"If the police want to track your movements and surveil you, they need a warrant, issued by a court with the appropriate jurisdiction"?
Since when have they needed a warrant to surveil someone? Wiretaps yes, postal interceptions yes, access to bank records, yes. But to simply watch where someone goes and what they do? No warrant necessary.
I'm not at all confused. You seem to have not understood - or forgotten - your own original argument. You asserted that ANPR should not be allowed because it allows one device to do the work of many officers.
The automation allows them to be easily used in an unreasonable fashion. I have just as much problem with cops who randomly run plates by hand, but the only reason that is not a significant problem is because it is inherently self limiting. Same thing with GPS tracking and most other forms of automated surveillance - they remove the barriers that naturally inhibit unreasonable searches - barriers that were inherent in the system when the original doctrine of "no privacy in public" was formalized.
I'm not seeing it. In the case of ANPR, the police are using resources not available to the general public -- but a police officer calling in a plate number is doing the same thing.
You are confused. Police officers using ANPR scan every single plate that they pass, hundreds of plates per minute. Regular cops don't call in plates unless they have a reason to be suspicious, but ANPR assumes everyone is suspicious because technology has made it so easy to do so. I am not a criminal and it is not reasonable to check up on me just because it is cheap to do so.
I don't think I've bought a non-clearance DVD of a TV season and averaged $.99 per ep.
You mean more than 99 per ep, right? Because I have a couple of hundred TV seasons and I'm sure I haven't ever paid more than 99 cents per episode. Some else mentioned the gilmore girls - all seasons are currently available for $20 each at vendors like Barnes & Noble - that's less than 50 cents an episode. I've bought almost all seasons of 24 and they were under $15 each at the time. etc etc
It's not a matter of cost, it's a matter of value
That's what the MAFIAA says... until sales fall through the floor when people actually take them at their word and realize that the value of recorded entertainment is quite low in comparison to the rest of the things in their lives (I'm talking about the massive drop in DVD sales over the last 2-3 years, especially in TV on DVD) and then the MAFIAA switches to blaming piracy.
Real competition drives prices to as near production costs as possible. Arguments about value are just rationalizations for monopolies and other market inefficiencies.
Bingo. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
Automated surveillance along these lines is inherently unreasonable.
Or did you mean that the police have some sort of fundamental right to not need a warrant?
I can understand why this decision turned out the way it did. Placing a tracking device on your vehicle is about the same as following you around with an unmarked vehicle.
The primary difference being that it can be conducted en masse - i.e. its possible to track thousands of vehicles without committing any significant manpower. I have a similar problem with ANPR - one unattended machine can do what would otherwise take thousands of officers to do.
The cliched response to both of these examples is "you have no expectation of privacy in public" - but that is a legal principle formulated in a simpler time before automation (especially automation on the back-end) was even conceivable. I think a principle more suited to the current situation (which will only become more extreme as the automation on the back-end becomes more and more capable) is that if surveillance requires resources not normally available to the average citizen then it requires a warrant. I think a principle along those lines more closely matches how the average joe sees the world, which is pretty much the definition of "reasonable."
As the purpose of a warrant is to maintain oversight to prevent abuse, it makes even more sense because more power always equals more temptation for abuse so being able to do something that a normal person can't reasonably do is practically by definition more opportunity for abuse.
Mr Stewart's question, meant to be comedic, sets up a false standard. Check out the list of the other holdings of this 'evil prince':
Mr Stewart's point is that it isn't his standard, it is the very same standard of fox news that he is using to judge fox news.
How could you miss that? I think it must have taken a herculean effort of willful ignorance to avoid getting that point from that video clip. That's Stewart's schtick after all - 90% of his bits are straightforward examples of hypocrisy in so-called news reporting.
And therein lies, I think, the big cognitive difference between scientists and traditionalists. Scientists are all over their own hypotheses with "what about this?" questions, but a traditionalist doesn't look beyond the most superficial analysis if it gives the desired result.
Hell, that sounds like just about every political pundit in the popular press.
Yes. Poor people have just as much right to self-determination as anyone else. Especially in countries like India where a large number of people don't need to read or write to live their daily lives and presuming that not knowing something they don't necessarily need should disqualify them from having a valid opinion is the kind of elitism that rationalizes a dictatorship.
There are two contradictory things which must happen for machine voting.
1. Each person must be identifiable as having voted and see the result of the vote.
2. Each vote must be anonymous.
No. That is classic, "the enemy of good is perfect" thinking.
Voting fraud is as old as voting. The only thing that must happen is for the new voting system to be better than whatever it replaces. It doesn't even have to be significantly better at preventing fraud if it has other beneficial characteristics like making it possible for people to vote who couldn't easily vote before (people living way out in the boonies, those who can't read because they are illiterate or blind, etc).
So, what's the deal with the 1st lady (do you call them that there?) becoming president? I thought the various kennedies and then Bush and Bush Jr were bad enough, but a husband and wife switching off as president? Do you have term limits? Because it sounds like a really transparent way to get around a presidential term limit.
