So Americans would accept that they don't get a say if, for example, China or Russia tries to do the same thing?
No
Or are you saying you're special somehow and that the rest of the world should be bowing down and accept your superiority?
No
I'm saying the NSA is part of the national security apparatus of the US government. It's not on the same team as the Russian (or China) national security apparatus. It's not some kubaya future where countries don't compete. The NSA was hired by my government on my behalf to give it an edge in international disputes/conflicts, either immediately or in the long term. I support that. If spying on every Russian citizen helps that, I support that too. I mean, that's the mission statement.
I know some Russian agency has a mirrored goal. But, since its job is to support Russia, not America, I don't support it.
I fully expect some Russian guy to have the exact opposite feelings as I do.
At most, Google can.... The government on the other hand can.... Lets work on the securing the serial killer in the room before we worry about the shady used car salesman.
The difference is that Google, Facebook et al are actively trying to do those things. The government is not. And if the government were to do so, it could use the threat of violence without the need to blackmail. I suppose its more like doing something about the shady used car salesman fiddling with the odometers, instead of the guy who's hobby is to collect guns. One is more dangerous in the abstract, but seems far less likely.
Who says you need to be the world police? How many times has the world police made a situation worse then before?
The general consensus of the free world made us the world police in our sphere of influence. The collapse of the various SSR's made our sphere of influence global. See also, the world asking the US to get involved in the first Gulf war, and the Yugoslavia breakup.
Also, see our failure to act in Africa, and how no one else did.
We tend to make things better more often than not. Success stories: Germany, Japan, South Korea, (First) Gulf War, Yugoslavia. Failures: Vietnam, (Second) Gulf War. To early to tell: Afghanistan. And the Second Gulf War was a retarded from the get-go.
Yeah, Vietnam was really bad. But there we were explicitly asked to go in.
Cool. Why should I buy a car? The military base near me has tanks. Sure they get shitty MPG, but they also have vast reserves of diesel for me to fill up at.
If this happened to me, I'd pull my kid out of the school and either move or put him in another school.
His kid doesn't go to that school. He was playing tennis on the school's courts himself. They asked him to stop charging (not just didn't have permission), in part because it interfered with them using the tennis courts. He was asked to stop and didn't.
, they should have issued a warning since that may have all that is needed
Considering the guy ignored earlier requests to stop charging his car there, I doubt one more warning would have done anything. This isn't some guy getting hit by surprise. They asked him to stop. He kept doing it. They called the cops on his ass.
If he filled up his thermos with water from the bathroom sink, would that be theft as well?
If the school officials had previously told him to stop doing that because he kept getting in the way while doing so? Yes. BTW, the school officials had asked him several times to stop charging his EV there.
Ah, the pipe beating comment was ambigous. I interperted it as a two-party issue - the pipe beating being in retaliation for having an undesired picture taken.
Sure, granted, photographing a crime in progress would fall under different rules and be fine. There's a wide range of exceptions to most rules, or nuances that seem to be beyond the scope of this conversation... although I'd happily veer there if you want.
I use the taking a "picture from above them" example because (in many juristictions) there's no legal difference. We both agree it's wrong. I'm trying to use that as a common base to build from. We can agree that pictures of a girl getting out of a car and having her skirt accidentally and temporarily reveal too much skin are off limits. Why that and not a guy getting overserved in a bar? Or wearing a homemade beer hat?
I fail to see any significant difference between a photo and a video, which is why I didn't really address a distinction. Happy to have you explain why.
Read my original post, about the value of transient experiences, and allowing people to do interesting things in public. If everything in public might some day be used to judge you, people will do fewer interesting things in public.
I understand your point about allowing some but not all people to record. Yeah, I think if a security camera is running, you should have a right to make your own copy as well (with your own camera). So would videoing an interaction with law enforcement and many other things.
I disagree that full transparency can only support freedom. Look at the works published pseudonymously by the (American) Founding Fathers. Fundamentally, privacy and anonymity are great empowerers of freedom, and that's my entire point. Without the ability to fail interestingly and ephemerally, people will try fewer (and less) interesting things.
... the difference between leaning on the bar, and walking up to someone and leaning on them, in a bar.
How? It's still just a picture of that person in a public space? You claim that someone should have no rights over how their picture is taken in said space.
framing shots that have people in them, I don't have any requirement to ask them first.
