I see no difference between someone looking at me in public and someone taking a picture of me in public. I have no expectation of privacy in public. Public is the oposite of private. If you don't want to be photographed while in public it is up to you to obscure your identity and not up to me to be sure I don't capture your image.
"Yes" and "no" are the only ways you get to vote on a bill.
Before a bill is voted on there is a discussion phase where amendments can be introduced. The ACLU has not suggested any concrete amendments.
You don't see that here, because that's not what this story is about,
I referenced and read the ACLU's letter on this subject.
They point out quite clearly what needs to be addressed
But they do not state clearly how they would like it to be addressed. That is the problem. Without a solid solution all they are doing is pointing out problems and not really helping. What is stopping the ACLU from making concrete amendment suggestions?
Being part of the process is much more than "Wrong, try again". The ACLU has some very bright people. How about coming up with solutions rather that problems.
Is the only things the ACLU can say is "Yes" or "No"? Instead of saying "I respectfully urge you to please vote “no” on this legislation" perhaps say something like "I respectfully ask you to amend the legislation as follows". It is easy to point at legislation and say "bad bill" but it is much more difficult, and productive, to say how the bill can be fixed. They make some oblique suggestions but they are not set out so that the can be easily added to the bill. For example, one of their issues is retention length but they never states how long they consider optimal. If the bill was amended to have a retention time there is a good chance that the ACLU would object because it is too long or too short. Become part of the process instead of an obstructionist.
The Beast is used to transport the President from where Marine One can land to where the president needs to be. It also needs to go from where the C-17 can land to where Marine 1 can drop off the president. Those miles can add up. For international visits Marine One may not even be available.
The article states we could do it now but the fact that the Beast is so heavy, due to its armor and other features, for batteries to be an effective power source. Keep inventing and when heavy battery power vehicles can match the performance of heavy IC vehicles then we can switch. Now is just not the time.
The deal would phase out coal companies over 10 years,
I am all for leaving coal in the ground but I don't think we can afford to replace all coal produced energy in the next ten years as the article indicates is their time frame. Therefore, theirs is a flawed plan.
Exactly, and "get rid of coal producers now" is not "a long-term sustainable plan". It may be part of a long term sustainable plan but alone it causes more issues than it fixes. The biggest issue being electricity shortages. We are having a hard enough time keeping up let alone throwing away current working capacity.
Right, because you can't build hydro, more nukes, and whatnot to stabilize these issues over time.
Simplistic "solution" to complex issue. Who will pay for the building of new generation plants? The $500 billion is for the coal industry and not the money need to replace it.
Specifically for your "solution", there are few remaining places where hydro is viable. There is also the loss of habitat and fisheries due to hydro installations. I live in British Columbia and we are rapidly running out of possible spots. Nukes would be a great option but the plants are expensive, we have not figured out the waste issue, and many people are against them so implementation would be slow. "[W]hatnot" is an excellent catch word for "I don't know the details and don't care if it actually will work". It is a cop-out when you don't want to actually find a solution but want to sound like they have one. If one can not enumerate what "whatnot" is then it is not part of a solution. Right now we have coal, oil, natural gas, hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal. All those technologies have limitations and costs. The plan does not take the costs of replacing coal into consideration.
The last issue is that they want to remove coal quickly and we would need to replace the generating capacity before the coal is unavailable. Their plan does ignores that fact.
Simple does not mean effective. I was just pointing out that if coal is no longer used there is not sufficient technology to replace it. Green energy is not there yet because there are times when it is not available (night for solar and high/low winds for wind power). We need electricity when we need it and storage technology is not there yet to make green energy viable as a replacement to coal. So if one removes coal as a source of electricity one removes a lot of electricity.
That assumes the law was written only by prosecutors. Many lawyers have been both in their careers. How do you know that this law was not written with the input of many prosecution and defense lawyers. I am just calling you an your assumptions. All input does not have to be through a public forum. You seem fixated on the time between introduction and passage. You have no idea how long they have actually been working on or who they talked to about the law.
Still don't understand how to put an href into a post? lol. And you answered none of my questions to clarify you speculations. I will repeat the most important one;
How would a professional photographer who does not conceal their camera get caught in this law?
Where did that quote come from? Please cite it correctly.
The major flaw in your rant is that the accused also has a lawyer who can call bullshit at any bullying tactics.
I think there's a good chance that legitimate photographers could get caught up in this law.
Have you read the actual law? How would a professional photographer who does not conceal their camera get caught in this law?
Why can't they write it as slowly and carefully as they write other laws?
Because it is a simple modification of a current law that is agreed upon by everyone and effects very few people. The whole, very costly, very time consuming process does not apply in all cases.
You probably are as it allows the people to avoid you and therefore not be photographed. Then there is the issue of showing that people would understand the the thing on you shoe was a camera. It is not the normal place for a camera.
