Not currently.

Post #5,111 by addison 8/14/01 3:15:29 PM 8/14/01 3:16:21 PM Reply	Not currently. And Jay already handled most of it. All I can do is to stop them from recording my image. No, you can't. You are saying that since you can't STOP me from looking at you, you can't prevent it. Well, you can't stop me from taping you then. Same thing. You're setting up a distinction. You say you own your image, except for.. No, it doesn't work that way. If you want it to, you have to go change the law for that effect. Because right now, Cameras=Eyeballs. Simple, the camera can record my image to be displayed to others. You memory cannot. Again. Your distinction/choice. Which implies that you also have the choice to prevent others from looking at you. You know, I have hope that ONE DAY you will UNDERSTAND that our CURRENT LAWS do not cover this. Reality Check: That's been my point, from day one. I'm not the one claiming that they do. Or that I can do something illegal. You are. So until you get back to reality.. How about leave the insults at home. Addison Edited by addison Aug. 14, 2001, 03:16:21 PM EDT Not currently. And Jay already handled most of it. All I can do is to stop them from recording my image. No, you can't. You are saying that since you can't STOP me from looking at you, you can't prevent it. Well, you can't stop me from taping you then. Same thing. You're setting up a distinction. You say you own your image, except for.. No, it doesn't work that way. If you want it to, you have to go change the law for that effect. Because right now, Cameras=Eyeballs. Simple, the camera can record my image to be displayed to others. You memory cannot. Again. Your distinction/choice. Which implies that you also have the choice to prevent others from looking at you. You know, I have hope that ONE DAY you will UNDERSTAND that our CURRENT LAWS do not cover this. Reality Check: That's been my point, from day one. I'm not the once claiming that they do. Or that I can do something illegal. You are. So until you get back to reality.. How about leave the insults at home. Addison Collapse All History
Post #5,126 by wharris2 8/14/01 3:41:40 PM Reply	There is a distinction. BTW, have they even worked? If we're going to talk abstractions for a second, there is a difference in that we generally limit the government to those actions that we permit them, not to what they can get away with. We permit police certain exceptions not available to the normal citizen, such as (generally) protection from false arrest lawsuits and permission to deadly force in some circumstances. We permit the government to levy taxes but not unequivocably (and if you live in Tennessee, you protest if the government tries to give itself too much power). I think the Tampa cameras are a police "oh gee isn't technology wonderful" power grab. Now that may not mean they can't get away with it, but I would hope there would be more public pressure against it. Speaking of the Tampa cameras, have they even worked? The only time I've heard of someone even being questioned was the mis-identification of the construction worker, and that wasn't even the Faceit process. If the process is as they are claiming (identiification of criminals), they should at least trot out a few successful arrests. If they can't point to any, then arguably either the software doesn't work (and they should stop wasting their time), or they aren't using the cameras as they are supposed to be used (going back to the "get to play with computers and technology" argument as being the primary purpose of the system, not arresting criminals.) French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
