Well okay, then. That's completely different and understandable. But realize that unless you are a hermit there are almost certainly a lot of photos of you out there in the world and they are becoming ever more available to the public along with lots of metadata which will identify you and provide lots of information about you that you probably don't want out there.
As I said, I despise any pictures of me being taken, regardless of whether I'm naked.
Which is why his assumption was off the mark in your particular case, but that doesn't make the hypocrisy implied by the proposition any less valid.
And consider the context. I said that the *court* should not treat them as special. That is what I meant. I believe courts should be a bit more logical and less puritan about it.
Again, addressing the hypocrisy here. You are saying that the laws should be written for an ideal world and ignore real consequences of the world we live in? From your other statements it appears that you are inconsistent, but you keep avoiding those scenarios that are inconvenient to your position.
1) Not when someone took a picture and the other person doesn't like that the picture exists.
Still ducking.
2) If someone wants a clothed picture removed, I do not see why their wish is any less valid than wanting a nude picture removed. Their feelings are the same.
Which again would be fine if you could show yourself to consistently hold that opinion, but you can't (or won't).
No, I didn't. Instead, I dismissed his specific reply as a straw man, because it was.
"you people are spewing forth nonsensical straw men" - that's far from addressing a specific reply.
Look, you don't have to address your hypocrisy if you don't want to, but please stop wasting my time. By just repeating the specific facts of this case without pointing out why it is different than all the other privacy cases (existing and imagined cases that might someday affect you), your opinion is meaningless - although your vote counts just as much as anyone else's.
I agree that the world, especially America, is too puritan and that casual nudity or even explicit sex photos shouldn't be a big deal in most contexts. But they are, and until the world changes, the courts should take that into consideration.
I've heard they even have hand held devices now that can take digital pictures of things even larger than the average poster. They probably cost tens of dollars, though.
It's very simple. I avoid places where my picture is likely to be taken. I ask people not to take my picture, and they will often respect my wishes. I ask people to let me get out of the way of their camera before they take a picture. I cover my face. Etc.
So you meant to say you "avoid" having your picture taken or that you "discourage" people from taking your picture. Not that you don't allow it. You have a valid point to make, but by choosing your words poorly you muddle and diminish it.
I'm not. You know my position; stop playing dumb.
If you think I know your position then we're done. You're clearly a hypocrite, then. If you don't want to clarify your position then you don't have to, but as it stands you appear to be a hypocrite - I'm giving you a chance to moderate what you say or prove that your seemingly extreme position is truly what you portray it to be.
Privacy is not merely a right, but a concept. If I'm sitting in my home and no one is around, I effectively have privacy in my home. It's about effective privacy.
If your position is privacy is merely the concept of an individual not volunteering information about themselves, that is fine, and while I personally think it is crazy and unworkable it is not hypocrisy. It becomes hypocrisy when you want to put limits or control any information about you that is available, stuff that YOU think should be private (your address, social security number, the bars you hang out at,...), but not what others think should be private (their nude photos).
And I don't understand why you're so obsessed with the word "hypocrite." You sound like Fox News, or MSNBC, or CNN. They're obsessed with that word, and it's idiotic because being a hypocrite doesn't actually debunk anyone's arguments.
Have you gone through all my previous posts on every topic and found a pattern that I'm not aware of? I'm focusing on the "hypocrisy" here because that is the problem with your position. If you had insisted that Germany should have the same laws as all the other South American countries then I would be obsessed with "geography" instead.
The reason "hypocrisy" in particular is so important is that we need to address it to make rules and laws that are consistent, fair and don't lead to unforeseen consequences. Like, when you get upset because a 16 boy is sharing naked pictures of your 14 year old daughter to all their classmates. There are many real world examples of this: e.g. the "stand your ground" laws.
but you are a hypocrite if you expect any individual or government to respect your desire to keep any and all information about you out of public hands.
The government has limits to its powers and is paid for by tax dollars. Very different situation. If this was about the government collecting information en masse, I would find it acceptable for the information to be deleted. You might call me a "hypocrite," but in reality, that's a completely different situation from a private individual taking a photo. I know you were waiting for a "gotcha" like that, but no one can possibly predict 100% of the scenarios that someone might bring up when they're choosing their words, so your 'victory' is hollow.
I agree that the rules for government should be different than for individuals or corporations, which is why I explicitly made that distinction. I'm allowing you to explain away your hypocrisy, but you seem to be intentionally picking and choosing the extreme edge cases and not even putting a single thought or bit of effort into the serious issues that would clarify it. You don't say whether it is okay for Google or Amazon to collect every scrap of information they can about you (including spying on your open wifi), or whether a private citizen can put up a webcam and log your comings and goings along with who enter
Yes, I read the part where you said that you don't allow people to take pictures of you. I asked how you do that. Which part of that isn't clear?