I don't see how a public vote is considered secret. I vote in people to make day to day decisions that I would make. Voting for a bill that clarifies this kind of privacy violation is exactly why I vote for my representative. I do not need to have input on every law made. I vote for people who think like me. If they deviate too far I vote for someone else next time.
And in this law there are many.
Have you actually read the law or just the summary? Do you have improvements? If so, what are they? I have read the law and it actually looks pretty good to me.
You have no idea how many lawyers looked at the law. It could have been worked on for years starting at the time the appeal was files. Do you really think that people who write laws only show them to lawyers at public hearings? Most laws are written by lawyers. The legislators just pass them. Sure some laws have loopholes but laws are not written in a vacuum.
The initial arrest was in 2010 and the current ruling was an appeal. It is quite possible the this law has been in the works for a couple of years, starting at when the case was appealed. It is quite possible that the lawmakers were waiting to see if the current law was sufficient before introducing changes. Why pass a law that is already covered under current law?
Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, the sexual or other intimate parts of a person under or around the person’s clothing to view or attempt to view the person’s sexual or other intimate parts when a reasonable person would believe that the person’s sexual or other intimate parts would not be visible to the public and without the person’s knowledge and consent,
Most people take innocent photographs while holding their cameras near eye level where the camera is visible to everyone around. Your scenario fails the " with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity" clause. You would also have to get photos of her "sexual or other intimate parts [not]visible to the public". Then there is the most important point;
Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils,
If the photograph is from a distance and/or not centered on the subject it would be simple to show that the act was not willful.
Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, the sexual or other intimate parts of a person under or around the person’s clothing to view or attempt to view the person’s sexual or other intimate parts when a reasonable person would believe that the person’s sexual or other intimate parts would not be visible to the public and without the person’s knowledge and consent,
Your scenario does not fit on 3 points:
with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity
Unless you hide your camera, you are in the clear.
under or around the person’s clothing
A bare chest has no clothing for the photograph to be under or around.
a reasonable person would believe that the person’s sexual or other intimate parts would not be visible to the public
Slashdot Mirror
How about this protest against gypsy crime organized by the Jobbik party Maybe this article.
I see no difference between someone looking at me in public and someone taking a picture of me in public. I have no expectation of privacy in public. Public is the oposite of private. If you don't want to be photographed while in public it is up to you to obscure your identity and not up to me to be sure I don't capture your image.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie...
Who would the bourgeoisie want to massacre? Are you sure you didn't mean "massacres of the bourgeoisie"?
"Yes" and "no" are the only ways you get to vote on a bill.
Before a bill is voted on there is a discussion phase where amendments can be introduced. The ACLU has not suggested any concrete amendments.
You don't see that here, because that's not what this story is about,
I referenced and read the ACLU's letter on this subject.
They point out quite clearly what needs to be addressed
But they do not state clearly how they would like it to be addressed. That is the problem. Without a solid solution all they are doing is pointing out problems and not really helping. What is stopping the ACLU from making concrete amendment suggestions?
Being part of the process is much more than "Wrong, try again". The ACLU has some very bright people. How about coming up with solutions rather that problems.
Is the only things the ACLU can say is "Yes" or "No"? Instead of saying "I respectfully urge you to please vote “no” on this legislation" perhaps say something like "I respectfully ask you to amend the legislation as follows". It is easy to point at legislation and say "bad bill" but it is much more difficult, and productive, to say how the bill can be fixed. They make some oblique suggestions but they are not set out so that the can be easily added to the bill. For example, one of their issues is retention length but they never states how long they consider optimal. If the bill was amended to have a retention time there is a good chance that the ACLU would object because it is too long or too short. Become part of the process instead of an obstructionist.
As a tester my response usually was "I did it and if I can do it so will someone else".
There are still many places where Marine One can not go.
The Beast is used to transport the President from where Marine One can land to where the president needs to be. It also needs to go from where the C-17 can land to where Marine 1 can drop off the president. Those miles can add up. For international visits Marine One may not even be available.
The article states we could do it now but the fact that the Beast is so heavy, due to its armor and other features, for batteries to be an effective power source. Keep inventing and when heavy battery power vehicles can match the performance of heavy IC vehicles then we can switch. Now is just not the time.
From the article we are discussing;
The deal would phase out coal companies over 10 years,
I am all for leaving coal in the ground but I don't think we can afford to replace all coal produced energy in the next ten years as the article indicates is their time frame. Therefore, theirs is a flawed plan.
We have to manage a long-term sustainable plan.
Exactly, and "get rid of coal producers now" is not "a long-term sustainable plan". It may be part of a long term sustainable plan but alone it causes more issues than it fixes. The biggest issue being electricity shortages. We are having a hard enough time keeping up let alone throwing away current working capacity.
Right, because you can't build hydro, more nukes, and whatnot to stabilize these issues over time.
Simplistic "solution" to complex issue. Who will pay for the building of new generation plants? The $500 billion is for the coal industry and not the money need to replace it.
