As I said elsewhere in the post, obviously there are ways in which people are being tracked and logged. Many people are not aware of them, or don't understand them. Or they decide that they are OK with them. But that does not mean they don't feel their privacy is breached, or wouldn't feel it if you asked them specifically, "Would you like the grocery chain tracking your purchases, and recording who you speak to while you are in our store?"
Whether or not it is currently legal under U.S. law does not end the argument over whether it is acceptable or not.
The issue being discussed as I understand it is whether there is such a concept as privacy, and if by going out in public what your right to privacy is. I am going to guess that if most people were asked how they felt about people recording their every move in public, taking notes of what they buy, logging visitors and friends, they would feel that their privacy is being breached, despite that they chose to be visible in public. The fact that our legal definition of privacy may not touch these areas has more to do with the fact that it does not happen to people other than celebrities, or at least not in a way that the public is really aware of.
However, there is more to privacy than being seen or not being seen. I can't require people to close their eyes whenever I walk in public, no. Does the fact that I am visible automatically allow people to record me? To log who I talk to? To tape record my conversations? To look inside my back pack or monitor what I buy? Privacy is more than being seen or not seen. Not only is there other information involved, there are levels of scrutiny and data retention.
Yes, exactly. It would be vital for it to be a system where "watchers" are randomly assigned cmaera views that change occasionally and that there is no location information given.
Well, without seeing that quote in context, I don't see evidence of what you're talking about. It's a fact that the Border Patrol's main mission has now been made homeland security, looking out for terrorists, etc. The fact that htey're concerned about these "dangerous people" doesn't mean that all immigrants are dangerous, just that this is part of the job of border patrol.
I agree that stereotyping sucks, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear some of it, but I don't see it there. There's certainly an issue with immigration beyond that of terrorists and gang members.
And my point is, if you're upset about the waste of money it doesn't make any sense to then ruin the system and cause an even larger waste of money by calling in false sightings. That's cutting off your nose in spite of your face isn't it?
I'm not going to argue for Bush not being a racist, or saying something idiotic in a video, I'm no fool. BUt I don't think the fact that they're putting more effort into the MExican border is due to racism, it's due to the fact that there is a large illegal immigrant problem happening there.
Well, luckily there is a border guard which responds to people attempting to cross the border. I presume that the idea of calling in on the number is to alert the Border Patrol of a crossing that they can then attempt to stop.
Yes, it is necessary to have a border patrol in order to stop illegal immigration. But they also have to have a way of knowing where people are crossing, and when. It is more efficient to have a means of surveillance they can then respond to than to attempt to have so many guards that they can see the entire border with their eyes.
How exactly is reporting false sightings all day going to fix the misallocation of money? Isn't that simply wasting more of the government's money?
I believe they're putting the cameras on the Mexican border because we have a huge amount of Mexicans who enter the country illegally...over the Mexican border, not the Canadian border. While you are right that terrorist security is just as much an issue up north, the cameras are not meant to deal with terrorists, just illegal immigrants.
Well, it's much, much cheaper is one reason. The border patrol is using some automatic sensor and cameras. They have not yet scaled up to full border use, whether for technical issues or lack of funds, or just typical bureaucratic slowness I'm not sure. If a system like this (or rather a better system I described in a different comment) worked, it would be a lot cheaper at least.
They do have that sort of technology. I believe they're still working the bugs out. Not to mention taht they just are not appropriated (they being hte Border Patrol) enough money to implement any sort of technological system across the whole border.
All politics and other issues aside, I think this is a step towards an interesting technology solution to the issue. When I first heard that private landowners through the Minutemen were talking about putting up cameras, it occurred to me that the Border Patrol could use a SETI type solution to this. I know from their congressional reports that one of the problems they have is not having enough person power to watch the border. They have attempted automated cameras, etc. Using distributed volunteers is a good solution I think.
However, I would suggest that they go with a more robust system. Put up cameras that can be accessed through an Internet system. When somebody signs up they get assigned a camera view. Importantly, this view should not be associated with a location, so that we're not encouraging vigilante behavior. Instead they get an anonymous camera view (that perhaps changes regularly). When they see something suspicious they should be able to simply click a button adn that alert goes to the Border Patrol, who can then take a quick look at the monitor to decide what to do. Users who "over click" would get removed from the system (or simply encourage a sort of competitive rating system among users for most accurate, and most "catches").
I understand there's a lot of politics about this, but I think the government should be looking into the uses of distributed technology in this fashion to leverage their abilities.
If we were bullying the rest of the world, we'd re-enact slavery, conquer half the world and wipe out the other half. I don't call treaty negotiations, pushing traditionally undemocratic nations to join the rest of modern humanity and enact participatory representative democracy, and stomping on recidivist terrorist fanatics who given a choice will bomb small children into chunky salsa over attacking regular military forces in stand-up battle the hallmarks of bullying.
Maybe we would do those things if we were capable of them. Our military could not handle fighting both the Iraqi war and a war in the Korean peninsula at the same time. We certainly could not handle conquering half the world while enacing democratic governments around the world while stomping out terrorism. We haven't even been able to accomplish those things in one small country. So the fact that we're not doing that doesn't prove we're not bullies.
