Privacy cannot logically be a right because it is not an act. It is ignorance of others. It may or may not be wise to promote privacy. But it is not an action that could conceivably be banned -- unlike trade, gunsmanshp, speech, assembly, &c.
I don't know, over 40,000 people die each year in car accidents in US (source: http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats/2000_kill ed.html [car-accidents.com]). That seems to be significantly larger than terrorism casualties.
What's your point? That we are in some sort of wars against cars?
A "war" requires a thinking enemy who wishes to impose his will. Cars don't think.
Or that we are in a war against our own citizens for living their lives unwisely? I wouldn't want to be in such a moral police-state as that!
So what?
And the govt is limiting freedom. What do you think the information is used for, to give us frequent flier miles ?
The purpose of government is to enact vertical controls -- to threaten and use force -- to protect the rights of its citizens and to promote the general welfare.
It is just that the freedom taken this way is of the kind you do not care for as much as I and others do.
What freedom don't I care about?
"Privacy" isnt' a freedom. It can't logically be. "Privacy" (unlike speech, assembly, gunsmanship, bankruptcy, prostitution, inebriation, etc) isn't something you do. It is a state of ignorance by others.
And it's a pity, seeing as you do seem like an intelligent person.
Thank you.
Don't worry, as things are going, eventually your threshold will be reached as well, it's just that probably by then it will be quite difficult to do anything about it.
Just to put things in perspective, a lot more of us will be able to live if personal vehicles were outlawed, than if terrorism were extinct.
That's arguable, but the important part is that it is a misdirection. You are talking about limiting freedom, which is self-defeating. Making a law means the government promises to use violence against people who "disobey." That is very dangerous!
And that is nothing at all like what the TSA did. The TSA uses information. No violence, nor threat of violence, involved.
But what if they don't ? What if they just serve to increase government control over its citizens instead, while doing little about terrorism ?
Then that's a mistake. It's a mistake I can live with. I mean that literally -- I will still be alive.
Now, what if overzealous protection of privacy leads to another attack. I may not be able to live with that. Litearlly. Because I would have slammed into a building at hundreds of miles an hour, or burned alive by jet fuel.
Do you blindly trust a government that is, by and large, corporation- and church-controlled ?
Your statement is largely inaccurate, but has at least a grain of truth.
Actually - do you honestly believe that this is about terrorism ?
Yes. I also believe that government is naturally corrupt.
I rationally decide that I'll risk a corrupt government with somewhat less privacy than I'll risk another 9/11.
I live halfway across the country from New York, but I met people whose lives were directly affected by the attacks. I didn't go out of my way for that.
I don't want that to happen again.
We'll all be able to live with a little less privacy. Not all of us will be able to live with a lot more terrorism.
The effort to prevent false-name flyers centers around biometric IDs, which is attacked on the same privacy grounds that this TSA experiment is attacked on now.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say the government is protecting our privacy too much and not doing enough to stop terrorism and that the government is stopping terrorism too much and not doing enough to protect our privacy.
We are going to make mistakes. We can't choose are mistakes, but we can choose which side we will err on: privacy or safety.
As privacy is not a "liberty," and is not named anywhere in the Constitution, it seems a little privacy is expendable for a lot of security.
Do I want a government bureaucrat going over my travel information? Nope. Do I prefer that to a New York Times obituary after a plane I'm flying in crashses into Google headquarters? Yup.
Do I want a government bureaucrat going over your travel information? Of course not. Do I prefer that to you and hundreds of others crashing into the Capitol Building, killing my Senators and nullifying my votes in our democracy? Of course yes.
... almost as mad as the fact that Muslim terrorists use passenger jets to crash into tall buildings and kill thousands of people.
I do not like the TSA's deception/incompetence/whatever. But please put this story in perspective. Evil terrorists want to kill us. TSA was created to try to thwart them. If the TSA is erring on the side of caution, it's too bad they are making mistakes. But if those mistakes stop evil murderers from blowing things up with jets with my family on them, I'm not going to be too upset.
Slashdot Mirror
DaHat, the author of this story, hates linux.
-Dan tdaxp
Misdirection.
Privacy cannot logically be a right because it is not an act. It is ignorance of others. It may or may not be wise to promote privacy. But it is not an action that could conceivably be banned -- unlike trade, gunsmanshp, speech, assembly, &c.
-Dan tdaxp
I don't know, over 40,000 people die each year in car accidents in US (source: http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats/2000_kill ed.html [car-accidents.com]). That seems to be significantly larger than terrorism casualties.
What's your point? That we are in some sort of wars against cars?
A "war" requires a thinking enemy who wishes to impose his will. Cars don't think.
Or that we are in a war against our own citizens for living their lives unwisely? I wouldn't want to be in such a moral police-state as that!
So what?
And the govt is limiting freedom. What do you think the information is used for, to give us frequent flier miles ?
The purpose of government is to enact vertical controls -- to threaten and use force -- to protect the rights of its citizens and to promote the general welfare.
It is just that the freedom taken this way is of the kind you do not care for as much as I and others do.
What freedom don't I care about?
"Privacy" isnt' a freedom. It can't logically be. "Privacy" (unlike speech, assembly, gunsmanship, bankruptcy, prostitution, inebriation, etc) isn't something you do. It is a state of ignorance by others.
And it's a pity, seeing as you do seem like an intelligent person.
Thank you.
Don't worry, as things are going, eventually your threshold will be reached as well, it's just that probably by then it will be quite difficult to do anything about it.
My threshold for what?
