But that flies in the face of what you said earlier.

Post #4,953 by addison 8/13/01 8:42:00 PM Reply	But that flies in the face of what you said earlier. In which you said ~"I get to disable them, while we discuss it". But that's disingenious. Its not what you meant. Which is why I commented. The only way to get me to stop colouring cameras is to change my beliefs about them. Considering you're claiming privacy in public, I don't think you're even amenable to the discussion. (like above). Addison
Post #4,955 by Ashton 8/13/01 9:04:07 PM Reply	'Privacy' appears to distress you. Try Not, 'privacy in public' - a bit too cute for oxymoron manufacture. Maybe a less-compact, more pointed phrase - ~ Resistance to the institution of dossier-creation by government, upon random citizens - and with no 'probable cause / legal' oversight. That is more relevant - it illuminates the 'data collection' facet and the inevitable usage of that data. Definition would likely expand as new language loopholes are employed. We have not yet had more than token debate in the related areas of, private and Corporate accumulation of data - the 'intentions', usage and protection from theft (?) of certain such databases. So the problem extends clearly beyond just the initial topic of these threads: Proliferation of cameras used by government. (I'm sure that our proposed draft of new legislation shall prove compelling to the legislators, and prompt immediate hearings in all states - obviating any need for spray paint.) A.
Post #5,045 by Brandioch 8/14/01 12:23:30 PM Reply	I own my image. Simply because I walk outside does not mean that anyone can photograph me. The laws have not kept up with the technology. 200+ years ago, the issue didn't matter because you would have to PAINT that person's picture. Which required a degree of cooperation from that person. Early photography still required a very visible and occupied person and a willing "victim". Now we can automate all of that and place it anywhere. You wouldn't even know there was a camera there. I have a right to privacy (my image) in public places. It's mine. It cannot be taken without my permission. Why do I have the feeling that we're going to go through the original thread AGAIN at this point?
Post #5,053 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 12:41:49 PM Reply	Problem is... ...rights are only held as they are granted by law. You could advocate changing the law to grant or recognize those rights, but that doesn't mean you have those rights currently Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,055 by DonRichards 8/14/01 12:50:29 PM Reply	Bulls**t "...rights are only held as they are granted by law. " I think you may find it works the other way. Rights are mine until taken away by law. "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 #5,056 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 12:58:01 PM Reply	Try it If you are of the philisohical bent that rights exist as some basic human quality outside or above law, that's fine. My religious beliefs give me the same conclusion "However", from any practical standpoint, rights are only meaningful if they are recognized and respected by the community around you and that recognition and respect are expressed in law. Or in authority that uses force to supercede community will. Consider the rights of officers as POWs not to be forced to do manual labor; that right only exists because of international treaty. If you are an American, the Bill Of Rights is a codification of basic rights as recognized by the government. It doesn't matter what rights you claim, if they are not recognized and respected by those with the power to ignore them, then they are meaningless Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,060 by DonRichards 8/14/01 1:07:52 PM Reply	Still don't agree Even from a practical viewpoint. Unless it is forbidden by law, I can run around naked with a chicken strapped to my head. It's my right. That action may result in new case law, but until that point I have the legal right to do anything not forbidden. You're argument seems to be approaching the "anything not forbidden is compulsory" stand. I know you well enough to believe this is not your intention. "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 #5,063 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 1:17:33 PM Reply	Disconnect You're right to run around naked with a chicken strapped to your head is granted under "..liberty, and the persuit of happiness" (for strange definitions of 'happy', I guess :) Brandioch's right to his own image is far more tenous because it bumps up against "Freedom Of The Press" and maybe "Freedom Of Speech" which are already defined rights in law. (Probably also "Liberty" as in the right of the photographer to do what he wants, as long as he's not breaking any law) So until a law comes about that grants a person the right to not be photographed, that expressed right falls against already espablished legally granted rights Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,064 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 1:21:19 PM Reply	and Clarification Personally, for moral and ethical reason, I don't think people should be photographed without their permission. I'm not arguing that it should be ok. However there is a difference between what is 'right' in my eyes and what "rights" a person has, and the second involves legal issues as well, amd I don't think Brandioch has the legal position to claim what he feels is his moral right Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,069 by Simon_Jester 8/14/01 1:53:59 PM Reply	Cough. That's Declaration of Independence... not Bill of Rights. The Declaration, as nice as it is, isn't a document of the Government of the United States. (Hell, it was written before the Articles.) However, I think you'll find that Admendment 4 suits your needs. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Post #5,084 by addison 8/14/01 2:41:45 PM Reply	Not really. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Notice the explicitness of that. Now, even assuming that's being more literal than was intendend.. it doesn't approach the problem here - that of public images (and their storage/retrieval/use). If you walk down the street, and have something illegal in your pocket, there must be that said probable cause to search you. If you walk down the street with something illegal in your hand - no such probable cause is needed (the sight is all that is needed). Thereupon lies the big difference. The 4th is talking about the protection of private property. This issue is where are the limits of data collection, of someone in public. (For instance, that's why the thermal imagers were tossed out on 4th amendment grounds - they were used to penetrate into the houses, without warrent) Addison
Post #5,088 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 2:45:52 PM Reply	Umm..actually.... I thought he was saying that the fourth amendment gives you the right to run around naked with a chicken on your head.... Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,093 by addison 8/14/01 2:51:14 PM Reply	Errr. He was?
