Not even an analogy; the Internet is not poison. The Internet alone cannot hospitalize children, adults, or anyone.
Oh, well. People are already used to being spied on, seeing censorship, and being molested at airports. What's the harm in teaching them that it's okay from the very beginning?
That's silly. Anything and everything is open to criticism. If someone doesn't like something, they can criticize it and explain why.
None of this means that you have to make changes when someone criticizes you, but they have every right to criticize you. They also have a right to criticize you and then find another alternative.
Yes. Things that are free are magically exempt from criticism. People's negative feelings about free things simply don't exist, and so they're unable to express them.
I consider this information to be relatively public by nature
"Public" is not the same as "expected to be seen by surveillance devices everywhere."
Resolving amber alerts faster, Locating stolen vehicles faster, Improved efficiency of local governments, etc...
Yes, yes, and the TSA will stop the big, evil terrorists. I don't care for the idea of letting the government install surveillance devices everywhere just because some people are hellbent on stopping a few people they deem criminals at any cost.
Balancing the need for individual privacy/rights with protecting the individual rights of other citizens, while operating within a limited budget is a tricky thing.
It's really not. Just don't install these.
The need to avoid the "slippery slope" is great, and the loss of individual privacy should always be considered a great cost, but a cost-benefit analysis should be done.
I've already done that. Given the past actions of this government and the actions of governments all throughout history, I don't trust them with such powers.
I believe the information should be purged when it is older than 2 months in order to help limit the scope of the system to a near-time discovery tool as oppose to a long-term tracking mechanism.
I don't trust them to do that, either. I do not want this system in place. I'm tired of them using 1984 as a manual. They'll do absolutely anything if they think it will make people slightly more 'secure'.
The difference between license plate scanning and the TSA is that for license plates, your car is on a public road and your plate is publicly visible.
I never said there were not differences. I only said that they're using the same justification: "To stop the big, evil criminals." I don't care for giving the government ridiculous powers simply because there are a few criminals here and there.
Things visible to the public do not invade privacy.
Private or not, that does not matter to me. It's our tax dollars, and I certainly don't feel comfortable having a single powerful organization try to record everything and everyone. Actually, when I walk out side, I, at most, expect people to see me. I don't expect to be recorded by the government wherever I go.
BTW, that is why when a hotel clerk or law enforcement ask to see your drivers license, you have to remove it from your wallet and hand it to them. Your drivers license is considered private. Your removing it from your wallet and handing it to them means that you voluntarily gave it to them.
What does that have to do with our own government installing surveillance devices everywhere? A hotel is far less powerful than the government, and they certainly don't have surveillance devices everywhere.
The bottom line is that it's our own government doing this. Whether license plates are public or private does not matter at all. If we do something about it, they can be stopped.
I see trying to stop the lawful gathering of public data as a bigger affront to our rights than actually collecting it.
Our rights? No. This is about the government attempting to record everyone, everywhere. It will not take away our rights if we decide that we don't want our tax dollars used for this purpose.
I think it's the actions that are taken based on the data that become a concern, and that's where the controls need to be placed.
No. Then the system will already be set up, and it's too late. Given the actions of our government and governments throughout history, I don't believe that allowing them to set this up is an intelligent decision. Even if it's "for the children" or "to stop the terrorists."
perhaps someone can think of an LPR system that would allow police to track down criminals quickly, and yet still by highly resistant to privacy loss or abuse.
And who would control this system? Who would fund all this? The government is what comes to mind. I hardly trust them with anything as it is...
It just takes some serious thought, and getting past the "ooh, new technology is scary" stage.
The problem isn't that the new technology is scary; the problem is how it's being used.
They use the same justifications for organizations like the TSA. "Some people are criminals, so everyone must accept a loss of freedom in exchange for what is quite possibly just security theater." They seem to be quite adept at punishing everyone for the actions of a few.
A few people taking pictures here and there is an order of magnitude different than a single organization recording everything nearly everywhere. And since citizens can (theoretically) control the government, we definitely can stop nonsense like this, and still be allowed to take pictures in public ourselves.
I feel like if the anarcho-libertarians around here go their way, civilians would all have modern technology while cops are forced to run around in loincloths with sharpened sticks.
No, they just wouldn't be allowed to monitor absolutely everything and everyone just because they want to catch a few people they deem criminals. How awful that is.
What's the difference between hiring enough people to write down the license plates as people drive by?
One is not viable, and the other is. Of course, if you were somehow able to hire enough people to do the job, I'd say that would be an invasion of privacy, too.
But again, hiring the required amount of people to perform such a task is nearly impossible. People don't catch everything or have perfect memories, either.
It's quite different when the government is using technology to automatically record everything. Just like someone seeing you walking down the sidewalk is different than you being recorded by cameras everywhere you go.
Private, public, it really doesn't matter. The citizens (in theory, at least) control the government, and they should be able to stop them from trying this nonsense.
Well, whether or not it's considered a problem would depend on the individual.
Just that you can't how much people care about something for them. Your "Sounds like their problem, not yours or mine." didn't have anything to do with my reply.
