Right now there are security cameras on everything from traffic lights to police vehicles.
I think the cameras on traffic lights should be gotten rid of.
Again, I don't think the problem is individuals who use Google Glass, but what the government may decide to do with the data if they gain access to it somehow; that's who I believe we need to restrict.
Which is what they're saying the government would do. That is, use selective enforcement to weed out individuals that they don't like, to catch people that are breaking unjust laws, or something such as that. Some corporations already cooperate with the government and give it data about customers even if the government doesn't have a warrant, and that's what people are afraid of and will continue to be afraid of until there are checks that require the government to have a warrant in order for the information to be usable in court.
The simple fact is society as a whole has never worn a tinfoil hat like you do. This never changed.
You needn't wear a tinfoil hat in order to care about privacy; you only need to look at history and see countless examples of government abuses and realize that allowing the government to violate people's privacy would most likely lead to abuses of power.
No, the argument is that when you walk down the street you are already being recorded and you've already lost any privacy you might have in that situation so there is no reason to get upset about individual citizens recording you in addition to the stores and banks
No. If you're upset about the other cameras to begin with, then Google Glass would become yet another obstacle that you wish to remove, so you very well could have a problem with both.
Alright? So? That is a sociological fact you have to accept.
Yeah, so? Let's just continue molesting everyone at airports. What do you mean, "So"? It's a problem for some people because it leads to a loss of rights that they believe are important to have. Telling them that it is the way it is doesn't exactly make them like the current situation.
Give an alternative that is compatible with preserving our rights to free speech and to take photos in public without demanding that society reorganize in a psychologically implausible fashion.
It's not so much what the people recording do that I have a problem with, but what the government and corporations will probably do with the data. Put some chains on the government's ability to collect such data (and stop them from putting surveillance devices everywhere as well, while we're at it) without a warrant and that would make the situation better for me.
The end result: you *will* be filmed in public bathrooms, changing rooms, and everywhere else. Not only it is just as valid as filming in bars, it has monetary value.
Yeah, everyone should just give up on privacy, after all. Deal with it, luddites! This is the future!
Why would people be concerned about someone being able to play it back for others to see?
And that, as well as much more permanent storage than most humans are capable of, is the difference between seeing/hearing something as a human being and actually using technology to record it.
We can already recall information and describe it to others.
Not as well as cameras, and the government would love ubiquitous surveillance. It's not so much the people themselves that are the problem, but the inevitable government and corporate abuses of the data that would follow.
Or are we all too used to living in a world of limited to zero accountability because we can contest events with no physical record.
I hope you're not invoking "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" here.
What if we had the technology to download what our biological systems experience and play it back?
Well, humans have fault memories, so that's one difference, at least. However, there's no guarantee that he wouldn't have a problem with that too.
Ubiquitous cameras everywhere has also done more to prevent injustice then to perpetrate it.
I'm not seeing it. I bet the government would love it, though. That said, I don't care if the TSA actually was effective; I prefer freedom and privacy over safety any day.
Oh, and it's not necessary to have ubiquitous surveillance in order to capture police abuse on camera.
As bad as it's gotten, we're nowhere even *close* to a totalitarian state.
He didn't even say we were. He said that one thing that we're doing reminded him of the Nazi Germany in old movies. That's not at all the same as saying we're a totalitarian state.
I bought it anyway, played through it a couple times, and that was it. That's the last game from them I'll buy, they can release the next Dragon Age and say that everyone who pre-orders gets a free blowjob and I'll still tell them to shove it up their collective ass.
This will be the last one. No... this will! No, this!
I said I'm against the draft from the very beginning. I consider it as the government taking ownership over your body and treating you essentially as a slave. At any rate, regardless of what I may have mistakenly said or what you may have misinterpreted, why is your first reaction to assume I was lying?
your response was a non sequitur.
What? I just wanted to make my opposition to the draft clear. I did exactly that, but I wasn't talking about the Swiss specifically.
And now you say you don't even object to that specifically
What, you mean people dying it bad wars? I object to that and the draft.
I meant that one reason I consider drafts to be morally wrong is because the government can force people to fight in 'unjust' wars. Maybe that's what you were referring to? I'm against drafts in every country, so that was just a general comment against drafts.
That's great if the public is on your side and opposes the war, but not so much otherwise; especially if it gets to the point where a draft is necessary. Whatever the case, I'm quite against the idea of the government treating you like a slave in that manner.