While you may be philosophically right, it would be an error to imagine that those atrocities were the reason the Allies were fighting in that war. It's pleasing to consider simple moral decisions on Slashdot, but World War II was not fought over moral terms. It's easy to say it should have been, after the fact, but that doesn't change the facts.
If some things are so evil that you do what you have to to put a stop to it, why didn't we put a stop to Stalin's genocide?
One of the recurring themes I see in these replies is the seemingly ever-recurrent feeling older generations have that things were superior in their childhood. A strong nostalgia that seeps into parenting decisions.
Here we've heard that it's best not to use a PC until you're 7 or 8 or 13 becuase that's when "I" started using one. "I'll" make my kids play with Super Nintendos because the games were better, etc. "I" got a lot out of martial arts, so I'll make my son do it.
I don't want to point fingers, I'm well aware of often having the same thoughts myself (I'm a parent too). But I try to treat those thoughts with a grain of salt, because they're so obviously universal. I mean when I was a kid it was all about kids should read rather than watch TV, becuase that's what "I" did when I was young. Now if we're going to tell kids they should use a horribly outdated gaming console becuase it's what we enjoyed as kids, we are obviously under the control of a powerful unconscious need to nostalgize our childhood.
There are real factors to consider when raising your kids, but I think we have to be constantly wary of our instinctive tendencies, as they are often obviously skewed. Comic books didn't warp my dad, TV didn't warp me, and I'm sure the computer won't warp my son. That doesn't mean laissez-faire parenting, just that we have to work a little harder to think outside of the "parent" box.
He did voices in most of the well-known action cartoons in the 80s (he was Optimus Prime, for example), so it's not like he's a nobody.
Oh that's rich.
I must be on Slashdot.
Yes, exactly. Though the shadow of 9/11 blocks it out, people may remember stories about the rash of airline violence that has taken place outside of the terrorist situation. Adding handguns to the mix sounds like an awful idea to me, especially in the paranoid state American air passengers find themselves in today.
That Noooooo!!! was cringe-worthy, but I have to say the entire row of people behind me couldn't stop laughing during the scene where Sidious is "transformed" in his battle with Windu, and then in his dialogue afterwards. That makeup job and his sudden transformation didn't seem to have its intended effect.
And yet with his newfound mastery he is not able to detect that Princess Leia is his daughter when he's conducting a mind probe on her?
Plot holes people, let's not try to explain them.
Slashdot Mirror
As I said elsewhere in the post, obviously there are ways in which people are being tracked and logged. Many people are not aware of them, or don't understand them. Or they decide that they are OK with them. But that does not mean they don't feel their privacy is breached, or wouldn't feel it if you asked them specifically, "Would you like the grocery chain tracking your purchases, and recording who you speak to while you are in our store?"
Well Verichip does actually sell the chips already. It seems like a pretty transparent business ploy.
I bet Mr. Verichip is kicking himself that his company didn't exist back in the grand old days of slavery. He would have made a killing.
Shouldn't these guys be using their Spidey tracers to track supervillians instead?
Whether or not it is currently legal under U.S. law does not end the argument over whether it is acceptable or not. The issue being discussed as I understand it is whether there is such a concept as privacy, and if by going out in public what your right to privacy is. I am going to guess that if most people were asked how they felt about people recording their every move in public, taking notes of what they buy, logging visitors and friends, they would feel that their privacy is being breached, despite that they chose to be visible in public. The fact that our legal definition of privacy may not touch these areas has more to do with the fact that it does not happen to people other than celebrities, or at least not in a way that the public is really aware of.
However, there is more to privacy than being seen or not being seen. I can't require people to close their eyes whenever I walk in public, no. Does the fact that I am visible automatically allow people to record me? To log who I talk to? To tape record my conversations? To look inside my back pack or monitor what I buy? Privacy is more than being seen or not seen. Not only is there other information involved, there are levels of scrutiny and data retention.
Yes, exactly. It would be vital for it to be a system where "watchers" are randomly assigned cmaera views that change occasionally and that there is no location information given.
Well, without seeing that quote in context, I don't see evidence of what you're talking about. It's a fact that the Border Patrol's main mission has now been made homeland security, looking out for terrorists, etc. The fact that htey're concerned about these "dangerous people" doesn't mean that all immigrants are dangerous, just that this is part of the job of border patrol. I agree that stereotyping sucks, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear some of it, but I don't see it there. There's certainly an issue with immigration beyond that of terrorists and gang members.
And my point is, if you're upset about the waste of money it doesn't make any sense to then ruin the system and cause an even larger waste of money by calling in false sightings. That's cutting off your nose in spite of your face isn't it? I'm not going to argue for Bush not being a racist, or saying something idiotic in a video, I'm no fool. BUt I don't think the fact that they're putting more effort into the MExican border is due to racism, it's due to the fact that there is a large illegal immigrant problem happening there.