No. Other people have had pictures of me that I didn't want them to have, but I never asked the government to step in. Granted, I wasn't naked, and the pictures were taken without asking me, and were posted online, but I still did not want them to exist.
Why are you complicating it? You are saying that under no circumstances, no matter how "compromising", incriminating, embarrassing or illegally obtained that you would ask the government to delete photos of you held by a private citizen. Correct?
What I do not understand is why a court treats naked pictures as special
As I don't understand why you think you have any right to privacy. Certainly you are free to lay low and not voluntarily divulge any information about yourself, but you are a hypocrite if you expect any individual or government to respect your desire to keep any and all information about you out of public hands.
But in this case, she should be able to have all the pictures removed, not just the naked ones.
Except that the rest of the world sees a difference between naked pictures and non-naked pictures. When the world no longer recognizes that difference then the court shouldn't either.
His reply had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I never once demanded that everyone take pictures of themselves and post them online.
His reply tried to point out your hypocrisy. Which you still won't address.
The only way I could ever be a hypocrite is if I directly contradicted myself; I never have. I've never used the government to get rid of photos before, and unless you can prove that I would, you people are spewing forth nonsensical straw men and pulling information out of your asses. Don't tell me what I think, or I'll have to start doing the same to you.
Also, hypocrisy doesn't debunk anything.
I see the misunderstanding. You seem to think that the word "hypocrisy" is a synonym for "contradicting oneself". It's not. You also don't seem to understand the difference between "hypothetical situation" and "straw man."
Besides - enforcement of this would be virtually impossible. Anybody who wanted to keep the pics would just make a secret copy. Are they going to make weekly inspections of his computer for life to make sure they don't find pics of his ex?
Hard to enforce, not impossible (not even virtually). Many crimes are extremely hard to detect, let alone prove, but that does not make laws against them not worthwhile. In this case you don't have to take crazy, extraordinary measures like you describe. You simply have to make it clear to the person holding the photos that they will be put in prison and have bankruptcy inducing fines if it can be proven that they did not take every measure to delete the data.
I don't allow people to take pictures of me at all when I can help it.
How do you not allow people to take pictures of you? In most of the world I can take as many pictures of you as I want, whether you "allow" it or not.
But it's for privacy reasons, and I do not use the government to force others to remove pictures stored on their own property.
So if I did have lots of pictures of "compromising" pictures of you, some of which were taken on private property without your knowledge or consent, you wouldn't ask the government to step in?
Rather, I do not understand why the court specifically ruled that naked pictures are special, when someone could object to clothed pictures as well. It's puritan nonsense.
Do you seriously not see any difference between clothed photos, provocative photos, nude photos, sex photos, etc.? In all situations, at all times, all circumstances? I don't see how this reconciles with your concept of privacy.
I can't fathom how anyone thinks "Well, you should do it too! What, you don't want to? Then you're wrong!" replies debunk anything.
That kind of reply is meant to put yourself in a similar situation so that you can understand the logic (or hypocrisy). For example, If a website needs to post your picture and you are completely okay with them publishing your passport photo or one of you doing the raunchiest most embarrassing sex act of your life, then your original statement is consistent. Just saying "I don't allow any photos" is a copout and a cover for your hypocrisy.
Of course it's insane to ask you to publish those compromising photos.
But surely you can send them to me, a private individual. I promise not to publish them or show them to my close friends and girlfriends, really I do. I also promise to secure them so carefully that no matter what happens to my digital data (lost, stolen, I croak) they will never see the light of day (especially since I always whack off at night). I know I'm a complete stranger, but you can trust me more than an ex (who you clearly have unresolved differences with), right?
How did the subject consent? Was there a written contract that explicitly gave away all current and future rights? If so, then there is no obligation to return the photos, the photographer was acting as a professional. However, in almost all these cases the implicit consent comes with the stipulation that these photos are only for use during the relationship (or that the relationship will last forever). If you don't think that's the case then try asking your partner the next time: "It's okay if I keep these after we break up, right?" If she's in the tiny minority that says yes, then you should hold onto that girl because she's exceptionally cool (or already has so many naked photos out there that a couple more won't matter).
If someone stole a video of you having sex with your spouse (or a donkey) would you still be okay with them keeping copies after the original was returned? They promise not to use them commercially, although sure they might show them to a few friends at parties. If your daughter broke up with her college boyfriend would you be okay with him keeping the photos and showing them to all your friends and coworkers? Let's say he only uses them "personally", meaning, never, ever, will he show them to anyone else, not just that he is not selling them. That is certainly less creepy, but by returning (or destroying) the items it prevents the clear temptation (or accident) of letting others have access to them. These days, it is next to impossible to guarantee any digital item will not become published at some point, and it will only get worse (or better, depending on your perspective) in the future.
The point not being that everything that is "wrong" has to be legislated, but that this is clearly wrong and therefore is something we should at least consider. I, personally, think the risk of damage is high enough that it warrants special protection under the law.