Specifically for your "solution", there are few remaining places where hydro is viable. There is also the loss of habitat and fisheries due to hydro installations. I live in British Columbia and we are rapidly running out of possible spots. Nukes would be a great option but the plants are expensive, we have not figured out the waste issue, and many people are against them so implementation would be slow. "[W]hatnot" is an excellent catch word for "I don't know the details and don't care if it actually will work". It is a cop-out when you don't want to actually find a solution but want to sound like they have one. If one can not enumerate what "whatnot" is then it is not part of a solution. Right now we have coal, oil, natural gas, hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal. All those technologies have limitations and costs. The plan does not take the costs of replacing coal into consideration.
The last issue is that they want to remove coal quickly and we would need to replace the generating capacity before the coal is unavailable. Their plan does ignores that fact.
Simple does not mean effective. I was just pointing out that if coal is no longer used there is not sufficient technology to replace it. Green energy is not there yet because there are times when it is not available (night for solar and high/low winds for wind power). We need electricity when we need it and storage technology is not there yet to make green energy viable as a replacement to coal. So if one removes coal as a source of electricity one removes a lot of electricity.
(My area's electricity is about 50% nuclear, 15% renewable)
The other 35% probably comes from coal/oil. Can your aea survive by cutting electricity by that much?
That assumes the law was written only by prosecutors. Many lawyers have been both in their careers. How do you know that this law was not written with the input of many prosecution and defense lawyers. I am just calling you an your assumptions. All input does not have to be through a public forum. You seem fixated on the time between introduction and passage. You have no idea how long they have actually been working on or who they talked to about the law.
New data show that after remaining more or less steady for a decade ...
Did they even look at the graph? It shows a steady decline from 2004 and 2008. The current level had not reached the 2008 level yet.
Still don't understand how to put an href into a post? lol.
And you answered none of my questions to clarify you speculations. I will repeat the most important one;
How would a professional photographer who does not conceal their camera get caught in this law?
Where did that quote come from? Please cite it correctly.
The major flaw in your rant is that the accused also has a lawyer who can call bullshit at any bullying tactics.
I think there's a good chance that legitimate photographers could get caught up in this law.
Have you read the actual law? How would a professional photographer who does not conceal their camera get caught in this law?
Why can't they write it as slowly and carefully as they write other laws?
Because it is a simple modification of a current law that is agreed upon by everyone and effects very few people. The whole, very costly, very time consuming process does not apply in all cases.
I'd bet not, wording of the law or not.
You probably are as it allows the people to avoid you and therefore not be photographed. Then there is the issue of showing that people would understand the the thing on you shoe was a camera. It is not the normal place for a camera.
A democracy doesn't work in secret.
I don't see how a public vote is considered secret. I vote in people to make day to day decisions that I would make. Voting for a bill that clarifies this kind of privacy violation is exactly why I vote for my representative. I do not need to have input on every law made. I vote for people who think like me. If they deviate too far I vote for someone else next time.
And in this law there are many.
Have you actually read the law or just the summary? Do you have improvements? If so, what are they? I have read the law and it actually looks pretty good to me.
You have no idea how many lawyers looked at the law. It could have been worked on for years starting at the time the appeal was files. Do you really think that people who write laws only show them to lawyers at public hearings? Most laws are written by lawyers. The legislators just pass them. Sure some laws have loopholes but laws are not written in a vacuum.
The initial arrest was in 2010 and the current ruling was an appeal. It is quite possible the this law has been in the works for a couple of years, starting at when the case was appealed. It is quite possible that the lawmakers were waiting to see if the current law was sufficient before introducing changes. Why pass a law that is already covered under current law?
Read the whole law before drawing conclusions.
Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, the sexual or other intimate parts of a person under or around the person’s clothing to view or attempt to view the person’s sexual or other intimate parts when a reasonable person would believe that the person’s sexual or other intimate parts would not be visible to the public and without the person’s knowledge and consent,
Most people take innocent photographs while holding their cameras near eye level where the camera is visible to everyone around. Your scenario fails the " with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity" clause. You would also have to get photos of her "sexual or other intimate parts [not]visible to the public". Then there is the most important point;
Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils,
If the photograph is from a distance and/or not centered on the subject it would be simple to show that the act was not willful.
How about you look at the actual law;
Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, the sexual or other intimate parts of a person under or around the person’s clothing to view or attempt to view the person’s sexual or other intimate parts when a reasonable person would believe that the person’s sexual or other intimate parts would not be visible to the public and without the person’s knowledge and consent,
Your scenario does not fit on 3 points:
with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity
Unless you hide your camera, you are in the clear.
under or around the person’s clothing
A bare chest has no clothing for the photograph to be under or around.
a reasonable person would believe that the person’s sexual or other intimate parts would not be visible to the public
A bare chest is obviously visible to the public