Well, luckily there is a border guard which responds to people attempting to cross the border. I presume that the idea of calling in on the number is to alert the Border Patrol of a crossing that they can then attempt to stop. Yes, it is necessary to have a border patrol in order to stop illegal immigration. But they also have to have a way of knowing where people are crossing, and when. It is more efficient to have a means of surveillance they can then respond to than to attempt to have so many guards that they can see the entire border with their eyes.
I believe they're putting the cameras on the Mexican border because we have a huge amount of Mexicans who enter the country illegally...over the Mexican border, not the Canadian border. While you are right that terrorist security is just as much an issue up north, the cameras are not meant to deal with terrorists, just illegal immigrants.
Well, it's much, much cheaper is one reason. The border patrol is using some automatic sensor and cameras. They have not yet scaled up to full border use, whether for technical issues or lack of funds, or just typical bureaucratic slowness I'm not sure. If a system like this (or rather a better system I described in a different comment) worked, it would be a lot cheaper at least.
They do have that sort of technology. I believe they're still working the bugs out. Not to mention taht they just are not appropriated (they being hte Border Patrol) enough money to implement any sort of technological system across the whole border.
However, I would suggest that they go with a more robust system. Put up cameras that can be accessed through an Internet system. When somebody signs up they get assigned a camera view. Importantly, this view should not be associated with a location, so that we're not encouraging vigilante behavior. Instead they get an anonymous camera view (that perhaps changes regularly). When they see something suspicious they should be able to simply click a button adn that alert goes to the Border Patrol, who can then take a quick look at the monitor to decide what to do. Users who "over click" would get removed from the system (or simply encourage a sort of competitive rating system among users for most accurate, and most "catches").
I understand there's a lot of politics about this, but I think the government should be looking into the uses of distributed technology in this fashion to leverage their abilities.
If we were bullying the rest of the world, we'd re-enact slavery, conquer half the world and wipe out the other half. I don't call treaty negotiations, pushing traditionally undemocratic nations to join the rest of modern humanity and enact participatory representative democracy, and stomping on recidivist terrorist fanatics who given a choice will bomb small children into chunky salsa over attacking regular military forces in stand-up battle the hallmarks of bullying.
Maybe we would do those things if we were capable of them. Our military could not handle fighting both the Iraqi war and a war in the Korean peninsula at the same time. We certainly could not handle conquering half the world while enacing democratic governments around the world while stomping out terrorism. We haven't even been able to accomplish those things in one small country. So the fact that we're not doing that doesn't prove we're not bullies.
While you may be philosophically right, it would be an error to imagine that those atrocities were the reason the Allies were fighting in that war. It's pleasing to consider simple moral decisions on Slashdot, but World War II was not fought over moral terms. It's easy to say it should have been, after the fact, but that doesn't change the facts. If some things are so evil that you do what you have to to put a stop to it, why didn't we put a stop to Stalin's genocide?
One of the recurring themes I see in these replies is the seemingly ever-recurrent feeling older generations have that things were superior in their childhood. A strong nostalgia that seeps into parenting decisions.
Here we've heard that it's best not to use a PC until you're 7 or 8 or 13 becuase that's when "I" started using one. "I'll" make my kids play with Super Nintendos because the games were better, etc. "I" got a lot out of martial arts, so I'll make my son do it.
I don't want to point fingers, I'm well aware of often having the same thoughts myself (I'm a parent too). But I try to treat those thoughts with a grain of salt, because they're so obviously universal. I mean when I was a kid it was all about kids should read rather than watch TV, becuase that's what "I" did when I was young. Now if we're going to tell kids they should use a horribly outdated gaming console becuase it's what we enjoyed as kids, we are obviously under the control of a powerful unconscious need to nostalgize our childhood.
There are real factors to consider when raising your kids, but I think we have to be constantly wary of our instinctive tendencies, as they are often obviously skewed. Comic books didn't warp my dad, TV didn't warp me, and I'm sure the computer won't warp my son. That doesn't mean laissez-faire parenting, just that we have to work a little harder to think outside of the "parent" box.
He did voices in most of the well-known action cartoons in the 80s (he was Optimus Prime, for example), so it's not like he's a nobody. Oh that's rich. I must be on Slashdot.
Is it just me, or are these misplaced comments happening constantly the last couple days?
So you're saying that your monitor has evil mind control powers? Thanks for the warning. I'll definitely stick with my CRTs.
Yes, exactly. Though the shadow of 9/11 blocks it out, people may remember stories about the rash of airline violence that has taken place outside of the terrorist situation. Adding handguns to the mix sounds like an awful idea to me, especially in the paranoid state American air passengers find themselves in today.
Amen.
Who wants to take this one?
That Noooooo!!! was cringe-worthy, but I have to say the entire row of people behind me couldn't stop laughing during the scene where Sidious is "transformed" in his battle with Windu, and then in his dialogue afterwards. That makeup job and his sudden transformation didn't seem to have its intended effect.
And yet with his newfound mastery he is not able to detect that Princess Leia is his daughter when he's conducting a mind probe on her? Plot holes people, let's not try to explain them.