cases on the law and people ignore the law, what real effect does the law have? Stainless steel traps breed stainless steel rats.
Post #2,739 by wharris2 7/24/01 1:31:38 PM Reply	Minor correction I don't know anyone here who lives in a democracy. in the USA, we live in a democratic republic, which is quite different. Those British and Austrailian members here also do not live in a democracy. French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
Post #2,762 by imric 7/24/01 6:45:33 PM Reply	Fishing... It's all a question of whether the police should be 'anglers' (rod and reel, trolling for individual law-breakers) or whether they should longliners, raking in everybody, and accepting the collateral damages. Anonymity IS important, but police use of 'facial profiling' basically removes any anonymity you have AND introduces a real possibility of error. Unless, of course, you move to the next logical step, and tattoo (via UV sensitive ink, perhaps, for the 'beautiful people'?) SS numbers onto the foreheads of citizens and green-card holders? When DOES action essentially for the convenience of the police 'cross the line', anyway? Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Post #2,742 by Brandioch 7/24/01 1:47:05 PM Reply	Flailing? "Look at Brandioch flailing down below." Why is it that you are UNABLE to respond to questions about slavery? Was it LEGAL? Was it RIGHT? Was breaking that law RIGHT or WRONG? Your problem is that you equate LAW with RIGHT. But such is not always the case. So, you have a situation where RIGHT is NOT the same as LEGAL. Which causes your world view to collapse upon itself. If legal is not right and right is not legal -then- reality collapses and we have mob rule! Now, let's see if you can grasp the fact that some laws are not "right". Which will lead to the philosophical question of "do you obey laws that are not right". Something to think about, we had this discussion in the military. The problem was very real there. Your commander could order you to perform illegal activities. Failure to follow his commands could result in your execution. So, what do you do?

Welcome to IWETHEY!