The difference is that it was easy to understand his meaning, despite his typo or misspelling. Not understanding that the world "dwell" has a negative, unhealthy connotation is in a totally different category, as it makes his entire (and valid) point incomprehensible. Which explains (almost) all the ridiculous negative comments he has received. It's hard not come off as a pompous ass when you're dealing with morons, I guess.
"dwells on a mental image of an ex" who doesn't want you having those naked photos of him/her. That's absolutely not healthy. That could have been made more explicit in the previous post, but the word dwell never has a pleasant connotation. It's quite alright to have lingering pleasant thoughts about a relationship, but if you get to the point of "dwelling", you need help.
There is no evidence to support the notion that collateral damage causes significant rise in terrorists abilities to recruit new subjects.
In fact, how can someone use the drone data showing that there is no correlation to a reduction in attacks to say they are not effective while also saying that they are causing more terrorist activity? Either there is some correlation or not, you can't work it both ways. Only once we've figured that part out can we even think about moving on to causation.
I don't know, I suggest you ask the people who created those scenarios and not me. You are certainly free to create your own scenarios for us to talk about, but please don't apply what I've said about other scenarios without at least trying to translate or understand the key differences.
Because if even a handful of guests are innocent what we're doing is completely indefensible to me, and even if you wanted to justify it somehow,
IF you are the type of person who would not shoot up a vehicle loaded with explosives barreling towards a public market just because there were an innocent person on that vehicle then I am glad you are not in a position to make that choice. Likewise, I would also not want you there if you shot up every dark skinned man who gave you attitude and was sweating suspiciously.
Where these strikes typically occur the line between innocent and complicit is very fuzzy. I can tolerate a reasonable amount of collateral damage from those in the gray area, and even the occasional unquestionably innocent for the greater good. For example, if it were not possible to stage a raid on bin Laden's compound I would not have felt very bad at all that his wives, children, driver, gardener, etc. were caught up in the conflagration. I feel bad that they ever got caught up with him in the first place, but not for them being caught in the crossfire. I would hold themselves partly to blame for their deaths as well as bin Laden and the Pakistani army/police who sheltered him. Not the drone pilot or the president who authorized the attack.
its still going to be counterproductive because its going to manufacture new "terrorists" out of the survivors and extended family's of the rest of the wedding guests.
That is the assertion, but it is unproven. Obviously if drone strikes were shown to cause a rise in terrorist activity we should immediately rethink the strategy.
Yes. One in a million, maybe? Well, the odds of getting hit by lightning are less than 1 in 6,000,000. Yet it happens, surprisingly often.
One in a million what? Are you saying that 300 times a year there is a case of head on collision where a driver is trapped between two other vehicles and must choose between your 3 options (I'll even ignore the extra detail that one is a truck and one has children). That's absurd. The likelihood of one of the few self-driving cars running into this exact situation is so close to zero that it's not worth spending a lot of time on. Sure you can run it through the simulator and put it in your regression tests, but it's really hard to imagine that it's going to require a lot of extra work to make workable.
I didn't "gloss over" anything. I repeat: my example was deliberately chosen to be one of those edge-cases, in order to illustrate a point. But THE POINT has passed entirely over your head, and instead you are concentrating on the example I used to illustrate it. Just to demonstrate:
Your example did not make any point, unless you were trying to make the point that even in rare cases self-driving cars are likely to be better than human equivalents. There are cases right now that driverless cars will make terrible, life-threatening decisions, many of which human drivers can perform better at). Some of these scenarios are going to be extremely difficult or next to impossible to solve in the near future (at a reasonable cost). Your scenario was not even close to being one of these.
So what? That has nothing to do with THE POINT I was making. Which you still don't get.
Perhaps I misjudged your intent, but only because THE POINT you are making is kind of facile and obvious. No reasonable person expects self-driving cars to be on the road in the next couple of years with no faults and no liability issues. Your tone suggests that these problems are nearly intractable and yet your scenario and concerns border on the trivial, IMO. Cars already have many "self-driving" features and they are possibly getting rolled out slower than they should because of these type of concerns, but they are still coming. Legislators and car manufacturers should be aware of history, but it shouldn't paralyze them and your hysterical tone, IMO, doesn't help.
At NO time in this entire conversation did I say that was a valid reason for this technology to not be used, or not be developed. On the contrary, I think it's a great thing, and will do the world a lot of good.
Reread what you've said, it has all been negative. You do not say that some current system might temporarily have issues with their LIDAR adequately handling super aggressive drivers. You just say it's a problem, full stop.
But denying that there will be real problems along the way, and failing to use clear and recent history of an EXAMPLE of the kinds of problems that will almost certainly occur, is stupid.
Good thing nobody is saying that then. This is not a productive conversation, I'm done.
