Slashdot Mirror
The Gradual Erosion of the Right To Privacy
PeteV writes "There is an interesting article on the BBC's website based around research carried out by Dr. Kieron O'Hara of Southampton University. He points out that under British law, an individual's right to privacy is being eroded by the behavior of those who have no qualms about broadcasting every intimate detail of their life online (via social networking sites) because the privacy law is predicated in part upon the concept of a 'reasonable expectation of privacy.' I think his request 'for people to be more aware of the impact on society of what they publish online' is likely to fall on deaf ears, but in effect what he is saying is that the changing habits of the world-wide community of social networkers is likely to have an effect upon English law and how it is interpreted. Given that the significant bulk of social networkers are American, this might mean 'American behavior' could cause changes in the interpretation of English law (which is not to say English people don't also post their intimate details on Facebook)."
Translation:
"I have no friends to link on Facebook and neither should you"
At its heart the issue really is that some people like guns and want them to be legal, and some people don't like guns and want them to be illegal. In America for various reasons, some valid and some invalid, most people want them to be legal.
I don't actually like guns but I still very much want them to be legal. As long as guns physically exist, bad people will be able to get their hands on them. Period. Can't put the genie back in the bottle no matter how many laws you pass. As long as bad people have physical access to guns, everyone else needs access to guns to be on equal footing to properly defend themselves. (Though I do agree that most people could use more training on how to properly use their guns, and I would be in favor of mandatory training like what Switzerland does.)
More police is also not an answer. The NRA has used this line so much that it's a cliche now, but that doesn't invalidate the point: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Emergency services can take a life-threatening amount of time to respond. This is why we have privately owned fire extinguishers and first aid kits. Privately owned guns are the same sort of precaution.
Also, another true cliche: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Even if you somehow manage to miraculously remove every gun on the planet and remove the knowledge of how to build them from our collective consciousness, people will go right on killing each other with knives and rocks and whatever else happens to be handy at the time. In a world without guns, wheelchair granny cannot defend herself against a thug with a baseball bat. Guns just level the playing field a bit.
The thing that bugs me the most about this issue though (at least in America) is that the liberals, who I usually side with come voting day, are on the side of disarmament. When it comes to electing politicians, why do I have to choose between civil rights and gun ownership? I see private gun ownership as a fundamental civil rights issue. I contribute to the ACLU and the NRA, and I don't understand why more "liberals" don't see it the same way.
Knowledge != Intelligence