https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society Anybody who is unaware of that essay and yet thinks they are an informed commenter on the topic is not.
That's precious. Let's all sip our drinks with our pinkys extended and bemoan the benighted ignorance of the proles.
It is a category error to compare full public access to surveillance video feeds to the end of prohibition.
Perhaps, but that's not what I was doing. I was using an example to point out how this argument is ridiculous:
Because you favor [some easing of a restriction on something] you must think [some specific tragedy] "is a good thing".
Instead of this bullshit David Brinesque zero-privacy will cure the world's ills fallacy
No one claimed any cure of all ills.
(Also, who? Cultural references don't work any more. Instead of increasing understanding, they're just a distraction because 50% of the audience has no idea WTF you're talking about.)
...well-engineered security on the cameras by doing things like encrypt at the source, like on the CCD itself, and keeping the decryption keys in the hands of a third party that only makes them available in response to a warrant.
No. I don't want everything I do in public subject to showing up on Facebook et al.
Also, you're being naive and short-sighted here. There are going to be cameras everywhere, all the time. Every store, every house, every car. You can wish against it, but it's going to happen anyway. Automatic face recognition is going to get better and cheaper. Stuff you do in public will be knowable to the public. Don't tell yourself otherwise.
So you think what happened when... is a good thing?
Spare us this ridiculous argument please.
People who are against alcohol prohibition aren't in favor of drunk drivers killing babies in car accidents, much less a specific baby being killed in a specific accident.
See "Appeal to Emotion" in the list of fallacies you linked to.
While police corruption is certainly possible and needs to be rooted out, we've given police the task of criminal investigations precisely because we can then train a handful of investigators of these fallacies and how to avoid them
Police are ordinary citizens like everyone else. They should be treated like ordinary citizens. "Police corruption" isn't the big problem. The big problem is that the police think they're a force apart from and above the people. That attitude has led to most of the problems the police have had in the past 10 years.
I'd go along with requiring the cops to make it available for viewing at a station or other facility, but with no copying allowed, absent a court order.
Then that should be the only access the police get.
Police camera video should be viewable by the public or the cameras should be removed. The public should have exactly the same access as the police to this video.
... and the next exec who comes up with the exact same bright idea gets advised by Legal that doing this would cost the company upwards of $30m... and decides against taking it any further.
More likely: insurance pays the $30 million. Apple keeps doing what they always do because they understand that putting lawyers in charge of engineering decisions in their phone designs will ultimately cost them a hell of a lot more than $30 million.
Congress... can make whatever law it wants [regarding ISP content neutrality].
Yeah, that was always the correct way to address the Net Neutrality question: have Congress pass a law. But that would require working out some sort of compromise between the interests of Google and Facebook and Netflix and the ISPs and everyone else. Do Net Neutrality advocates seem open to compromise?
Should government work to find solutions that are acceptable to all sides? Or should they steamroll opposition and forcibly impose the will of one group on another?
Just punishment should have a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof. Class actions have a 50.1% standard. Class action settlements have no standard of proof at all — it's just lawyers playing games to try to impose litigation costs on companies and offering to make it all go away for a big lawyer payday.
So what you are saying is that arbitration was the governments quick and dirty answer to lawyers being the problem?
No. It's a simpler, faster, cheaper alternative to courts that non-governments use to save time and money resolving disputes.
How does its citizens feel about being given the short end of the stick with that?
Lots of different ways, but mostly no one gives a shit because they never have to use courts or arbitration to resolve a dispute. Mostly the only people who (pretend to?) care are angry people on the internet who don't understand anything about it, but they're mad and they have complaints.
What is the point of having civil courts of law, or even gov in general, when big business rules over fairness in every arbitration "agreement".
Arbitrators are impartial. That's why arbitration is allowed by courts and governments and not summarily rejected. Many arbitrators are former judges.
Do you guys actually believe the FUD you're spreading? Arbitration is actually a super boring topic. It's not interesting at all. But you've written a dramatic fictional narrative based on your misunderstanding of it. It's weird. If you really, deeply care about it, maybe see a psychiatrist.
It's all fine and great as long as the arbitration is not binding. If it's binding then it absolutely should not be mandatory, full stop.
They're only binding or mandatory to the extent that courts allow. Everyone involved always has the right to go to court. You better win if you do though, because if you don't, you're probably on the hook for breaking the agreement.
You should relax and stop pretending anyone's rights are changed by arbitration. They're just a cost saving mechanism and a way to avoid getting ripped off by class action lawyers.
Just because you sign something does not mean it is legal. In a healthy society you can not sign away your rights.
It doesn't change your rights. You've just agreed to an alternate dispute resolution forum. If you break that agreement and go to a court, then you're going to need to explain to the court why you broke that agreement. If you have a righteous explanation, then OK. If not, then maybe don't expect the court to take your side when you can't be bothered to honor an agreement.
Where I live if there is something in a contact between employee and employer and it is not according to the intention of the law, employee wins.
Please show evidence that anyone starved in Washington State because they lost their job any time in the last 10 years. If there’s a death certificate that says the cause was “starvation”, let’s see it. Or a news story about how someone died from starvation.