Post #5,139 by addison 8/14/01 3:57:36 PM Reply	Not in this context, and I don't know. Right now, what you can see, you can record. Restricting what you can record in public view) is, with few exceptions, both at the same time. If something is Top Secret, you don't let people see it. Not just try and keep them from photographing it. Same as walking down the street. Nothing legally stops anyone from taking your picture, other than polite convention (and some laws that are somewhat specific in their implementation). So for the police to video what is in public isn't unprecedended, nor, in my opinion, is it a grave injustice, or illegal. Saving said tapes and data isn't either. And if you want to prevent either of the above, you'll need new laws to change either or both of those equvilances. (But thanks for coming around to my way of thinking after a couple weeks, Brandioch, I was starting to give up). I don't know if the Tampa police were doing anything as motivated as a tech grab - more likely, they HAD the cameras, why not see how they work? But when a system is being put together, I don't object to some time to get things sorted out (when death isn't on the line). You're right about the limits to government. But capturing images in public is rather well-established and has been for some time. Building a database of said images, well, the implications of that worry me. But the way to solve that isn't to insist that they "can't do it", but to see how we can prevent them from doing it. Addison
Post #5,166 by wharris2 8/14/01 4:57:37 PM Reply	That only has one solution Building a database of said images, well, the implications of that worry me. But the way to solve that isn't to insist that they "can't do it", but to see how we can prevent them from doing it. And how would you suggest doing that, short of just not going to Tampa? (Or other cities with databases of images.) French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
Post #5,127 by Brandioch 8/14/01 3:41:41 PM Reply	Thanks for your participation. "Not currently." Thank you. Now if you don't mind, I have to go buy some more niggers to work my plantation. "legal" == "right"
Post #5,133 by addison 8/14/01 3:49:47 PM Reply	I've gravely mistaken... Your character. I had presumed that you were very strongly based in logic, and fact, and the here and now. Are you that incapable of understanding the concept of time? "legal" == "right" As opposed to "What Brandioch things == right, and screw anybody in his way?" I'll take legal, over that, anyday. Cause you see - that's the sort of thinking that CAUSED slavery, and many of the worlds other ills. But of course, that was THEN. This is NOW. And tomorrow will be the FUTURE, and you can't even manage to distinguish in your posts between them. (Gee, and we had to be able to do that to get out of 3rd grade? And people talk about South Carolina schools). Addison
Post #5,151 by Brandioch 8/14/01 4:18:22 PM Reply	Because you don't agree with me does not make me wrong. "I had presumed that you were very strongly based in logic, and fact, and the here and now." Again, your statements are partially right and partially wrong. That's why I break my up as I do. I am strongly based in logic (as far as that can go). But I am not strongly based in the here and now. Because the here and now is not the past, nor is it the future. I thought I had made that concept clear but I guess not. "Cause you see - that's the sort of thinking that CAUSED slavery, and many of the worlds other ills." Yep. And the REST of the world's ills were/are caused by the belief that "legal" == "right". It's called "freedom". I've covered that in my other posts. It is a right that cannot be taken away. The right to do what you BELIEVE is right. The consequences will vary from government to government and from time to time. But the RIGHT is always there. Inherent in the individual. All that the LEGAL SYSTEM can do is PUNISH the individual AFTER s/he exercises his/her RIGHTS. Which is why we now have heros who freed slaves before it was LEGAL to do so. As I've pointed out. Those "criminals" are todays "heros". The rights are inherent in the individual. All the government can do is use force after the fact. It's a very scary concept and one that lots of people try to hide from. Again, trading freedom for security while deserving neither. The freedoms you're exercising now were won by people willing to die to secure them for you. People who rejected the law of their government. People who wrote their own laws and formed their own government. Criminals. Traitors. Heros. Our "then" was their "here and now". Remember that. Then tell me that they were "right" or "wrong" for breaking the law.