Post #5,100 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 2:59:07 PM Reply	Yeah... ...go back to [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5060\|Don's post] He was talking about running around...etc.. I replied saying that his behavior was probably protected as a right to "liberty, and the persuit of happiness". Simon countered that I was quoting from the Dec. Of Independence, which was not a legal document, but went on to say that the proper reference was porbably the 4th amendment. I thought he meant that as an alternative to what I said, in defense of of the naked chicken running Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,101 by addison 8/14/01 3:00:24 PM Reply	Oh. Well, in that case I misunderstood. :) Sorry 'bout that. Addison
Post #5,112 by DonRichards 8/14/01 3:15:34 PM Reply	NCRs unite! All naked chicken runners are better than clothed chicken runners and we deserve recognition, awards and free coupons entitling us to half off at any participating vendor. "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 #5,153 by Brandioch 8/14/01 4:23:40 PM Reply	There's a flag on that play. "Brandioch's right to his own image is far more tenous because it bumps up against "Freedom Of The Press" and maybe "Freedom Of Speech" which are already defined rights in law." Jay is using references that were "illegal" and crafted by "criminals". "So until a law comes about that grants a person the right to not be photographed, that expressed right falls against already espablished legally granted rights" Okay, so, until England recognized the colonies "right" to form a nation, they had no such right. Again, rights usually aren't lost via revolution, but that is the way they are usually regained.
Post #5,156 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 4:33:23 PM Reply	Pick the flag up Again, rights usually aren't lost via revolution, but that is the way they are usually regained. No kidding. Until those with the power to ignore your rights recognize and respect those rights, you don't really have them in any meaningful way because you can't express them. Sometimes you have to kick them in the teeth to make them recognize your rights. I could say "I have the right to shoot every third person who drives past my house", but there are those who would deny me that right, and have the power to do so, so my expression of that right is meaningless Okay, so, until England recognized the colonies "right" to form a nation, they had no such right. Legally? No Morally? Yes Is the distinction sinking in yet? Very few revolutions are 'legally' right because they are revolutions against the current legally system. They may be morally right based on local definitions of morality Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,157 by DonRichards 8/14/01 4:33:33 PM Reply	Others have stated it more elegantly "We hold these truths to be self-evident... ...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. " Did anyone notice that part that reads "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"? I do not consent to have my image recorded while in public without my express permission. The whole concept of these public recording devices linked to face recognition software and stored in permanent databases stinks to high heaven. If you can't see how it is incompatible with that nice bit of prose quoted up top, I feel 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 #5,163 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 4:54:08 PM Reply	Not sure who you are talking to... Did anyone notice that part that reads "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"? Yes, that's why I've been using terms like "Community" and "those with the power.." because, to me, the government should be an extension of the will of the community of people gathered together. In an ideal world, the community bforms the government, whom governs the people of the community according to the will of the community. That doesn't usually happen. And sometimes you get bullies and tyrants who do not derive their powers from consent but derive their unjust powers from might. The whole concept of these public recording devices linked to face recognition software and stored in permanent databases stinks to high heaven. If you can't see how it is incompatible with that nice bit of prose quoted up top, I feel for you. I agree. But it's an interesting journey between what is wrong and what is a right and I've been more focused on the quanderies of the journey itself Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,178 by Brandioch 8/14/01 5:59:53 PM Reply	The journey is the destination. Without understanding why something is "right" or "right" or "right", how can you tell whether something is "wrong"? And the only way to tell is to watch yourself as you go from one to the other. Core values and beliefs.