My feeling is that we don't need a perfect comparison function. We don't need the kind of precision
As long as student test scores are the only measured criteria then those results will be treated as if they had perfect precision. Its the standard "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem. Additionally it doesn't account for problems like "teaching to the test." As the article itself says, "Many experts recommend that it count for half or less of a teacher's overall evaluation."
So since this is their one biggest user, and even he is probably paying more than $50 for his internet connection, I don't see the problem with bandwidth hogs.
That's actually the reason the ISP posted the information - they want to convince their customers (and potential customers) on cheaper slower plans that not only is the ISP capable of handling massive bandwidth consumption, but that they encourage other people to upgrade/switch to the same unlimited plans and really take advantage of the available capacity.
Its totally the reverse of what we are used to in the USA with places like comcast bitching and moaning about hogs - apparently this ISP understands that bandwidth hogs are a business opportunity to be cultivated not capped.
The problem with targeted ads is that they can be creepy, inappropiate and unaware of context.
Like constantly advertising diet books and weight-loss programs to anorexics, or even worse, to recovered anorexics. That's precisely the kind of thing targeted advertising does and its not just inappropriate, it can be harmful.
In order for the federal government to file charges, a federal law would need to be broken. Laws against taking pictures in a private residence would be state, not federal, laws.
But they were transmitted over the internet, for which there is tons of precedent claiming it to be interstate, even if both endpoints are in the same state.
Lots of people give the Pirate Bay guys shit for being a bunch of thieves hiding behind big words, but when it comes down to it, they walk the walk too. A lot more so than the MAFIAA has.
How about a hunter-killer drone that sniffs out other drones, homes in on their telemetrics and blows them up in a blazing fireball of glory! That's the kind of shit I want to see.
Companies like google and flickr already know your identity (or can easily deduce it), so what more info does some exif data leak to advertisers?
Because people need to be aware of and be able to manage the trade-offs of disclosing information. Perhaps they have taken steps to deliberately obfuscate the info disclosed through other channels, but unknowingly disclosing information through geotags waters down the effectiveness of the other precautions they have taken.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, no, that's what *I* was saying,
My point was that your argument mirrors theirs and it falls apart in exactly the same way theirs does too.
"If the police want to track your movements and surveil you, they need a warrant, issued by a court with the appropriate jurisdiction"?
Since when have they needed a warrant to surveil someone? Wiretaps yes, postal interceptions yes, access to bank records, yes. But to simply watch where someone goes and what they do? No warrant necessary.
I'm not at all confused. You seem to have not understood - or forgotten - your own original argument. You asserted that ANPR should not be allowed because it allows one device to do the work of many officers.
The automation allows them to be easily used in an unreasonable fashion. I have just as much problem with cops who randomly run plates by hand, but the only reason that is not a significant problem is because it is inherently self limiting. Same thing with GPS tracking and most other forms of automated surveillance - they remove the barriers that naturally inhibit unreasonable searches - barriers that were inherent in the system when the original doctrine of "no privacy in public" was formalized.
I'm not seeing it. In the case of ANPR, the police are using resources not available to the general public -- but a police officer calling in a plate number is doing the same thing.
You are confused. Police officers using ANPR scan every single plate that they pass, hundreds of plates per minute. Regular cops don't call in plates unless they have a reason to be suspicious, but ANPR assumes everyone is suspicious because technology has made it so easy to do so. I am not a criminal and it is not reasonable to check up on me just because it is cheap to do so.
And isn't this the kind of shit that DRM alarmists were diligently warning everyone about back in 2003?
I think you mean it's the kind of shit that DRM apologists were claiming was the incredible creation of new market models enabled by DRM.
I don't think I've bought a non-clearance DVD of a TV season and averaged $.99 per ep.
You mean more than 99 per ep, right? Because I have a couple of hundred TV seasons and I'm sure I haven't ever paid more than 99 cents per episode.
Some else mentioned the gilmore girls - all seasons are currently available for $20 each at vendors like Barnes & Noble - that's less than 50 cents an episode.
I've bought almost all seasons of 24 and they were under $15 each at the time.
etc
etc
It's not a matter of cost, it's a matter of value
That's what the MAFIAA says... until sales fall through the floor when people actually take them at their word and realize that the value of recorded entertainment is quite low in comparison to the rest of the things in their lives (I'm talking about the massive drop in DVD sales over the last 2-3 years, especially in TV on DVD) and then the MAFIAA switches to blaming piracy.
Real competition drives prices to as near production costs as possible. Arguments about value are just rationalizations for monopolies and other market inefficiencies.
Technology should not change a fundamental right.
Bingo. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
Automated surveillance along these lines is inherently unreasonable.
Or did you mean that the police have some sort of fundamental right to not need a warrant?
I can understand why this decision turned out the way it did. Placing a tracking device on your vehicle is about the same as following you around with an unmarked vehicle.
The primary difference being that it can be conducted en masse - i.e. its possible to track thousands of vehicles without committing any significant manpower. I have a similar problem with ANPR - one unattended machine can do what would otherwise take thousands of officers to do.