Are you asserting a moral right, or a legal right? We're in an argument about the moral right, so I would like to hear some non-assertion defense in that case. In the case you are claiming a legal right, I have two responses: One, that right is variable and exists in some juristicions but not others. Two, we're discussing what the law should be, hence the status quo is not sufficient to dismiss my points.
don't want to live in a society where you can beat someone with a pipe and not go to jail because the guy who took the photo didn't ask
Cool, nor do I. Most states don't let you beat someone with a pipe for doing something wrong.. even illegal. But that's hardly the only remedy available.
don't do things in public that you want kept private, most of us learn that before we are out of grade school.
Read my original post. Keeping something private is different then it being public but not recorded. I want to be able to go to a bar and do something stupid without a permanent record existing. And I will patronize bars that facilitate that. And I want legal support for such places to exist..
No. On duty policemen should have a lower expectation/standard of privacy than civilians. And obviously, there needs to be some more complexity than conveyed in a post to address the issue of filming the other person involved in whatever police incident you are filming.
I did preemptively address that. The ideal solution, easily done, would be to use (mandate camera manufacturers include?) technology to automatically detect and then blur faces in the background. Failing that, there's some point at which the burden becomes unreasonable.
But I disagree on "all they can reasonably ask is that I not publish it". Frankly, if I ask you not to take my picture, and you do, I consider that to be an invasion of my privacy. I consider it reasonable to have you not violate my privacy. I want to live in a society where it is not considered acceptable to violate someone's privacy over their express wishes, and in some cases without their express consent.
Like I said, reasonable lines must be drawn. For instance, I couldn't stand next to the Statue of Liberty, ask you not to take my picture, and not move.
But, here's a little thought experiment for you. (IANAL, I have no idea if this is legal in your jurisdiction. This is only a thought experiment. Don't be the asshole who does this.) Go to a bar. Take a camera. Hold it above a girl with a low-cut top and take a picture. What response would you expect?
Google Glass is also a boon for disabled persons with motor dysfunctions or visual impairments.
And I'm sure if you told the waitress that, you would have been asked to confirm recording is off, and not going to be turned on, and then left alone. In much the same way that I cannot bring my dog into a restaurant, but we all understand that some people get a different utility from having Fido around.
It's public space. If you don't want to be filmed, politely ask. If not, sorry.
Why would I want to live in that society? I want to live in a society where people have to ask permission to take pictures of people, even in public. How is that outragous?
Fundamentally, I think limitations on photography will get people to do more interestingthigns in public (without the permenant record). Therefore, it's in society's best interests to regulating filimng people in public. In resturants/bars by owners is a good start. By the government would be a better one.
Obviously, there is some fine line out there. People in the background of shots. But, ultimately, I would think software could handle that (autoblurring background faces.)
The pilots should be armed with standard defensive handguns and ammunition as a last resort in case the hijackers manage to get through the locked door before the passengers beat them to death. It's unlikely they'll need their guns, but it's better to have them and not need them.
I'd rather pilots not be armed. The cockpit doors need to remain shut and locked. Giving the pilots guns just makes it likely they'll "go back" to try to solve the problem. I mean, they can be shown "Con Air" and told not to. I question whether anyone wouldn't attempt to stop, for instance, a stewardess from being tortured. They'll think "I'm going to be good enough to do this."
Take away the gun, take away the temptation.
To say nothing of the fact that it makes it far easier for a single pilot to take over the entire flight deck. Which is an issue if they're locked inside the flight deck with evil intent.
How is it possible that Congress can consistently have approval ratings in the 10-25% range (and even lower), yet incumbents generally keep getting reelected?
People tend to dislike Congress as a whole, while liking their Congressman. It makes sense. I like my Congressman and dislike Congress. My Congressman is a pretty hardworking guy who shares my beliefs. Congress is unable to do anything in aggregate because of the huge lack of compromise.
And no, I've never gotten any pork from my Congressman.
IIRC, Lavabit did comply with some previous requests that were targeted to individual users -- but the case that led to them shutting down was for blanket access.
Then we have a disagreement on fact.
I would agree that that government was out of bounds in your version of facts.