An acquaintance of mine whose husband snorted both of their entire retirement funds up his nose might question that.
Making the entire substance illegal isn't the answer. That's just collective punishment. Same for the rest.
There's more to consider than just the direct participants.
Just about everything you do affects other people indirectly, but just because they think something is harmful or could be abused in some cases doesn't mean it should be illegal.
But it's YOUR government, ultimately answerable to YOU that's getting into wars in the first place.
But I might not have voted for them. Furthermore, even if I had voted for them or supported them at one point, that doesn't mean I'd support this war. I mean, if I did want to go to war, I'd sign up for the army to begin with. Plenty of people protested the draft before, but it doesn't always work, and not everyone is willing to pay the price of disobeying (usually jail), so they just run. I think the very principle of it is morally wrong.
Instead we all sit on our hands and let our government send its cybernetic mercenaries out to murder hundreds of thousands of people because it costs us nothing personally - only tax dollars that would have left our pocket anyway.
Unfortunately, a number of people may even support the wars.
Or here's a thought - rather than a draft lets get back to the original military funding mechanism - every war needs to be funded by an independently levied tax.
For me, it's simple. The draft is about as anti-freedom as you can get, so I oppose it. If you can't get enough volunteers for a war, maybe it's not a war you should be having; whatever the case, the people clearly don't want to die for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Right now there are security cameras on everything from traffic lights to police vehicles.
I think the cameras on traffic lights should be gotten rid of.
Again, I don't think the problem is individuals who use Google Glass, but what the government may decide to do with the data if they gain access to it somehow; that's who I believe we need to restrict.
Add to that is the thought that privacy has been mostly an illusion to begin with.
Privacy isn't an illusion merely because someone could, if they tried hard enough, violate your privacy.
I haven't even seen an unambiguous definition presented here.
What exactly do you think the government is going to do with Google Glass that they can't already do?
If you're referring to cameras and such, then I also view that as a problem; Google Glass would probably only exacerbate the problem.
You have to act on it somehow.
Which is what they're saying the government would do. That is, use selective enforcement to weed out individuals that they don't like, to catch people that are breaking unjust laws, or something such as that. Some corporations already cooperate with the government and give it data about customers even if the government doesn't have a warrant, and that's what people are afraid of and will continue to be afraid of until there are checks that require the government to have a warrant in order for the information to be usable in court.
The simple fact is society as a whole has never worn a tinfoil hat like you do. This never changed.
You needn't wear a tinfoil hat in order to care about privacy; you only need to look at history and see countless examples of government abuses and realize that allowing the government to violate people's privacy would most likely lead to abuses of power.
Right now ATM photo footage and security cam footage
Thankfully, those things aren't present everywhere... yet. However, I think the government's access to that data should be restricted heavily as well.
No, the argument is that when you walk down the street you are already being recorded and you've already lost any privacy you might have in that situation so there is no reason to get upset about individual citizens recording you in addition to the stores and banks
No. If you're upset about the other cameras to begin with, then Google Glass would become yet another obstacle that you wish to remove, so you very well could have a problem with both.
Alright? So? That is a sociological fact you have to accept.
Yeah, so? Let's just continue molesting everyone at airports. What do you mean, "So"? It's a problem for some people because it leads to a loss of rights that they believe are important to have. Telling them that it is the way it is doesn't exactly make them like the current situation.
Give an alternative that is compatible with preserving our rights to free speech and to take photos in public without demanding that society reorganize in a psychologically implausible fashion.
It's not so much what the people recording do that I have a problem with, but what the government and corporations will probably do with the data. Put some chains on the government's ability to collect such data (and stop them from putting surveillance devices everywhere as well, while we're at it) without a warrant and that would make the situation better for me.
The end result: you *will* be filmed in public bathrooms, changing rooms, and everywhere else. Not only it is just as valid as filming in bars, it has monetary value.
Yeah, everyone should just give up on privacy, after all. Deal with it, luddites! This is the future!
Why would people be concerned about someone being able to play it back for others to see?
And that, as well as much more permanent storage than most humans are capable of, is the difference between seeing/hearing something as a human being and actually using technology to record it.
We can already recall information and describe it to others.
Not as well as cameras, and the government would love ubiquitous surveillance. It's not so much the people themselves that are the problem, but the inevitable government and corporate abuses of the data that would follow.