Post #5,158 by addison 8/14/01 4:34:56 PM Reply	Nope, it doesn't. However, your inability to properly use tenses DOES. I am strongly based in logic (as far as that can go). Not when you state, as a matter of fact for the now, something that does not exist now, and might not ever. Then tell me that they were "right" or "wrong" for breaking the law. I've already dealt with this many times. I didn't say that at all. I said that its a slippery slope when you start breaking the law. I said that currently I can't think of a good justification for such. I have pointed out the obvious problems with solutions you've offered. The freedoms you're exercising now were won by people willing to die to secure them for you. Except they didn't argue that what they needed to do existed - they said they needed to make it so. The right to do what you BELIEVE is right. Like I said. Slippery slope. Abortion bombers. Murderers "But it was right to do that". Our "then" was their "here and now". Remember that. I (unlike you) haven't forgotten that. I haven't mixed up my tenses and my times. I have always said that it is not currently against the law - and said law must be changed if that worries you. I just saw that from you today. Addison
Post #5,182 by Brandioch 8/14/01 6:10:12 PM Reply	And man will never fly. "Not when you state, as a matter of fact for the now, something that does not exist now, and might not ever." I have not done that. I have stated that I have the inherent right not to be photographed without my permission. I do not have the legal backing of the government for that. I have stated that I will take whatever actions, even illegal ones, to ensure that my inherent rights are not infringed upon. "I didn't say that at all. I said that its a slippery slope when you start breaking the law. I said that currently I can't think of a good justification for such." Yep. It is slippery. And very scary. Again, trading freedom for security while deserving neither. I can think of a good reason to break the law. You don't agree. And somehow society continues. "I have pointed out the obvious problems with solutions you've offered." No you haven't. You've offered strawmen about cameras being outlawed (which I've countered with guns being legal). You claimed that every wacko would use this as a basis for breaking the law. I've agreed. That is a price of freedom. "Except they didn't argue that what they needed to do existed - they said they needed to make it so." No. They said that those rights EXISTED. They merely codified the rights that were already there. Then they went to fight those who wanted to infringe upon those rights. "Like I said. Slippery slope. Abortion bombers. Murderers "But it was right to do that"." Freedom.....Security.....Deserving neither. The price of freedom. "I have always said that it is not currently against the law - and said law must be changed if that worries you." And my point is that there isn't any requirement for me to follow a wrong law. I've never said that I would have it changed. But I don't have to wait for it to be changed.
Post #5,221 by addison 8/14/01 11:52:51 PM Reply	So after 2 weeks... You're now telling me exactly what I started off saying. (That its not the law now, and its a slippery slope when people decide to take the law into their own hands). And you're insulting my intelligence? "Not when you state, as a matter of fact for the now, something that does not exist now, and might not ever." I have not done that. Yes, you have. You have stated that you own your image, and you can prevent someone from capturing it. Today (I think, I'd have to check, but yesterday or today), no less. Before your sudden conversion. But you don't. You might in the future - but that's not what you were saying for the last while. That was only today that you began berating other people for "not reading" what you posted today, rather than what you posted prior. Um. And you're insulting.... why? Addison
Post #5,292 by Brandioch 8/15/01 1:48:29 PM Reply	And the loop starts again. "Yes, you have. You have stated that you own your image, and you can prevent someone from capturing it." Yes. I am saying that. I've been saying that all along. Because I believe that the rights are inherent in the individual whether or not the government recognizes them. So, whether I own my image or not does not depend upon whether the government thinks I own my image or not. My rights exist whether the government confirms them or not. The government cannot take my rights away, only punish me for exercising them. And so on and on and on and on. Now, as to the concept of CONTEXT. No. I cannot stop someone from photographing me. Anymore than you can stop someone from murdering you. Yet the common usage of the language would be "you cannot murder people". So, can I murder you? Yes or no.