If you truly do think that self-driving cars will save lives then I recommend you change your tone to reflect that, rather than appearing to put your support behind idiots and fear mongers who say things like "What if your children were in that driverless car that ran amok?!" Your kind of talk is what makes otherwise sensible people do stupid things like drive across the country because planes are too dangerous.
No, it would be hard to 99.999% certain of that in Pakistan with a large number of Pakistani guests. What a silly question.
I'm not sure what point you're getting at, but you're going to have to provide me at least some scraps of data if you're trying to make the case that American drones have often bombed weddings where everyone seems to be completely innocent except for one guy who is maybe or maybe not a terrorist. That's the situation we're discussing.
Nobody said it was simple. But you're being dense.
Yeah, you kind of did. You are using the example of this incredibly rare and complicated self-driving car scenario as an example of what will go wrong, while just glossing over the also incredibly rare and complicated current examples. In your scenario how is a human driver better, how is the law simpler. It's not.
If you want to have an "ignorance" contest, you probably picked the wrong person to insult.
If you're not ignorant then you're just plain dumb or disingenuous. Take your pick.
There you go. You just lost the ignorance contest. I am about the farthest thing from a "Luddite" you are likely to find. I want to solve these real problems so that such technology can exist and be used in the real world.
That is not what you're doing at all. You are muddling and obfuscating the issue and trying to make it sound more complex, scary and unsolvable than it is. You're making unfair and unrealistic comparisons and sowing FUD, e.g. when you throw out the ridiculous "what if your kids were in the car?!" That shows you're not serious about examining, let alone solving any problems.
The scenario was an EXAMPLE of the kind of situations that can and do arise. It doesn't matter if they're "unlikely".
Sorry, but your scenario was ridiculously stupid. Of course it matters how unlikely the situation is. For every situation like you proposed there will be 10,000 times as many cases where another car is stopped in the road and it's at night or there's fog or the driver is inattentive and the self-driving car will save lives. There will 1,000 times as many cases where the head on collision is easily avoided because the car is not completely boxed in. Even if you do not put any extra clever coding the self-driving car will probably do better than a human driver. Once again, your example is stupid to be overly worried about.
But even if 1 in 1,000,000 driverless cars just spontaneously combusted and killed every passenger it would still be worth having them on the road if they saved 10,000 lives a year.
Getting hit by lightning is unlikely, too, but it happens an average of 51 times every year in the U.S.
So maybe you should start preaching about that instead.
The scenario was deliberately made to be an edge-case in order to illustrate a point. Several points, actually. But one of them is that when you're a programmer, like I am, you can't just leave such edge-cases alone and say "That will never happen." Because they do. It is people who are ignorant of how it actually works who think "it will never happen" is a real-world scenario.
However, if you're a programmer with a job you know that for almost every real world system you will not be able cover every single case and if you try to write special code for every single imaginable possibility that your code will unmaintainable and untestable. If you write solid simple code that covers the vast majority of cases that is often good enough to get the job done. In the scenario you outlined you don't have to write a headOnCollisionWhileBoxedInBetweenATruckAndCarWithTwoKids() routine. Most likely the normal collision avoidance algorithms would be better than the current alternatives: ideally it would detect the head on car far enough away that it can slow down to get behind one of the vehicles or even slow down to take the hit. You certainly could work on routines to rank objects by the expected cost of running into them, but doing that well is extremely low down the list. Not to mention that even 1 of the other 3 vehicles was also self-driving then this 1 in 1,000,000 accident would never happen in the first place.
Pointing out that MILF is not a nation is pretty much setting a new record for pointless commentary. If that is your goal, which it seems to be, then nicely done.
Of course, I read that first sentence and dismissed it because it was irrelevant. You "should have let it go" because you were wrong. I clearly quoted the assertion that I took issue with and your half-hearted non-apology for what you imagined I was referring to was a huge waste of time. Next time, try just saying "Oh, I get that now."
You were, indeed, being pedantic, obnoxious, and accurate.
I started off with just making a joke, but because YOU decided to join 00101010 in being pedantic, obnoxious and wrong in responding to a JOKE (you might recall a whooshing noise about that time), yes I decided that I might join you in your colossal waste of time but at least be correct, unlike the two of you.
BTW, google is a thing now and you can look up both MILFish and USian if you had a mind to.
And those people are held responsible for their fucked up mistakes.
Really, it's that simple? When there are multiple cars involved, a myriad of non-optimal decisions and a fatality results it's trivial just to put the blame on one particular person?
Who is responsible when the car makes a mistake. I sure as hell don't want to be financially responsible for some companies fuck up.
Then you must not be a driver, because you put your life in their hands every time you get behind the wheel. You can not just will your brakes not to fail or your engine not to turn off because of a faulty ignition.
This isn't about FUD its a legitimate question of insurance policy and law that will have to be addressed if autonomous vehicles are going to become commonplace.