I disagree, this data is transmitted willingly by the user over a radio, not unlike standing out in the street and yelling "down with King George".
No such thing is happening. When I make a call, I expect that the person I'm calling is the only one hearing. Actually, I don't so much 'expect' it as much as I think that's the way it should be. At the very least, I don't want my own government spying on random people. 'Public' or not, restrictions can be put on the government.
This bit of logic is a nice way for the government to justify any type of spying as long as the signals are deemed to be 'public'.
Not necessarily true. Someone could be ignorant of the possibility that they could be tracked. Someone could know about the possibility of being tracked but realize that they need a cell phone.
The fact that someone is living in a hostile environment doesn't indicate that they like it/don't care.
Nice loophole, huh? The police don't even have to worry about that "privacy" nonsense anymore; they can just get private companies to reveal everything about you. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.
Should be questioned? Perhaps if there was a murder that took place. This is merely copying. What a waste of time and money that will prove in the end to be futile.
And I don't try to push the copying vs. stealing debate
It's a meaningful distinction, I think. On one hand, you take something away from something else (which inflicts actual harm upon them), and on the other, you're simply getting a copy. And if what he is true, then he already paid for it. What's your problem?
it's generally not acceptable to break the law because you forgot were you put your game.
Again, I don't know where your moral code comes from, but mine certainly doesn't come from the law.
Beside, you shouldn't pirate games anyway, you never know what malware you may get.
I suspect that only happens if you don't know what you're doing (you know, like downloading virtually any software from the internet). In that case, it's probably better not to.
The legality of something usually tells you nothing about whether it's moral or not. Well, unless you choose to base your morals entirely on whether something is legal or not, but in that case, I'd say your moral code is pretty fickle (as laws change).
It does if the argument is about "Showing ads to thieves".
They're shown to everyone. I don't even see why it matters, or why anyone would care. They have no way to magically know who they're showing ads to, nor do I believe it should be their responsibility. If someone doesn't like it, they can take it up with the so-called 'thieves'.
Not all uses of it infringe upon copyright, and they can't help that their software is sometimes 'misused.' Honestly, I guess no one can ever have advertisements simply because something that their users do might be illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
No one leaves poison at the reach of children
Not even an analogy; the Internet is not poison. The Internet alone cannot hospitalize children, adults, or anyone.
Oh, well. People are already used to being spied on, seeing censorship, and being molested at airports. What's the harm in teaching them that it's okay from the very beginning?
That's silly. Anything and everything is open to criticism. If someone doesn't like something, they can criticize it and explain why.
None of this means that you have to make changes when someone criticizes you, but they have every right to criticize you. They also have a right to criticize you and then find another alternative.
Yes. Things that are free are magically exempt from criticism. People's negative feelings about free things simply don't exist, and so they're unable to express them.
I consider this information to be relatively public by nature
"Public" is not the same as "expected to be seen by surveillance devices everywhere."
Resolving amber alerts faster, Locating stolen vehicles faster, Improved efficiency of local governments, etc...
Yes, yes, and the TSA will stop the big, evil terrorists. I don't care for the idea of letting the government install surveillance devices everywhere just because some people are hellbent on stopping a few people they deem criminals at any cost.
Balancing the need for individual privacy/rights with protecting the individual rights of other citizens, while operating within a limited budget is a tricky thing.
It's really not. Just don't install these.
The need to avoid the "slippery slope" is great, and the loss of individual privacy should always be considered a great cost, but a cost-benefit analysis should be done.
I've already done that. Given the past actions of this government and the actions of governments all throughout history, I don't trust them with such powers.
I believe the information should be purged when it is older than 2 months in order to help limit the scope of the system to a near-time discovery tool as oppose to a long-term tracking mechanism.
I don't trust them to do that, either. I do not want this system in place. I'm tired of them using 1984 as a manual. They'll do absolutely anything if they think it will make people slightly more 'secure'.
The difference between license plate scanning and the TSA is that for license plates, your car is on a public road and your plate is publicly visible.
I never said there were not differences. I only said that they're using the same justification: "To stop the big, evil criminals." I don't care for giving the government ridiculous powers simply because there are a few criminals here and there.
Things visible to the public do not invade privacy.
Private or not, that does not matter to me. It's our tax dollars, and I certainly don't feel comfortable having a single powerful organization try to record everything and everyone. Actually, when I walk out side, I, at most, expect people to see me. I don't expect to be recorded by the government wherever I go.
BTW, that is why when a hotel clerk or law enforcement ask to see your drivers license, you have to remove it from your wallet and hand it to them. Your drivers license is considered private. Your removing it from your wallet and handing it to them means that you voluntarily gave it to them.
What does that have to do with our own government installing surveillance devices everywhere? A hotel is far less powerful than the government, and they certainly don't have surveillance devices everywhere.
The bottom line is that it's our own government doing this. Whether license plates are public or private does not matter at all. If we do something about it, they can be stopped.
I see trying to stop the lawful gathering of public data as a bigger affront to our rights than actually collecting it.
Our rights? No. This is about the government attempting to record everyone, everywhere. It will not take away our rights if we decide that we don't want our tax dollars used for this purpose.