Post #5,298 by addison 8/15/01 2:30:57 PM Reply	I can but hope that you really don't think this way. Yes. I am saying that. I've been saying that all along. But yesterday you berated and insulted and belittled when that was attributed to you. Because I believe that the rights are inherent in the individual whether or not the government recognizes them. That's a philisophical debating point. If you'd like to, that's fine. But when you say "I have this right", and its not supported by anybody but yourself, then that's usually considered to be wrong. If you say "The government should recognize this right"... But we've been over this. You're (at best) misusing English on purpose. At worst, you can't tell the difference yourself. You're confusing "right" with "ability". In any country in the world, you have the ability to do many things. What the government recognises is another story. What they're constrained from doing is yet another. In theory, the USSR had freedom of speech. The "right" was right there in black and white. But it wasn't respected by the government, I think, needless to say. So did it "exist?" The Bill of Rights enumerates some of the rights that were considered so basic, that any government who did not respect them/recognise them was invalid. My rights exist whether the government confirms them or not. Again, IN THAT SYSTEM, then everything is OK, because "right" is defined by each and every person. Completely unworkable. Just like your asseration that you can permit/deny people from looking at you (which you asserted you could, since you have explicit and exclusive rights to reflected radiation). The government cannot take my rights away, only punish me for exercising them. I don't think you understand the concept of "Right" in this context. But in your construct, then everything everybody does is because of their "right" to it. Murder. Rape. Robbery. Genocide. They've got a "right" to it. Um. Which is completely nonsensical. I'll let you loop the loop and continue with this mental masturbation.. I'll just note that as of yesterday, you were berating people for not noticing that you said exactly what I said weeks ago... And.. you're.. still.....arguing... Have fun on the ride. Um, I guess its your "right" to do that. Addison
Post #5,329 by imric 8/15/01 6:20:47 PM Reply	Sorry. You ARE authoritarian. when you say "I have this right", and its not supported by anybody but yourself, then that's usually considered to be wrong. So - unless government grants you a right, you don't have it? I can but hope that you really don't think this way. In any country in the world, you have the ability to do many things. What the government recognises is another story. What they're constrained from doing is yet another. "Everything not illegal is compulsory. Everything not compulsory is illegal". I can but hope that you really don't think this way. Again, IN THAT SYSTEM, then everything is OK, because "right" is defined by each and every person. Completely unworkable. So - since the government hasn't defined whether I have a right to do "X", I have no right to do "X"? Rights depend on whether the government decides/defines "X", or that system is "Completely unworkable"? I can but hope that you really don't think this way. which you asserted you could, since you have explicit and exclusive rights to reflected radiation No. He didn't say that. You simply refuse to admit that recording devices, dossiers, and publication are any different than direct observation. I can but hope that you really don't think this way. 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 #5,340 by addison 8/15/01 8:09:34 PM Reply	However, I do have the ability to read and understand. when you say "I have this right", and its not supported by anybody but yourself, then that's usually considered to be wrong. So - unless government grants you a right, you don't have it? Nope. Didn't say that. What did I say? If you say something diametrically opposed to what EVERYBODY ELSE says and thinks, that's "usually considered to be wrong". I'd have thought that to be self-evident.... but.... So - since the government hasn't defined whether I have a right to do "X", I have no right to do "X"? Rights depend on whether the government decides/defines "X", or that system is "Completely unworkable"? Brandioch has claimed that he has the right to put your eyes out. He has claimed he has EVERY RIGHT HE WANTS. No external validation. No constraints. But they can put him in jail (somehow, I don't think he understands the concept of "rights') for exercising them. This is what he said. Talk to him about it. Stop telling me its not what he said. Peter certainly noticed what he said. Read the post above his reply. which you asserted you could, since you have explicit and exclusive rights to reflected radiation No. He didn't say that. You simply refuse to admit that recording devices, dossiers, and publication are any different than direct observation. Learn to read. If you can't, call 1-800-ABCDEFG. They'll send you helpful tapes. He did say exactly that. Go find it. That's EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID. He owns the rights to his image and HE CAN ARBITRARILY DECIDE WHO CAN VIEW IT. And not only do I not "refuse to admit" the difference, I've MENTIONED IT SEVERAL TIMES. Click on the top post here. (After you get the helpful tapes). Read and see where I mention this on several occasions. See where I say that.. Oh, hell, why bother. This would presume you actually were PAYING ATTENTION. So much easier to just scream and be reactionary. I can but hope that you really don't think this way. When you don't bother to read, I don't really care. I care about people's opinion who pay attention, and read. Addison