Nobody says there aren't serious questions of insurance and law that need to be resolved (and which will evolve over time). That's a big part of what this article is about: rules and regulations, liability, etc. Where the FUD comes about is these absurd scenarios from ignorant commenters like this: OMG a car is coming right at you, do you kill the children or sacrifice yourself!!!! Ignoring that these cars, by the time they are widely deployed, will be far safer than human driven cars, not only in the vast majority of ordinary boring cases, but even in most of these extreme and incredibly rare scenarios that JQP imagines. That's FUD.
They are not unsolvable problems but neither can the be ignored by sticking ones head in the sand the way you clearly would like to do just because "omg self driving cars... COOL!"
The issue is that most of the "problems" that luddites like JQP throw out are already solved (better than human drivers) and they are just too dumb, ignorant or lazy to consider them.
I don't know, maybe there is a middle ground between sticking your head in the sand and screaming "OMG. Our cars are trying to kill us and nobody is stopping them. Won't somebody think of the children!" Just saying.
Slashdot Mirror
Congratulations. You win.
Yes, now you understand.
Well okay, then. That's completely different and understandable. But realize that unless you are a hermit there are almost certainly a lot of photos of you out there in the world and they are becoming ever more available to the public along with lots of metadata which will identify you and provide lots of information about you that you probably don't want out there.
As I said, I despise any pictures of me being taken, regardless of whether I'm naked.
Which is why his assumption was off the mark in your particular case, but that doesn't make the hypocrisy implied by the proposition any less valid.
And consider the context. I said that the *court* should not treat them as special. That is what I meant. I believe courts should be a bit more logical and less puritan about it.
Again, addressing the hypocrisy here. You are saying that the laws should be written for an ideal world and ignore real consequences of the world we live in? From your other statements it appears that you are inconsistent, but you keep avoiding those scenarios that are inconvenient to your position.
1) Not when someone took a picture and the other person doesn't like that the picture exists.
Still ducking.
2) If someone wants a clothed picture removed, I do not see why their wish is any less valid than wanting a nude picture removed. Their feelings are the same.
Which again would be fine if you could show yourself to consistently hold that opinion, but you can't (or won't).
No, I didn't. Instead, I dismissed his specific reply as a straw man, because it was.
"you people are spewing forth nonsensical straw men" - that's far from addressing a specific reply.
Look, you don't have to address your hypocrisy if you don't want to, but please stop wasting my time. By just repeating the specific facts of this case without pointing out why it is different than all the other privacy cases (existing and imagined cases that might someday affect you), your opinion is meaningless - although your vote counts just as much as anyone else's.
I agree that the world, especially America, is too puritan and that casual nudity or even explicit sex photos shouldn't be a big deal in most contexts. But they are, and until the world changes, the courts should take that into consideration.
I've heard they even have hand held devices now that can take digital pictures of things even larger than the average poster. They probably cost tens of dollars, though.
"when I can help it."
It's very simple. I avoid places where my picture is likely to be taken. I ask people not to take my picture, and they will often respect my wishes. I ask people to let me get out of the way of their camera before they take a picture. I cover my face. Etc.
So you meant to say you "avoid" having your picture taken or that you "discourage" people from taking your picture. Not that you don't allow it. You have a valid point to make, but by choosing your words poorly you muddle and diminish it.
I'm not. You know my position; stop playing dumb.
If you think I know your position then we're done. You're clearly a hypocrite, then. If you don't want to clarify your position then you don't have to, but as it stands you appear to be a hypocrite - I'm giving you a chance to moderate what you say or prove that your seemingly extreme position is truly what you portray it to be.
Privacy is not merely a right, but a concept. If I'm sitting in my home and no one is around, I effectively have privacy in my home. It's about effective privacy.
If your position is privacy is merely the concept of an individual not volunteering information about themselves, that is fine, and while I personally think it is crazy and unworkable it is not hypocrisy. It becomes hypocrisy when you want to put limits or control any information about you that is available, stuff that YOU think should be private (your address, social security number, the bars you hang out at, ...), but not what others think should be private (their nude photos).
And I don't understand why you're so obsessed with the word "hypocrite." You sound like Fox News, or MSNBC, or CNN. They're obsessed with that word, and it's idiotic because being a hypocrite doesn't actually debunk anyone's arguments.
Have you gone through all my previous posts on every topic and found a pattern that I'm not aware of? I'm focusing on the "hypocrisy" here because that is the problem with your position. If you had insisted that Germany should have the same laws as all the other South American countries then I would be obsessed with "geography" instead.
The reason "hypocrisy" in particular is so important is that we need to address it to make rules and laws that are consistent, fair and don't lead to unforeseen consequences. Like, when you get upset because a 16 boy is sharing naked pictures of your 14 year old daughter to all their classmates. There are many real world examples of this: e.g. the "stand your ground" laws.
but you are a hypocrite if you expect any individual or government to respect your desire to keep any and all information about you out of public hands.