I think it's the actions that are taken based on the data that become a concern, and that's where the controls need to be placed.
No. Then the system will already be set up, and it's too late. Given the actions of our government and governments throughout history, I don't believe that allowing them to set this up is an intelligent decision. Even if it's "for the children" or "to stop the terrorists."
perhaps someone can think of an LPR system that would allow police to track down criminals quickly, and yet still by highly resistant to privacy loss or abuse.
And who would control this system? Who would fund all this? The government is what comes to mind. I hardly trust them with anything as it is...
It just takes some serious thought, and getting past the "ooh, new technology is scary" stage.
The problem isn't that the new technology is scary; the problem is how it's being used.
They use the same justifications for organizations like the TSA. "Some people are criminals, so everyone must accept a loss of freedom in exchange for what is quite possibly just security theater." They seem to be quite adept at punishing everyone for the actions of a few.
A few people taking pictures here and there is an order of magnitude different than a single organization recording everything nearly everywhere. And since citizens can (theoretically) control the government, we definitely can stop nonsense like this, and still be allowed to take pictures in public ourselves.
I feel like if the anarcho-libertarians around here go their way, civilians would all have modern technology while cops are forced to run around in loincloths with sharpened sticks.
No, they just wouldn't be allowed to monitor absolutely everything and everyone just because they want to catch a few people they deem criminals. How awful that is.
What's the difference between hiring enough people to write down the license plates as people drive by?
One is not viable, and the other is. Of course, if you were somehow able to hire enough people to do the job, I'd say that would be an invasion of privacy, too.
But again, hiring the required amount of people to perform such a task is nearly impossible. People don't catch everything or have perfect memories, either.
It's quite different when the government is using technology to automatically record everything. Just like someone seeing you walking down the sidewalk is different than you being recorded by cameras everywhere you go.
Private, public, it really doesn't matter. The citizens (in theory, at least) control the government, and they should be able to stop them from trying this nonsense.
Well, whether or not it's considered a problem would depend on the individual.
Just that you can't how much people care about something for them. Your "Sounds like their problem, not yours or mine." didn't have anything to do with my reply.
What? You said: "Then it doesn't bother you that much."
I pointed out that that isn't necessarily true. I didn't mention anything about problems.
I disagree, this data is transmitted willingly by the user over a radio, not unlike standing out in the street and yelling "down with King George".
No such thing is happening. When I make a call, I expect that the person I'm calling is the only one hearing. Actually, I don't so much 'expect' it as much as I think that's the way it should be. At the very least, I don't want my own government spying on random people. 'Public' or not, restrictions can be put on the government.
This bit of logic is a nice way for the government to justify any type of spying as long as the signals are deemed to be 'public'.
No? Then it doesn't bother you that much.
Not necessarily true. Someone could be ignorant of the possibility that they could be tracked. Someone could know about the possibility of being tracked but realize that they need a cell phone.
The fact that someone is living in a hostile environment doesn't indicate that they like it/don't care.
Nice loophole, huh? The police don't even have to worry about that "privacy" nonsense anymore; they can just get private companies to reveal everything about you. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.
Should be questioned? Perhaps if there was a murder that took place. This is merely copying. What a waste of time and money that will prove in the end to be futile.
And I don't try to push the copying vs. stealing debate
It's a meaningful distinction, I think. On one hand, you take something away from something else (which inflicts actual harm upon them), and on the other, you're simply getting a copy. And if what he is true, then he already paid for it. What's your problem?
it's generally not acceptable to break the law because you forgot were you put your game.
Again, I don't know where your moral code comes from, but mine certainly doesn't come from the law.
Beside, you shouldn't pirate games anyway, you never know what malware you may get.
I suspect that only happens if you don't know what you're doing (you know, like downloading virtually any software from the internet). In that case, it's probably better not to.
Well, either that or the law.
The legality of something usually tells you nothing about whether it's moral or not. Well, unless you choose to base your morals entirely on whether something is legal or not, but in that case, I'd say your moral code is pretty fickle (as laws change).
It does if the argument is about "Showing ads to thieves".
They're shown to everyone. I don't even see why it matters, or why anyone would care. They have no way to magically know who they're showing ads to, nor do I believe it should be their responsibility. If someone doesn't like it, they can take it up with the so-called 'thieves'.
Not all uses of it infringe upon copyright, and they can't help that their software is sometimes 'misused.' Honestly, I guess no one can ever have advertisements simply because something that their users do might be illegal.
That doesn't make it OK.
What makes it "OK" is possibly someone's personal opinion.
But is that really what most uTorrent users use it for?
That doesn't matter at all.
In theory yes but lets face it, it is likely that most uTorrent users use the program for a slightly illegal purpose.
Well, that's the users' fault, not theirs.
The government has been encroaching on our rights since it was formed. It wasn't 'fixable' then, you expect it to be now?
I expect it to be fixable when people do something (even if that's highly unlikely).
Of course, that'll be "never" if all we do is adapt.
Get used to it? Yes.
Yeah! Why bother trying to fix anything? Just get used to it.
If you don't want to be tracked, then just move out of the US. You have that option. That's how free countries operate.