Or are we all too used to living in a world of limited to zero accountability because we can contest events with no physical record.
I hope you're not invoking "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" here.
What if we had the technology to download what our biological systems experience and play it back?
Well, humans have fault memories, so that's one difference, at least. However, there's no guarantee that he wouldn't have a problem with that too.
HUMANS ARE ENDOWED WITH RECORDING DEVICES, MORONS.
Looking at someone and using a camera to record their actions are two very different things.
Ubiquitous cameras everywhere has also done more to prevent injustice then to perpetrate it.
I'm not seeing it. I bet the government would love it, though. That said, I don't care if the TSA actually was effective; I prefer freedom and privacy over safety any day.
Oh, and it's not necessary to have ubiquitous surveillance in order to capture police abuse on camera.
As bad as it's gotten, we're nowhere even *close* to a totalitarian state.
He didn't even say we were. He said that one thing that we're doing reminded him of the Nazi Germany in old movies. That's not at all the same as saying we're a totalitarian state.
It's wrong according to the law
No, it's simply illegal. The law doesn't say much about morality.
Blizzard deserve to be paid for their efforts.
That's certainly one opinion.
In other words, it's wrong, but not wrong enough to not do it, if such a concept makes sense.
Well, my point was that it's subjective, really. But maybe you already agree with that.
I'm fully aware that what I'm doing is wrong.
According to who?
I just don't care enough to stop.
Are you sure you actually believe it's wrong, then?
I bought it anyway, played through it a couple times, and that was it. That's the last game from them I'll buy, they can release the next Dragon Age and say that everyone who pre-orders gets a free blowjob and I'll still tell them to shove it up their collective ass.
This will be the last one. No... this will! No, this!
If you never go to war, then the draft doesn't force you to die in some unjust war.
Were you just referring to Switzerland? That was probably it. Well, my comment was about drafts in general, as I said.
If you said what you meant in the first place
I said I'm against the draft from the very beginning. I consider it as the government taking ownership over your body and treating you essentially as a slave. At any rate, regardless of what I may have mistakenly said or what you may have misinterpreted, why is your first reaction to assume I was lying?
your response was a non sequitur.
What? I just wanted to make my opposition to the draft clear. I did exactly that, but I wasn't talking about the Swiss specifically.
And now you say you don't even object to that specifically
What, you mean people dying it bad wars? I object to that and the draft.
I meant that one reason I consider drafts to be morally wrong is because the government can force people to fight in 'unjust' wars. Maybe that's what you were referring to? I'm against drafts in every country, so that was just a general comment against drafts.
That's great if the public is on your side and opposes the war, but not so much otherwise; especially if it gets to the point where a draft is necessary. Whatever the case, I'm quite against the idea of the government treating you like a slave in that manner.
Most people value freedom.
Most people? I'm just not seeing that.
An acquaintance of mine whose husband snorted both of their entire retirement funds up his nose might question that.
Making the entire substance illegal isn't the answer. That's just collective punishment. Same for the rest.
There's more to consider than just the direct participants.
Just about everything you do affects other people indirectly, but just because they think something is harmful or could be abused in some cases doesn't mean it should be illegal.
Shut up! You must be a terrorist! If we don't molest everyone at airports, the terrorists will get us!
But it's YOUR government, ultimately answerable to YOU that's getting into wars in the first place.
But I might not have voted for them. Furthermore, even if I had voted for them or supported them at one point, that doesn't mean I'd support this war. I mean, if I did want to go to war, I'd sign up for the army to begin with. Plenty of people protested the draft before, but it doesn't always work, and not everyone is willing to pay the price of disobeying (usually jail), so they just run. I think the very principle of it is morally wrong.
Instead we all sit on our hands and let our government send its cybernetic mercenaries out to murder hundreds of thousands of people because it costs us nothing personally - only tax dollars that would have left our pocket anyway.
Unfortunately, a number of people may even support the wars.
Or here's a thought - rather than a draft lets get back to the original military funding mechanism - every war needs to be funded by an independently levied tax.
I don't think that's such a terrible idea.
For me, it's simple. The draft is about as anti-freedom as you can get, so I oppose it. If you can't get enough volunteers for a war, maybe it's not a war you should be having; whatever the case, the people clearly don't want to die for you.
Also, I was supposed to have been cured of the following disease:
They told me that I was incurable. It's unfortunate.