Post #5,342 by Ashton 8/15/01 8:24:33 PM Reply	I'm not sure that's true. Many of us deem that we have inalienable rights (those already enumerated and most.. not yet so). We would deem this, whatever the Constitution said; fortunately it also agrees - even provides a Rx for such time as our government should ever forget it. Your consistent POV is the assertion and reassertion that: we haven't. We haven't 'rights' until this week's government list - enumerates such rights. Or last year's -- but never, next year's, in your mentation. That's all: you wait for them to be 'allowed'. I and others know that the government is an imperfect, necessary institution - intended to ameliorate when disputes arise amongst the many and their interpretations. Still and always: the rights inhere. The rest is only about managing their practical expression. It's a philosophical POV - the one this country was formed around. Ashton
Post #5,345 by imric 8/15/01 8:44:24 PM Reply	Bullshit. Learn to use a dictionary. Hell - if you don't own a dictionary, use [link\|http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=Image\|dictionary.com] I'll cut and paste for you, though. im\ufffdage n. 1. A reproduction of the form of a person or object, especially a sculptured likeness. 2. Physics. An optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of an object, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror. 3. One that closely or exactly resembles another; a double: He is the image of his uncle. 4. 1. The opinion or concept of something that is held by the public. 2. The character projected to the public, as by a person or institution, especially as interpreted by the mass media. 5. A personification of something specified: That child is the image of good health. 6. A mental picture of something not real or present. 7. 1. A vivid description or representation. 2. A figure of speech, especially a metaphor or simile. 3. A concrete representation, as in art, literature, or music, that is expressive or evocative of something else: night as an image of death. 8. Mathematics. A set of values of a function corresponding to a particular subset of a domain. 9. Computer Science. An exact replica of the contents of a storage device, such as a hard disk, stored on a second storage device, such as a network server. 10. Obsolete. An apparition. tr.v. im\ufffdaged, im\ufffdag\ufffding, im\ufffdag\ufffdes 1. To make or produce a likeness of: imaged the poet in bronze. 2. To mirror or reflect: a statue imaged in the water. 3. To symbolize or typify: a kneeling woman imaging the nation's grief. 4. To picture mentally; imagine. 5. To describe, especially so vividly as to evoke a mental picture of. 6. Computer Science. 1. To print (a file) using a laser printer, imagesetter, direct-to-plate press, or similar device. 2. To transmit (an exact replica of the contents of a storage device) to another storage device: imaged the hard drive to the server. 7. To render visually, as by magnetic resonance imaging. Source: The American Heritage\ufffd Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright \ufffd 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. As to the rest, it's "govern"ment. Rights are regulated to allow people to live together succussfully, as in "my right to swing my fist ends at your nose". Do I have a right to free speech? I think so. Is it regulated? Yes. Is that a function of government and law? Yes. Is some compromise necessary to live with others that also want to execise thier rights? Yes. Tell me how this means that rights only exist when granted by some authority. Further, I seem to remember his saying that 'civil disobedience' also means that one must be ready to pay the consequence - including going to jail. It seems to me that there is no misunderstanding of law and how behaviour is "governed" there. And civil disobedience CAN in clude spray-painting cameras. You, on the other hand, brook no disobedience to authority at all, it seems. Such a "brave new world", that has such people in it! 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 #5,346 by addison 8/15/01 8:51:17 PM Reply	Learn to read [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5048\|[link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5048\|http://z.iwethey.or...ntentid=5048]] Of course, I'm sure that you'll not read that, either. You, on the other hand, brook no disobedience to authority at all, it seem. Only to those too stupid to read. Go back and read what I said 2 weeks ago on the subject. At the start. The exact same damn thing he JUST SAID YESTERDAY. Damn, but I'm good. Addison