The government has limits to its powers and is paid for by tax dollars. Very different situation. If this was about the government collecting information en masse, I would find it acceptable for the information to be deleted. You might call me a "hypocrite," but in reality, that's a completely different situation from a private individual taking a photo. I know you were waiting for a "gotcha" like that, but no one can possibly predict 100% of the scenarios that someone might bring up when they're choosing their words, so your 'victory' is hollow.
I agree that the rules for government should be different than for individuals or corporations, which is why I explicitly made that distinction. I'm allowing you to explain away your hypocrisy, but you seem to be intentionally picking and choosing the extreme edge cases and not even putting a single thought or bit of effort into the serious issues that would clarify it. You don't say whether it is okay for Google or Amazon to collect every scrap of information they can about you (including spying on your open wifi), or whether a private citizen can put up a webcam and log your comings and goings along with who enter
Did you even read what you replied to?
Yes, I read the part where you said that you don't allow people to take pictures of you. I asked how you do that. Which part of that isn't clear?
No. Other people have had pictures of me that I didn't want them to have, but I never asked the government to step in. Granted, I wasn't naked, and the pictures were taken without asking me, and were posted online, but I still did not want them to exist.
Why are you complicating it? You are saying that under no circumstances, no matter how "compromising", incriminating, embarrassing or illegally obtained that you would ask the government to delete photos of you held by a private citizen. Correct?
What I do not understand is why a court treats naked pictures as special
As I don't understand why you think you have any right to privacy. Certainly you are free to lay low and not voluntarily divulge any information about yourself, but you are a hypocrite if you expect any individual or government to respect your desire to keep any and all information about you out of public hands.
But in this case, she should be able to have all the pictures removed, not just the naked ones.
Except that the rest of the world sees a difference between naked pictures and non-naked pictures. When the world no longer recognizes that difference then the court shouldn't either.
His reply had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I never once demanded that everyone take pictures of themselves and post them online.
His reply tried to point out your hypocrisy. Which you still won't address.
The only way I could ever be a hypocrite is if I directly contradicted myself; I never have. I've never used the government to get rid of photos before, and unless you can prove that I would, you people are spewing forth nonsensical straw men and pulling information out of your asses. Don't tell me what I think, or I'll have to start doing the same to you.
Also, hypocrisy doesn't debunk anything.
I see the misunderstanding. You seem to think that the word "hypocrisy" is a synonym for "contradicting oneself". It's not. You also don't seem to understand the difference between "hypothetical situation" and "straw man."
Besides - enforcement of this would be virtually impossible. Anybody who wanted to keep the pics would just make a secret copy. Are they going to make weekly inspections of his computer for life to make sure they don't find pics of his ex?
Hard to enforce, not impossible (not even virtually). Many crimes are extremely hard to detect, let alone prove, but that does not make laws against them not worthwhile. In this case you don't have to take crazy, extraordinary measures like you describe. You simply have to make it clear to the person holding the photos that they will be put in prison and have bankruptcy inducing fines if it can be proven that they did not take every measure to delete the data.
I don't allow people to take pictures of me at all when I can help it.
How do you not allow people to take pictures of you? In most of the world I can take as many pictures of you as I want, whether you "allow" it or not.
But it's for privacy reasons, and I do not use the government to force others to remove pictures stored on their own property.
So if I did have lots of pictures of "compromising" pictures of you, some of which were taken on private property without your knowledge or consent, you wouldn't ask the government to step in?
Rather, I do not understand why the court specifically ruled that naked pictures are special, when someone could object to clothed pictures as well. It's puritan nonsense.
Do you seriously not see any difference between clothed photos, provocative photos, nude photos, sex photos, etc.? In all situations, at all times, all circumstances? I don't see how this reconciles with your concept of privacy.
I can't fathom how anyone thinks "Well, you should do it too! What, you don't want to? Then you're wrong!" replies debunk anything.
That kind of reply is meant to put yourself in a similar situation so that you can understand the logic (or hypocrisy). For example, If a website needs to post your picture and you are completely okay with them publishing your passport photo or one of you doing the raunchiest most embarrassing sex act of your life, then your original statement is consistent. Just saying "I don't allow any photos" is a copout and a cover for your hypocrisy.
The laws for returning engagement rings when the wedding is called off are not quite that simple and it varies from state to state.
Of course it's insane to ask you to publish those compromising photos.
But surely you can send them to me, a private individual. I promise not to publish them or show them to my close friends and girlfriends, really I do. I also promise to secure them so carefully that no matter what happens to my digital data (lost, stolen, I croak) they will never see the light of day (especially since I always whack off at night). I know I'm a complete stranger, but you can trust me more than an ex (who you clearly have unresolved differences with), right?