However, my understanding is LavaBit rejected a warrant-less targeted request, and refused to reply to the warrant with the same targeted request. It was only after the gv't took them to court that they even offered to comply: 2 months after each e-mail was sent. They claimed that they lacked the technology to provide faster access to the gv't. So the gv't asked for the keys to implement their own solution.
In my understanding, the private keys were a natural outgrowth of pretty nasty failure to comply - or even proactively sue to quash the warrant or something of that nature.
Slashdot Mirror
No
No
I'm saying the NSA is part of the national security apparatus of the US government. It's not on the same team as the Russian (or China) national security apparatus. It's not some kubaya future where countries don't compete. The NSA was hired by my government on my behalf to give it an edge in international disputes/conflicts, either immediately or in the long term. I support that. If spying on every Russian citizen helps that, I support that too. I mean, that's the mission statement.
I know some Russian agency has a mirrored goal. But, since its job is to support Russia, not America, I don't support it.
I fully expect some Russian guy to have the exact opposite feelings as I do.
Isn't it still the first day of a 40 day drive?
Prosecutor, I believe.
The difference is that Google, Facebook et al are actively trying to do those things. The government is not. And if the government were to do so, it could use the threat of violence without the need to blackmail. I suppose its more like doing something about the shady used car salesman fiddling with the odometers, instead of the guy who's hobby is to collect guns. One is more dangerous in the abstract, but seems far less likely.
The general consensus of the free world made us the world police in our sphere of influence. The collapse of the various SSR's made our sphere of influence global. See also, the world asking the US to get involved in the first Gulf war, and the Yugoslavia breakup.
Also, see our failure to act in Africa, and how no one else did.
We tend to make things better more often than not. Success stories: Germany, Japan, South Korea, (First) Gulf War, Yugoslavia. Failures: Vietnam, (Second) Gulf War. To early to tell: Afghanistan. And the Second Gulf War was a retarded from the get-go.
Yeah, Vietnam was really bad. But there we were explicitly asked to go in.
That part of Georgia is a suburb of Atlanta. It has a massive immigrant presence. I doubt race is an issue.
Cool. Why should I buy a car? The military base near me has tanks. Sure they get shitty MPG, but they also have vast reserves of diesel for me to fill up at.
His kid doesn't go to that school. He was playing tennis on the school's courts himself. They asked him to stop charging (not just didn't have permission), in part because it interfered with them using the tennis courts. He was asked to stop and didn't.
Considering the guy ignored earlier requests to stop charging his car there, I doubt one more warning would have done anything. This isn't some guy getting hit by surprise. They asked him to stop. He kept doing it. They called the cops on his ass.
Someone called the police. The officer was responding to a call, not walking by.
The school had previously asked him not to charge his Leaf there. More than once. No sign necessary when you tell someone to their face.
Woe is me, when I continually do something that people have asked me not to do, and is illegal, there are consequences.
If the school officials had previously told him to stop doing that because he kept getting in the way while doing so? Yes. BTW, the school officials had asked him several times to stop charging his EV there.
Ah, the pipe beating comment was ambigous. I interperted it as a two-party issue - the pipe beating being in retaliation for having an undesired picture taken.
Sure, granted, photographing a crime in progress would fall under different rules and be fine. There's a wide range of exceptions to most rules, or nuances that seem to be beyond the scope of this conversation... although I'd happily veer there if you want.
I use the taking a "picture from above them" example because (in many juristictions) there's no legal difference. We both agree it's wrong. I'm trying to use that as a common base to build from. We can agree that pictures of a girl getting out of a car and having her skirt accidentally and temporarily reveal too much skin are off limits. Why that and not a guy getting overserved in a bar? Or wearing a homemade beer hat?
I fail to see any significant difference between a photo and a video, which is why I didn't really address a distinction. Happy to have you explain why.
Read my original post, about the value of transient experiences, and allowing people to do interesting things in public. If everything in public might some day be used to judge you, people will do fewer interesting things in public.
I understand your point about allowing some but not all people to record. Yeah, I think if a security camera is running, you should have a right to make your own copy as well (with your own camera). So would videoing an interaction with law enforcement and many other things.
I disagree that full transparency can only support freedom. Look at the works published pseudonymously by the (American) Founding Fathers. Fundamentally, privacy and anonymity are great empowerers of freedom, and that's my entire point. Without the ability to fail interestingly and ephemerally, people will try fewer (and less) interesting things.