Post #5,356 by imric 8/15/01 9:41:23 PM 8/15/01 9:48:37 PM Reply	Good? At what? You know how to code, no? Do you remember what substitution is? OK, since you didn't bother reading the definition that I so kindly provided you, we'll try substitution. Since "image" is: 1. A reproduction of the form of a person or object, especially a sculptured likeness. 2. Physics. An optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of an object, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror. for the purpose of your cite: image="reproduction of my form, especially a sculptured likeness -or- my optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of myself, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror." Now, let's substitue. My [reproduction of my form, especially a sculptured likeness -or- my optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of myself, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror] is not public. Even when I am in public. My [reproduction of my form, especially a sculptured likeness -or- my optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of myself, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror] is my own. I reserve all rights to my [reproduction of my form, especially a sculptured likeness -or- my optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of myself, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror]. You can look at me. (emphasis mine) You cannot photograph me. You cannot film me. Now, you assert ([link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5298\|here]) that he is saying that he has "explicit and exclusive rights to reflected radiation". Bzzzzt. NOWHERE does he say that. In fact, he says EXPLICITLY that "You can look at me". Sure doesn't sound like he is saying he has "explicit and exclusive rights to reflected radiation". Further, you become insulting to me when I say "You simply refuse to admit that recording devices, dossiers, and publication are any different than direct observation.", [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=5329\|here]. All because you (willfully?) don't know the meaning of the word "image". 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... Edited by imric Aug. 15, 2001, 09:48:37 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #5,359 by boxley 8/15/01 10:28:03 PM Reply	howsabout we all chip in and Buy Addy a poloroid camera and a round trip ticket to Kabul to nonchalantly take photo's of people in public. (sorry Addy medical and legal insueance is not covered) and while he celebrates his right to take pictures in public we can keep a team of mercenaries on standby to rescue him before he is stoned to death. Now taking pictures in public kinda depends on which public you are in. Now I dont advocate stoning people to death for takin my picture, but under the freedom of religion claus you cannot take mine. (make no graven image) 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 #5,361 by addison 8/15/01 10:35:46 PM Reply	Re: Good? At what? Do you remember what substitution is? OK, since you didn't bother reading the definition that I so kindly provided you, we'll try substitution. He has claimed absolute and utter ownership of HIS IMAGE. The implications of that, if not clear to you, I shouldn't pursue further.(but I guess I have to) Further, you become insulting to me when I say "You simply refuse to admit that recording devices, dossiers, and publication are any different than direct observation.", here. You mean, in reply to the insults directed at me? After for two weeks saying that if you want a difference you have to legislate said same? I didn't say I didn't see a difference. I said that legally there wasn't, and trying to make those distinctions is splitting hairs, and is damn hard. And I said that enough there SHOULDN'T be a problem understanding that. reading what OTHERS said I said, however... All because you (willfully?) don't know the meaning of the word "image". No, because I've pointed out the problem with (yesterday's) Brandioch (he's changed his tune today) statements that he OWNS his image, and has exclusive rights to it. NOWHERE does he say that. In fact, he says EXPLICITLY that "You can look at me". Sure doesn't sound like he is saying he has "explicit and exclusive rights to reflected radiation". BZZZT. According to his logic, he ALLOWS you to look at him - and he could change that. Don't talk to ME about that - talk to him. Oh, and anatomy note? You see an "image" on the back of your retina - after it goes through a lens. There's no difference between that, and a 35 MM SLR, to that point. Facts in the way. So how do you distinguish between them? I've been pointing out the problems with Brandioch's "solutions". And your main point - that "You simply refuse to admit that recording devices, dossiers, and publication are any different than direct observation." isn't true. I HAVE stated that according to current laws, the are so close as not to be a problem. Which unless you can prove otherwise, I'll stand by. And that's what I've been saying for 2 weeks. Currently, there is (essentially) no difference. If you WANT there to be a difference, you should get the laws concering such changed, rather that just destroy things. Addison
Post #5,369 by Ashton 8/15/01 11:46:04 PM Reply	Heh.. You__still__don't__ Get!__it__...____a-tall.