How did the subject consent? Was there a written contract that explicitly gave away all current and future rights? If so, then there is no obligation to return the photos, the photographer was acting as a professional. However, in almost all these cases the implicit consent comes with the stipulation that these photos are only for use during the relationship (or that the relationship will last forever). If you don't think that's the case then try asking your partner the next time: "It's okay if I keep these after we break up, right?" If she's in the tiny minority that says yes, then you should hold onto that girl because she's exceptionally cool (or already has so many naked photos out there that a couple more won't matter).
If someone stole a video of you having sex with your spouse (or a donkey) would you still be okay with them keeping copies after the original was returned? They promise not to use them commercially, although sure they might show them to a few friends at parties. If your daughter broke up with her college boyfriend would you be okay with him keeping the photos and showing them to all your friends and coworkers? Let's say he only uses them "personally", meaning, never, ever, will he show them to anyone else, not just that he is not selling them. That is certainly less creepy, but by returning (or destroying) the items it prevents the clear temptation (or accident) of letting others have access to them. These days, it is next to impossible to guarantee any digital item will not become published at some point, and it will only get worse (or better, depending on your perspective) in the future.
The point not being that everything that is "wrong" has to be legislated, but that this is clearly wrong and therefore is something we should at least consider. I, personally, think the risk of damage is high enough that it warrants special protection under the law.
The difference is that it was easy to understand his meaning, despite his typo or misspelling. Not understanding that the world "dwell" has a negative, unhealthy connotation is in a totally different category, as it makes his entire (and valid) point incomprehensible. Which explains (almost) all the ridiculous negative comments he has received. It's hard not come off as a pompous ass when you're dealing with morons, I guess.
You presented a scenario where it seemed to be implied that maintaining that stance (that race does not matter) would make raymorris a hypocrite.
No, he didn't.
I am now totally confused as to what the point of your post was supposed to be.
Correction, you were confused the whole time. Maxo's point was quite clear.
Choosing not to read. A lot of people on slashdot really want to hang on to their dirty pictures.
I can't tell if your ignorance of statistics or simple logic is worse, but they're both embarrassing.
"dwells on a mental image of an ex" who doesn't want you having those naked photos of him/her. That's absolutely not healthy. That could have been made more explicit in the previous post, but the word dwell never has a pleasant connotation. It's quite alright to have lingering pleasant thoughts about a relationship, but if you get to the point of "dwelling", you need help.
There is no evidence to support the notion that collateral damage causes significant rise in terrorists abilities to recruit new subjects.
In fact, how can someone use the drone data showing that there is no correlation to a reduction in attacks to say they are not effective while also saying that they are causing more terrorist activity? Either there is some correlation or not, you can't work it both ways. Only once we've figured that part out can we even think about moving on to causation.
Why is ~that~ the situation we're discussing?
I don't know, I suggest you ask the people who created those scenarios and not me. You are certainly free to create your own scenarios for us to talk about, but please don't apply what I've said about other scenarios without at least trying to translate or understand the key differences.
Because if even a handful of guests are innocent what we're doing is completely indefensible to me, and even if you wanted to justify it somehow,
IF you are the type of person who would not shoot up a vehicle loaded with explosives barreling towards a public market just because there were an innocent person on that vehicle then I am glad you are not in a position to make that choice. Likewise, I would also not want you there if you shot up every dark skinned man who gave you attitude and was sweating suspiciously.
Where these strikes typically occur the line between innocent and complicit is very fuzzy. I can tolerate a reasonable amount of collateral damage from those in the gray area, and even the occasional unquestionably innocent for the greater good. For example, if it were not possible to stage a raid on bin Laden's compound I would not have felt very bad at all that his wives, children, driver, gardener, etc. were caught up in the conflagration. I feel bad that they ever got caught up with him in the first place, but not for them being caught in the crossfire. I would hold themselves partly to blame for their deaths as well as bin Laden and the Pakistani army/police who sheltered him. Not the drone pilot or the president who authorized the attack.
its still going to be counterproductive because its going to manufacture new "terrorists" out of the survivors and extended family's of the rest of the wedding guests.
That is the assertion, but it is unproven. Obviously if drone strikes were shown to cause a rise in terrorist activity we should immediately rethink the strategy.
Yes. One in a million, maybe? Well, the odds of getting hit by lightning are less than 1 in 6,000,000. Yet it happens, surprisingly often.
One in a million what? Are you saying that 300 times a year there is a case of head on collision where a driver is trapped between two other vehicles and must choose between your 3 options (I'll even ignore the extra detail that one is a truck and one has children). That's absurd. The likelihood of one of the few self-driving cars running into this exact situation is so close to zero that it's not worth spending a lot of time on. Sure you can run it through the simulator and put it in your regression tests, but it's really hard to imagine that it's going to require a lot of extra work to make workable.