How? It's still just a picture of that person in a public space? You claim that someone should have no rights over how their picture is taken in said space.
Are you asserting a moral right, or a legal right? We're in an argument about the moral right, so I would like to hear some non-assertion defense in that case. In the case you are claiming a legal right, I have two responses: One, that right is variable and exists in some juristicions but not others. Two, we're discussing what the law should be, hence the status quo is not sufficient to dismiss my points.
Cool, nor do I. Most states don't let you beat someone with a pipe for doing something wrong.. even illegal. But that's hardly the only remedy available.
Read my original post. Keeping something private is different then it being public but not recorded. I want to be able to go to a bar and do something stupid without a permanent record existing. And I will patronize bars that facilitate that. And I want legal support for such places to exist..
No. On duty policemen should have a lower expectation/standard of privacy than civilians. And obviously, there needs to be some more complexity than conveyed in a post to address the issue of filming the other person involved in whatever police incident you are filming.
I did preemptively address that. The ideal solution, easily done, would be to use (mandate camera manufacturers include?) technology to automatically detect and then blur faces in the background. Failing that, there's some point at which the burden becomes unreasonable.
But I disagree on "all they can reasonably ask is that I not publish it". Frankly, if I ask you not to take my picture, and you do, I consider that to be an invasion of my privacy. I consider it reasonable to have you not violate my privacy. I want to live in a society where it is not considered acceptable to violate someone's privacy over their express wishes, and in some cases without their express consent.
Like I said, reasonable lines must be drawn. For instance, I couldn't stand next to the Statue of Liberty, ask you not to take my picture, and not move.
But, here's a little thought experiment for you. (IANAL, I have no idea if this is legal in your jurisdiction. This is only a thought experiment. Don't be the asshole who does this.) Go to a bar. Take a camera. Hold it above a girl with a low-cut top and take a picture. What response would you expect?
That's the highest power WiFi you can broadcast without violating FCC regulations. With a highly directional antenna, it should reach pretty far.
You'll never really know will you? But I wonder how they handle disparate groups sharing a single IP in that case.
Well, I'll help increase the noise and drown out your signal.
And I'm sure if you told the waitress that, you would have been asked to confirm recording is off, and not going to be turned on, and then left alone. In much the same way that I cannot bring my dog into a restaurant, but we all understand that some people get a different utility from having Fido around.
Why would I want to live in that society? I want to live in a society where people have to ask permission to take pictures of people, even in public. How is that outragous?
Fundamentally, I think limitations on photography will get people to do more interestingthigns in public (without the permenant record). Therefore, it's in society's best interests to regulating filimng people in public. In resturants/bars by owners is a good start. By the government would be a better one.
Obviously, there is some fine line out there. People in the background of shots. But, ultimately, I would think software could handle that (autoblurring background faces.)
As opposed to smoked marijuana.
So sorry that having a large country traversable without roaming charges is somehow keeping us behind those sophisticated Europeans.
I'd rather pilots not be armed. The cockpit doors need to remain shut and locked. Giving the pilots guns just makes it likely they'll "go back" to try to solve the problem. I mean, they can be shown "Con Air" and told not to. I question whether anyone wouldn't attempt to stop, for instance, a stewardess from being tortured. They'll think "I'm going to be good enough to do this."
Take away the gun, take away the temptation.
To say nothing of the fact that it makes it far easier for a single pilot to take over the entire flight deck. Which is an issue if they're locked inside the flight deck with evil intent.
People tend to dislike Congress as a whole, while liking their Congressman. It makes sense. I like my Congressman and dislike Congress. My Congressman is a pretty hardworking guy who shares my beliefs. Congress is unable to do anything in aggregate because of the huge lack of compromise.
And no, I've never gotten any pork from my Congressman.
Then we have a disagreement on fact.
I would agree that that government was out of bounds in your version of facts.
However, my understanding is LavaBit rejected a warrant-less targeted request, and refused to reply to the warrant with the same targeted request. It was only after the gv't took them to court that they even offered to comply: 2 months after each e-mail was sent. They claimed that they lacked the technology to provide faster access to the gv't. So the gv't asked for the keys to implement their own solution.
In my understanding, the private keys were a natural outgrowth of pretty nasty failure to comply - or even proactively sue to quash the warrant or something of that nature.