No. Voluntary relationships tend to be contractual -- governed by a contract. A contract is a binding, enforceable agreement. Courts are a government service to the people, and one thing they do is enforce contracts if there's a dispute. Specific contractual actions are often beyond state law -- there's no law saying you have to perform work for Microsoft.
Arbitration agreements are an alternative to using courts. They came about because the rules for court procedures had become unduly expensive -- because court rules are controlled by lawyers, and lawyers have a financial incentive to make rules that lead to more billable hours for lawyers. Arbitration is agreed to by the parties entering into a contract containing an arbitration clause.
Arbitration is allowed by governments and courts because it resolves disputes without burdening government budgets and clogging schedules with entirely private disputes. Arbitration has court-like standards, so it more-or-less provides due process -- and if it didn't, litigants could go to court and get the contractual arbitration clause overruled.
There's various FUD about arbitration clauses -- because being mad and complaining about things you don't understand is an internet pastime for some reason -- and because lawyers want money and arbitration is a smaller payday for lawyers. But they're merely a mutually-agreed dispute resolution arrangement between the parties of a contract.
Hope that helps some people who genuinely want to understand.
They'll be half that size in a couple years. And then half as small again a few years after that. Why fight a battle you already know you're going to lose?
What the fuck does "community standards and wishes" have to do with scientific evidence.
Community standards and wishes are what government exists to serve. If a community wants to form a government to act as the community wishes, science has zero authority over what the community decides.
Scientific evidence is just information. It has no vote and no authority.
The hospital doesn't enroll you in medicaid, you have to do it yourself it's a huge mountain of paperwork and it takes days to find all the necessary documentation. If you don't have every single scrap of data that they want, you're denied.
Slashdot Mirror
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society
Anybody who is unaware of that essay and yet thinks they are an informed commenter on the topic is not.
That's precious. Let's all sip our drinks with our pinkys extended and bemoan the benighted ignorance of the proles.
Who expects a 2020 wireless system to be no better than a 2005 wireless system?
It is a category error to compare full public access to surveillance video feeds to the end of prohibition.
Perhaps, but that's not what I was doing. I was using an example to point out how this argument is ridiculous:
Because you favor [some easing of a restriction on something] you must think [some specific tragedy] "is a good thing".
Instead of this bullshit David Brinesque zero-privacy will cure the world's ills fallacy
No one claimed any cure of all ills.
(Also, who? Cultural references don't work any more. Instead of increasing understanding, they're just a distraction because 50% of the audience has no idea WTF you're talking about.)
...well-engineered security on the cameras by doing things like encrypt at the source, like on the CCD itself, and keeping the decryption keys in the hands of a third party that only makes them available in response to a warrant.
Who has the incentive to create that solution?
No. I don't want everything I do in public subject to showing up on Facebook et al.
Also, you're being naive and short-sighted here. There are going to be cameras everywhere, all the time. Every store, every house, every car. You can wish against it, but it's going to happen anyway. Automatic face recognition is going to get better and cheaper. Stuff you do in public will be knowable to the public. Don't tell yourself otherwise.
So you think what happened when ... is a good thing?
Spare us this ridiculous argument please.
People who are against alcohol prohibition aren't in favor of drunk drivers killing babies in car accidents, much less a specific baby being killed in a specific accident.
See "Appeal to Emotion" in the list of fallacies you linked to.
While police corruption is certainly possible and needs to be rooted out, we've given police the task of criminal investigations precisely because we can then train a handful of investigators of these fallacies and how to avoid them
Police are ordinary citizens like everyone else. They should be treated like ordinary citizens. "Police corruption" isn't the big problem. The big problem is that the police think they're a force apart from and above the people. That attitude has led to most of the problems the police have had in the past 10 years.
I'd go along with requiring the cops to make it available for viewing at a station or other facility, but with no copying allowed, absent a court order.
Then that should be the only access the police get.
Police camera video should be viewable by the public or the cameras should be removed. The public should have exactly the same access as the police to this video.
... and the next exec who comes up with the exact same bright idea gets advised by Legal that doing this would cost the company upwards of $30m ... and decides against taking it any further.
More likely: insurance pays the $30 million. Apple keeps doing what they always do because they understand that putting lawyers in charge of engineering decisions in their phone designs will ultimately cost them a hell of a lot more than $30 million.
Congress ... can make whatever law it wants [regarding ISP content neutrality].
Yeah, that was always the correct way to address the Net Neutrality question: have Congress pass a law. But that would require working out some sort of compromise between the interests of Google and Facebook and Netflix and the ISPs and everyone else. Do Net Neutrality advocates seem open to compromise?
Should government work to find solutions that are acceptable to all sides? Or should they steamroll opposition and forcibly impose the will of one group on another?
Just punishment should have a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof. Class actions have a 50.1% standard. Class action settlements have no standard of proof at all — it's just lawyers playing games to try to impose litigation costs on companies and offering to make it all go away for a big lawyer payday.
When they don't produce anything of any value, what's a fair wage?