Post #5,061 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 1:09:05 PM Reply	oops... the title "Try It" was supposed to lead to a statement "Try exercising your rights when those with power to ignore your rights do not recongize and respect them" Brandioch may claim a right, but if the legal structure is not in place for that right to be recognized by the government and/or other indivudals, that 'right' is meaningless Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,137 by Brandioch 8/14/01 3:54:14 PM Reply	That's one way to look at it. "f you are of the philisohical bent that rights exist as some basic human quality outside or above law, that's fine." With you so far. ""However", from any practical standpoint, rights are only meaningful if they are recognized and respected by the community around you and that recognition and respect are expressed in law." We're diverging here. One view is that government supports your rights. The other view is that government can RESTRICT your expression of your inherent rights. Usually through the application of violence. Need an example? Wanna buy some niggers? Cheap. "Consider the rights of officers as POWs not to be forced to do manual labor; that right only exists because of international treaty." So we move from rights inherent in the individuals to rights inherent in the ranks of a specific occupation. "It doesn't matter what rights you claim, if they are not recognized and respected by those with the power to ignore them, then they are meaningless" I guess that would depend upon what you believe "meaningless" means. Lots of revolutions happened when people wanted "meaningless" rights. Lots of people have died to gain such "meaningless" rights. Whether something has meaning or not is dependant upon a signature of the current authority?
Post #5,143 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 4:05:05 PM Reply	One and the same One view is that government supports your rights. The other view is that government can RESTRICT your expression of your inherent rights. Either way, your ability to express your rights is at the whim of those in power (government, local bully, whatever...). The line from a to b is very short. And for what it's worth, I don't like it. That's reality, I'm not at all happy that that's how life happens, but that's the way it happens. I guess that would depend upon what you believe "meaningless" means. "Meaningless" means, as I had said earlier, "practically expressable" The rights people fight and die for only matter if, in the end, those fighting for them actually win and have the ability to express those rights. They are not yet attained, not yet held, ideals worth fighting for, goals worth reaching to attain, but not yet possessed Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,160 by Brandioch 8/14/01 4:40:46 PM Reply	Insert standard example here. "Either way, your ability to express your rights is at the whim of those in power (government, local bully, whatever...). The line from a to b is very short." You seem to be forgetting a rather basic concept. "Breaking the law" No, the government cannot stop me from doing what I feel is right. The government can only punish me AFTER the fact. If they know I did it. If they can find me. There is risk involved. That is why they are called "heros". Risk and sacrifice. "Heros" yesiknowthattheyarecalledcriminalsbythecurrentauthorityandtheyarelegallycriminalsbecausetheyarebreakingthelaweventhoughtheydon'tagreewiththelaw........
Post #5,131 by Brandioch 8/14/01 3:47:15 PM Reply	"legal" == "right" "...rights are only held as they are granted by law." Translation: "You have no rights that the government has not allowed you." "You could advocate changing the law to grant or recognize those rights, but that doesn't mean you have those rights currently" Translation: "You have no rights that the government has not allowed you." Summation: "legal" == "right"
Post #5,136 by Fearless Freep 8/14/01 3:53:06 PM Reply	Without all the detail Make the distinction between the noun and the adjective and try again Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #5,172 by Brandioch 8/14/01 5:23:59 PM Reply	You can't handle that from the context? I would have thought that after this many posts, it should be clear. [link\|http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=right\|http://www.dictiona...l?term=right] "Right refers to a legally, morally, or traditionally just claim" You see, the "moral" right is inherent. The "legal" expression of the "moral" right can be facilitated or hindered. It is not possible to remove the "moral" right. On the other hand, it is possible to have a "legal" "right" to an "immoral" activity (slave ownership). But that is covered under my statement that government cannot deprive you of your rights, only punish you for their expression.