Dan tdaxp
you may be unaware where increased govt surveillance and control over the people leads.
Perhaps. And certainly it is grounds for debate. But it is the government threatening force to enact its will, and so your analogy was a poor one.
Oh, and with regards to the current regime: "It Would Be Easier If I Was Dictator" (G.W. Bush). http://www.konformist.com/2000/bush-dictator.htm [konformist.com]
When the Left isolates itself from reality, in favor of conspiracy theories, it just makes it easier for the Right to gain and hold power.
Dan tdaxp
Just to put things in perspective, a lot more of us will be able to live if personal vehicles were outlawed, than if terrorism were extinct.
That's arguable, but the important part is that it is a misdirection. You are talking about limiting freedom, which is self-defeating. Making a law means the government promises to use violence against people who "disobey." That is very dangerous!
And that is nothing at all like what the TSA did. The TSA uses information. No violence, nor threat of violence, involved.
-Dan tdaxp
Who among us is talking about a dictatorship? Indeed, only the terrorists themselves wish to establish a dictatorship.
-Dan tdaxp
But what if they don't ? What if they just serve to increase government control over its citizens instead, while doing little about terrorism ?
Then that's a mistake. It's a mistake I can live with. I mean that literally -- I will still be alive.
Now, what if overzealous protection of privacy leads to another attack. I may not be able to live with that. Litearlly. Because I would have slammed into a building at hundreds of miles an hour, or burned alive by jet fuel.
Do you blindly trust a government that is, by and large, corporation- and church-controlled ?
Your statement is largely inaccurate, but has at least a grain of truth.
Actually - do you honestly believe that this is about terrorism ?
Yes. I also believe that government is naturally corrupt.
I rationally decide that I'll risk a corrupt government with somewhat less privacy than I'll risk another 9/11.
I live halfway across the country from New York, but I met people whose lives were directly affected by the attacks. I didn't go out of my way for that.
I don't want that to happen again.
We'll all be able to live with a little less privacy. Not all of us will be able to live with a lot more terrorism.
Literally.
-Dan tdaxp
The effort to prevent false-name flyers centers around biometric IDs, which is attacked on the same privacy grounds that this TSA experiment is attacked on now.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say the government is protecting our privacy too much and not doing enough to stop terrorism and that the government is stopping terrorism too much and not doing enough to protect our privacy.
We are going to make mistakes. We can't choose are mistakes, but we can choose which side we will err on: privacy or safety.
As privacy is not a "liberty," and is not named anywhere in the Constitution, it seems a little privacy is expendable for a lot of security.
Do I want a government bureaucrat going over my travel information? Nope. Do I prefer that to a New York Times obituary after a plane I'm flying in crashses into Google headquarters? Yup.
Do I want a government bureaucrat going over your travel information? Of course not. Do I prefer that to you and hundreds of others crashing into the Capitol Building, killing my Senators and nullifying my votes in our democracy? Of course yes.
Dan tdaxp
... almost as mad as the fact that Muslim terrorists use passenger jets to crash into tall buildings and kill thousands of people .
I do not like the TSA's deception/incompetence/whatever. But please put this story in perspective. Evil terrorists want to kill us. TSA was created to try to thwart them. If the TSA is erring on the side of caution, it's too bad they are making mistakes. But if those mistakes stop evil murderers from blowing things up with jets with my family on them, I'm not going to be too upset.
-Dan tdaxp
Interesting use of an anti-5GW criticism to attack a 4GW system. By "interesting," I mean "stupid."
-Dan tdaxp
Mr. Berman is an admirer of the war-strategist Thomas P.M. Barnett, and Bermans theories can be seen as war doctrine applied to IT networks.
This same story appeared on Berman's blog a month ago.
That was a great article on Dvorak with obvious implications for warfare. RAND published a similar paper a while ago...
... are just like the Iranian mullahs. Can't handle of content flow, so they try to ban it.
If you don't like something, ignore it, turn it off, don't pay for it. But try to criminalize things you find weird? Fit for the thugs of Tehran.
-Dan tdaxp
.... network struggle doctrine
The article brings to mind two different kinds of cobuyitaphobias -- two different fears of "synergy."
It shows that the MS-Intel synergy isn't what it's quacked up to be. But also that Apple-Intel have high potential synergy.
-Dan Cobuyitaphobia
Quality is based on both the subject and the object. Think of a database's E-R diagram -- quality is the relation between two entities.
An interesting, but insightless, article.
I'm not joking.
Remember how Macromedia patented anti-P2P technology? That was functionally the same as patenting anti-Terrorism in Iraq.
Social P2P networks are everywhere. They are behind the rise of the Religious Right in America. They are behind the rise of 9/11-Style terrorism. Knowing how to work in P2P network is the key to winning the War in Iraq.
When the recording industry makes a university fires teachers for talking about P2P, they are dismissing soldiers in the Global War on Terrorism.
Fight terrorism. Protect tenure.
This comment is not a joke. It is very serious.
Macromedia just patented Boydian netwar! I'm sure the US military in Iraq is going to be surprised!
Wow. Seeing Darth Vader come out against NCW is astounding. Almost as astounding as the criticisms of the acolyte of the guy who invented it.
Darth Vader: Fourth Generation Warrior. Who would have thunk it?
Not that so-called Corporate Social Responsibility is much better. -Dan
Microsoft abandons homosexualism on the same day that Texas will ban homosexualist foster families, and the same day that a homosexualist pride rally at school backfired. Homosexualism is a leading cause of AIDS. With Senator Clinton opposing special rights for homosexualists, we are living in good days!