Class action lawsuit settled. Lawyers to get $30 million. Phone customers to get a coupon for $5 off a new iPhone.
So what you are saying is that arbitration was the governments quick and dirty answer to lawyers being the problem?
No. It's a simpler, faster, cheaper alternative to courts that non-governments use to save time and money resolving disputes.
How does its citizens feel about being given the short end of the stick with that?
Lots of different ways, but mostly no one gives a shit because they never have to use courts or arbitration to resolve a dispute. Mostly the only people who (pretend to?) care are angry people on the internet who don't understand anything about it, but they're mad and they have complaints.
What is the point of having civil courts of law, or even gov in general, when big business rules over fairness in every arbitration "agreement".
Arbitrators are impartial. That's why arbitration is allowed by courts and governments and not summarily rejected. Many arbitrators are former judges.
Do you guys actually believe the FUD you're spreading? Arbitration is actually a super boring topic. It's not interesting at all. But you've written a dramatic fictional narrative based on your misunderstanding of it. It's weird. If you really, deeply care about it, maybe see a psychiatrist.
Lots of things are "possible". That's why we have courts and judges and juries to sort out what's actual from what's possible.
It's all fine and great as long as the arbitration is not binding. If it's binding then it absolutely should not be mandatory, full stop.
They're only binding or mandatory to the extent that courts allow. Everyone involved always has the right to go to court. You better win if you do though, because if you don't, you're probably on the hook for breaking the agreement.
You should relax and stop pretending anyone's rights are changed by arbitration. They're just a cost saving mechanism and a way to avoid getting ripped off by class action lawyers.
Just because you sign something does not mean it is legal. In a healthy society you can not sign away your rights.
It doesn't change your rights. You've just agreed to an alternate dispute resolution forum. If you break that agreement and go to a court, then you're going to need to explain to the court why you broke that agreement. If you have a righteous explanation, then OK. If not, then maybe don't expect the court to take your side when you can't be bothered to honor an agreement.
Where I live if there is something in a contact between employee and employer and it is not according to the intention of the law, employee wins.
Here too. Arbitration doesn't change that.
Don't pay too much attention to the FUD about it.
If I don't have a job, I will starve.
Please show evidence that anyone starved in Washington State because they lost their job any time in the last 10 years. If there’s a death certificate that says the cause was “starvation”, let’s see it. Or a news story about how someone died from starvation.
Otherwise stop lying. Thanks in advance.
No. Voluntary relationships tend to be contractual -- governed by a contract. A contract is a binding, enforceable agreement. Courts are a government service to the people, and one thing they do is enforce contracts if there's a dispute. Specific contractual actions are often beyond state law -- there's no law saying you have to perform work for Microsoft.
Arbitration agreements are an alternative to using courts. They came about because the rules for court procedures had become unduly expensive -- because court rules are controlled by lawyers, and lawyers have a financial incentive to make rules that lead to more billable hours for lawyers. Arbitration is agreed to by the parties entering into a contract containing an arbitration clause.
Arbitration is allowed by governments and courts because it resolves disputes without burdening government budgets and clogging schedules with entirely private disputes. Arbitration has court-like standards, so it more-or-less provides due process -- and if it didn't, litigants could go to court and get the contractual arbitration clause overruled.
There's various FUD about arbitration clauses -- because being mad and complaining about things you don't understand is an internet pastime for some reason -- and because lawyers want money and arbitration is a smaller payday for lawyers. But they're merely a mutually-agreed dispute resolution arrangement between the parties of a contract.
Hope that helps some people who genuinely want to understand.
They'll be half that size in a couple years. And then half as small again a few years after that. Why fight a battle you already know you're going to lose?
What the fuck does "community standards and wishes" have to do with scientific evidence.
Community standards and wishes are what government exists to serve. If a community wants to form a government to act as the community wishes, science has zero authority over what the community decides.
Scientific evidence is just information. It has no vote and no authority.
That's some awesomely fucked math you got there. Let's correct that
The top six health insurers reported $6 billion in adjusted profits for the second quarter of 2017. That was a record quarter, but considering that isn't even all the insurance companies it could be argued that each household would save at least $200 per month on health care costs if not for that profit.
There are about 125 million US households.
There are about 3 months in a quarter.
$6 Billion per quarter / 3 months per quarter = $2 Billion per month
$2 Billion per month / 125 million households = $16 per month per household
So your $200 per month per household is inflated by 1250%.
There is no honest debate on whether a single payer system would save an enormous amount of money...
Is that because single payer advocates can't do simple arithmetic?
The salaries are a drop in the bucket for healthcare costs in the US.
It's about 75% of all the water in the bucket.
So still a middleman then.
The hospital doesn't enroll you in medicaid, you have to do it yourself it's a huge mountain of paperwork and it takes days to find all the necessary documentation. If you don't have every single scrap of data that they want, you're denied.
False.
Sure, why not? Doctors in the UK are extremely wealthy compared to their median patient.
And you think voters will listen to you (or anyone wanting to cut health care salaries) instead of doctors and nurses? Why do you think that?