not changing the subject at all

Post #2,621 by boxley 7/23/01 9:41:21 AM Reply	not changing the subject at all I as an individual think for myself. I do not accept that society should think for me. You say all this surveilance gear is ok by you as you dont intend to be a lawbreaker and you are comfortable with the governments ability to track your everymove. lets agree to disagree and I will remove and disable such devices and we will both pay for the re-installation until they put me in a camp or the constitution sets you free. thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #2,638 by addison 7/23/01 11:19:52 AM Reply	Ya, Bill, you are. Drastically. And you're not listening to what I'm saying. Most importantly: Public != Private. You are talking about PRIVATE things, and said monitoring there. I am talking about PUBLIC things. That's a VAST gulf, right there. I'm not telling you that society should think for you. I am saying that vandals need to be punished. I am not saying that surveillance gear is OK unless you're planning to break the law. I am saying that its no different than any other piece of public safety equipment (Ambulance, Police Cruiser). lets agree to disagree I'm sorry Bill, I can't do that. Because you aren't actually paying attention to the issue at hand. So I can't say "OK, we have a difference in opinion". What we have is a failure to communicate. Even after me explicitly explaining, you persist in attributing to me fallacies/strawmen. And I can't agree with you on that. You change the subject from night to day, and try and insist that they're related. And I can't agree with you on that. Not even to disagree. Addison
Post #2,695 by boxley 7/24/01 10:08:45 AM Reply	ok then lets continue quote I am not saying that surveillance gear is OK unless you're planning to break the law. I am saying that its no different than any other piece of public safety equipment (Ambulance, Police Cruiser). end quote perhaps this is where we differ, cameras to me eqal wiretap on all the phones = monitoring all ip traffic things that normally need a specific target and a warrant from a judge to be allowed. to allow such things without a warrant to me is creeping big brotherism. I cannot escape that thought and since I cannot I will resist. Wether I am right or wrong will not be judged by you and me but by history. thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #2,954 by addison 7/27/01 12:26:46 PM Reply	Re: ok then lets continue cameras to me eqal wiretap on all the phones = monitoring all ip traffic things that normally need a specific target and a warrant from a judge to be allowed. Then that's a bad equasion. Those other things - they apply to things where you can exclude others. Where you can have privacy. You can refuse to open the trunk of your car to an officer - that's private. To open it, he must comply with the laws pertaining to the 4th amendment. If you have something illegal sitting on the back seat of your car, and he can see it, then he's in full compliance for arresting you based on the sight. Cameras in public do NOT equate to wiretapping private conversations. Addison

Welcome to IWETHEY!