Post #5,429 by Brandioch 8/16/01 12:40:32 PM Reply	Again, strawman. "No, because I've pointed out the problem with (yesterday's) Brandioch (he's changed his tune today) statements that he OWNS his image, and has exclusive rights to it." Because you want to misunderstand does not mean that I've changed my position. "BZZZT. According to his logic, he ALLOWS you to look at him - and he could change that." No. You are free to look at me. You are not free to take pictures of me. We've been over this again and again and again. But, because it is important to your position that I be the one who is making unreasonable demands here, you do not want to see the distinction. You do not have the right (moral) (inherent) to photograph me. You do have the right (moral) (inherent) to look at me. The distinction is whether a physical copy of my image is made. "There's no difference between that, and a 35 MM SLR, to that point." And you can LOOK at me through a camera. You just cannot capture my image on film. "Facts in the way. So how do you distinguish between them? I've been pointing out the problems with Brandioch's "solutions"." Again, the "problems" you've been pointing out have been clarified in the past. It isn't about VIEWING me. It is all about CAPTURING my image. Film, tape, whatever. Anything other than the cells in your brain. "If you WANT there to be a difference, you should get the laws concering such changed, rather that just destroy things." And until such time as the laws are changed, civil disobediance is an option.
Post #5,445 by DonRichards 8/16/01 2:38:51 PM Reply	Agree except for one point ...And until such time as the laws are changed, civil disobediance is an option. I would say that civil disobediance in response to unjust government is, at least among right thinking men, a requirement, not an option. "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it" "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 #5,462 by Ashton 8/16/01 4:12:58 PM Reply	Amen (to coin a phrase) Brevity Award ****
Post #6,095 by addison 8/21/01 2:29:19 PM Reply	Its not a strawman if its exactly what you're saying. Your inability to understand what you, yourself, are saying, ain't my problem. Because you want to misunderstand does not mean that I've changed my position. Nope. Because you've changed your tune means you've changed your position. Golly, how that works. No. You are free to look at me. You are not free to take pictures of me. As I keep pointing out, this means that you are establishing a criteria. You. You are establishing an arbitrary criteria - and as such, can be as arbitrary as you'd like. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't work that way. Because that's called "anarchy". You're in public, I certainly can look at you. Even take pictures of you. Not just because its legal, but because its (damn near) impossible to make a disctinction between the two. You may not like it. You don't have to. Tough. That's what happens when you're in public. You do not have privacy. We've been over this again and again and again. Yes, we have. And as long as you continue to misuse the English language, there isn't a way past it. The distinction is whether a physical copy of my image is made. Which is your distinction. Thus, accepting that for the sake of argument, means you can then make ANY distinction. (such as ordering no one to look at you) Which I keep pointing out, and because it ILLUSTRATES exactly how ridicolous your argument is, you say that I've "misunderstood". By that logic, you HAVE to outlaw cameras. You CANNOT have ANYBODY taking ANY PICTURES at Disney World. This isn't my logic, its yours. This does not mean that there isn't a distinction between the two. But you making it as Emperor Brandioch "Thou shalt take no picture of me, but of my good side" doesn't change that the distinction isn't recognized, BECAUSE of how slight it is. In fact, the distinctions now made, are not in the image, but the use of said image. (as I've pointed out many times). I can take your picture. I have to meet certain conditions to publish for profit. I've had my picture in the newspaper, and on the evening news. (For making a really good looking tackle in a football game, actually). Could I have forbidden anyone from taking my picture, as you claim that I can? Again, the "problems" you've been pointing out have been clarified in the past. Just ignored. ch time as the laws are changed, civil disobediance is an option. I suppose it is, but under your system, its total anarchy, meaning there isn't any such thing as "civil disobediance". You advocate anarchy. You demean and reduce "rights" to nothingness in your system. (if anything anybody does is a "right", then the "right" to murder is on a par with the "right" to free speech, and the "right" to molest children....) Fine. Its you making these unbacked assertations. If you're in public, there is no difference in me witnessing something you do, and videotaping/photographing it. Not currently, and not logically. If you're worried about the ramifications this implies for the government, by all means, lets put some (arbitrary) limits on what they can do with it. But that would be useful. Addison
Post #5,303 by boxley 8/15/01 3:22:05 PM Reply	utter agreement My rights exist whether the government confirms them or not Im free! doesnt matter whether the rest of thew world aknowledges that or not Im free! (break into a rousing chorus of magic bus) 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

Welcome to IWETHEY!