The cliched response to both of these examples is "you have no expectation of privacy in public" - but that is a legal principle formulated in a simpler time before automation (especially automation on the back-end) was even conceivable. I think a principle more suited to the current situation (which will only become more extreme as the automation on the back-end becomes more and more capable) is that if surveillance requires resources not normally available to the average citizen then it requires a warrant. I think a principle along those lines more closely matches how the average joe sees the world, which is pretty much the definition of "reasonable."
As the purpose of a warrant is to maintain oversight to prevent abuse, it makes even more sense because more power always equals more temptation for abuse so being able to do something that a normal person can't reasonably do is practically by definition more opportunity for abuse.
Pick your Engine sound:
I've been saying for years now that this problem is going to result in a market of 'ring tones' for your car.
Neither of your explications involve hypocrisy.
I didn't miss it. I'm only pointing out that when explained fully, it isn't necessarily funny any more.
The humor is in the hypocrisy. Your elaboration does not reduce the hypocrisy one iota.
Mr Stewart's question, meant to be comedic, sets up a false standard. Check out the list of the other holdings of this 'evil prince':
Mr Stewart's point is that it isn't his standard, it is the very same standard of fox news that he is using to judge fox news.
How could you miss that? I think it must have taken a herculean effort of willful ignorance to avoid getting that point from that video clip. That's Stewart's schtick after all - 90% of his bits are straightforward examples of hypocrisy in so-called news reporting.
And therein lies, I think, the big cognitive difference between scientists and traditionalists. Scientists are all over their own hypotheses with "what about this?" questions, but a traditionalist doesn't look beyond the most superficial analysis if it gives the desired result.
Hell, that sounds like just about every political pundit in the popular press.
Actually if you study history you will find one consistent theme:
Pure sophistry.
Do you really want illiterate people voting?
Yes. Poor people have just as much right to self-determination as anyone else. Especially in countries like India where a large number of people don't need to read or write to live their daily lives and presuming that not knowing something they don't necessarily need should disqualify them from having a valid opinion is the kind of elitism that rationalizes a dictatorship.
There are two contradictory things which must happen for machine voting.
1. Each person must be identifiable as having voted and see the result of the vote.
2. Each vote must be anonymous.
No. That is classic, "the enemy of good is perfect" thinking.
Voting fraud is as old as voting. The only thing that must happen is for the new voting system to be better than whatever it replaces. It doesn't even have to be significantly better at preventing fraud if it has other beneficial characteristics like making it possible for people to vote who couldn't easily vote before (people living way out in the boonies, those who can't read because they are illiterate or blind, etc).
Blago is your standard corrupt Chicago politician.
And what is so unique about Chicago versus, say DC with guys like Marion Barry or any other big city in the USA?
So, what's the deal with the 1st lady (do you call them that there?) becoming president?
I thought the various kennedies and then Bush and Bush Jr were bad enough, but a husband and wife switching off as president? Do you have term limits? Because it sounds like a really transparent way to get around a presidential term limit.
My feeling is that we don't need a perfect comparison function. We don't need the kind of precision
As long as student test scores are the only measured criteria then those results will be treated as if they had perfect precision. Its the standard "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem. Additionally it doesn't account for problems like "teaching to the test." As the article itself says, "Many experts recommend that it count for half or less of a teacher's overall evaluation."
So since this is their one biggest user, and even he is probably paying more than $50 for his internet connection, I don't see the problem with bandwidth hogs.
That's actually the reason the ISP posted the information - they want to convince their customers (and potential customers) on cheaper slower plans that not only is the ISP capable of handling massive bandwidth consumption, but that they encourage other people to upgrade/switch to the same unlimited plans and really take advantage of the available capacity.
Its totally the reverse of what we are used to in the USA with places like comcast bitching and moaning about hogs - apparently this ISP understands that bandwidth hogs are a business opportunity to be cultivated not capped.
The problem with targeted ads is that they can be creepy, inappropiate and unaware of context.
Like constantly advertising diet books and weight-loss programs to anorexics, or even worse, to recovered anorexics.
That's precisely the kind of thing targeted advertising does and its not just inappropriate, it can be harmful.
In order for the federal government to file charges, a federal law would need to be broken. Laws against taking pictures in a private residence would be state, not federal, laws.
But they were transmitted over the internet, for which there is tons of precedent claiming it to be interstate, even if both endpoints are in the same state.
PRQ - the network cum ISP created to serve the Pirate Bay (and still doing so) - has been hosting much of Wikileaks since 2008.
Lots of people give the Pirate Bay guys shit for being a bunch of thieves hiding behind big words, but when it comes down to it, they walk the walk too. A lot more so than the MAFIAA has.
How about a hunter-killer drone that sniffs out other drones, homes in on their telemetrics and blows them up in a blazing fireball of glory!
That's the kind of shit I want to see.
Companies like google and flickr already know your identity (or can easily deduce it), so what more info does some exif data leak to advertisers?
Because people need to be aware of and be able to manage the trade-offs of disclosing information. Perhaps they have taken steps to deliberately obfuscate the info disclosed through other channels, but unknowingly disclosing information through geotags waters down the effectiveness of the other precautions they have taken.