Post #5,071 by Simon_Jester 8/14/01 1:58:46 PM Reply	Actually, I think you own your painted image too... There was a Supreme Court case, back in the early 1800s (iirc) with a prominent manufacture using an image of a housewife on their products. The housewife was originally unaware that the image was used and eventually sued to be compensated for the image. I believe that image, at the time, was a painting, photography being what is was back then.
Post #5,082 by Simon_Jester 8/14/01 2:38:59 PM Reply	I'm wrong. The case I was think of was Robinson v. Rochester Folding Box Co. (1902). Robinson's image was used and the NY Appeals Court ruled against Robinson as no law existed preventing the use of the image. A fast google search revealed a number of other cases, including Vanna White vs. Samsung (1999?) and Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc. (1953). 1. In the Beginning. An offshoot of the right of privacy--or, more colloquially, the "right to be left alone"--the right of publicity as a separate doctrine generally is considered to have emerged in a 1953 Second Circuit decision, Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc.(10) In that case, Judge Frank found an exclusive, assignable right of commercial exploitation of one's name or likeness.(11) He used the term "right of publicity" to distinguish this commercial right from the privacy concept of protection from an invasion of one's personal enclave of solitude.(12) Two influential law review articles followed the Haelan decision, one by Melville Nimmer(13) and one by William Prosser.(14) Prosser's article recognized that the appropriation tort at the root of the right of publicity fundamentally differed from the conventional privacy torts.(15) However, he still categorized it as a form of "privacy" tort, rather than as a separate and distinct claim.(16) Shortly after the Haelan decision, Nimmer argued that limitations on the privacy tort and other available torts made them unsuitable vehicles for protecting rights of publicity.(17) He asserted that the right of publicity should be treated "as a property (not a personal) right."(18) His rationale for such protection was that publicity values normally are the result of expenditures of time and effort by the celebrity and the celebrity should be "entitled to the fruit of his labors, unless there are important countervailing policy considerations."(19) From these roots a rather large tree has grown. No consistent doctrine has evolved that is followed in substantially all states.(20) However, many states have recognized some form of a right to control the commercial exploitation of one's name or likeness.(21) Most of the states have acceded to this through common law development;(22) ironically, New York, whose law the Haelan court ostensibly interpreted, recognizes only a statutory right.(23) The U.S. Supreme Court recognized the existence of right of publicity claims in Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.(24) Zacchini examined the extent to which the First Amendment limited the right of publicity granted under state law; it did not create an independent federal law of publicity rights. The Zacchini decision has been credited, however, with spurring interest in using the right of publicity by attorneys and judges.(25) The recent expansion of this right to the point reached in the White decision prompts this discussion. [link\|http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:4VfstHqHrZY:www.lawsch.uga.edu/~jipl/vol3/welkowit.html+Roberson+v.+Rochester+Folding+Box+Co.&hl=en\| SRC ]
Post #5,081 by addison 8/14/01 2:35:10 PM Reply	Not currently, you don't. Simply because I walk outside does not mean that anyone can photograph me. It would be a lot easier to actually talk to you if you stopped using the concept of Royalty (what I say, goes). Because, yes, anybody CAN photograph you, in public. If you don't like that, if you think that's wrong, that's fine. But saying that "does not mean" when its exactly what it does means either means that you're disassociated from reality, or are expressing what you'd like it to be. Now, if I photograph your image, and use it in certain endevors, yes, I can be legally bound to get your permission, first. (which might require me to pay you for said permission). I have a right to privacy (my image) in public places. It's mine. It cannot be taken without my permission. Yes, it can, because its not yours. (Except in those situations stated above). Because what you do in public is a matter of "public record". Capturing the reflections of radiation from 420-760 nm is part of said public record. Why do I have the feeling that we're going to go through the original thread AGAIN at this point? Because you're still talking that the way you think (which isn't sustainable in reality) is the way things are (not that's how they should be). See above. You have stated that I can only look at you (since you own your image) with your permission. Gee. Bet those cops in the Rodney King case had thought of THAT. Addison

Welcome to IWETHEY!