I didn't "gloss over" anything. I repeat: my example was deliberately chosen to be one of those edge-cases, in order to illustrate a point. But THE POINT has passed entirely over your head, and instead you are concentrating on the example I used to illustrate it. Just to demonstrate:
Your example did not make any point, unless you were trying to make the point that even in rare cases self-driving cars are likely to be better than human equivalents. There are cases right now that driverless cars will make terrible, life-threatening decisions, many of which human drivers can perform better at). Some of these scenarios are going to be extremely difficult or next to impossible to solve in the near future (at a reasonable cost). Your scenario was not even close to being one of these.
So what? That has nothing to do with THE POINT I was making. Which you still don't get.
Perhaps I misjudged your intent, but only because THE POINT you are making is kind of facile and obvious. No reasonable person expects self-driving cars to be on the road in the next couple of years with no faults and no liability issues. Your tone suggests that these problems are nearly intractable and yet your scenario and concerns border on the trivial, IMO. Cars already have many "self-driving" features and they are possibly getting rolled out slower than they should because of these type of concerns, but they are still coming. Legislators and car manufacturers should be aware of history, but it shouldn't paralyze them and your hysterical tone, IMO, doesn't help.
At NO time in this entire conversation did I say that was a valid reason for this technology to not be used, or not be developed. On the contrary, I think it's a great thing, and will do the world a lot of good.
Reread what you've said, it has all been negative. You do not say that some current system might temporarily have issues with their LIDAR adequately handling super aggressive drivers. You just say it's a problem, full stop.
But denying that there will be real problems along the way, and failing to use clear and recent history of an EXAMPLE of the kinds of problems that will almost certainly occur, is stupid.
Good thing nobody is saying that then. This is not a productive conversation, I'm done.
If you truly do think that self-driving cars will save lives then I recommend you change your tone to reflect that, rather than appearing to put your support behind idiots and fear mongers who say things like "What if your children were in that driverless car that ran amok?!" Your kind of talk is what makes otherwise sensible people do stupid things like drive across the country because planes are too dangerous.
No, it would be hard to 99.999% certain of that in Pakistan with a large number of Pakistani guests. What a silly question.
I'm not sure what point you're getting at, but you're going to have to provide me at least some scraps of data if you're trying to make the case that American drones have often bombed weddings where everyone seems to be completely innocent except for one guy who is maybe or maybe not a terrorist. That's the situation we're discussing.
It's nothing like that actually. One of those things is easily measurable, the other is not.
Nobody said it was simple. But you're being dense.
Yeah, you kind of did. You are using the example of this incredibly rare and complicated self-driving car scenario as an example of what will go wrong, while just glossing over the also incredibly rare and complicated current examples. In your scenario how is a human driver better, how is the law simpler. It's not.
If you want to have an "ignorance" contest, you probably picked the wrong person to insult.
If you're not ignorant then you're just plain dumb or disingenuous. Take your pick.
There you go. You just lost the ignorance contest. I am about the farthest thing from a "Luddite" you are likely to find. I want to solve these real problems so that such technology can exist and be used in the real world.
That is not what you're doing at all. You are muddling and obfuscating the issue and trying to make it sound more complex, scary and unsolvable than it is. You're making unfair and unrealistic comparisons and sowing FUD, e.g. when you throw out the ridiculous "what if your kids were in the car?!" That shows you're not serious about examining, let alone solving any problems.
The scenario was an EXAMPLE of the kind of situations that can and do arise. It doesn't matter if they're "unlikely".
Sorry, but your scenario was ridiculously stupid. Of course it matters how unlikely the situation is. For every situation like you proposed there will be 10,000 times as many cases where another car is stopped in the road and it's at night or there's fog or the driver is inattentive and the self-driving car will save lives. There will 1,000 times as many cases where the head on collision is easily avoided because the car is not completely boxed in. Even if you do not put any extra clever coding the self-driving car will probably do better than a human driver. Once again, your example is stupid to be overly worried about.
But even if 1 in 1,000,000 driverless cars just spontaneously combusted and killed every passenger it would still be worth having them on the road if they saved 10,000 lives a year.
Getting hit by lightning is unlikely, too, but it happens an average of 51 times every year in the U.S.
So maybe you should start preaching about that instead.
The scenario was deliberately made to be an edge-case in order to illustrate a point. Several points, actually. But one of them is that when you're a programmer, like I am, you can't just leave such edge-cases alone and say "That will never happen." Because they do. It is people who are ignorant of how it actually works who think "it will never happen" is a real-world scenario.
However, if you're a programmer with a job you know that for almost every real world system you will not be able cover every single case and if you try to write special code for every single imaginable possibility that your code will unmaintainable and untestable. If you write solid simple code that covers the vast majority of cases that is often good enough to get the job done. In the scenario you outlined you don't have to write a headOnCollisionWhileBoxedInBetweenATruckAndCarWithTwoKids() routine. Most likely the normal collision avoidance algorithms would be better than the current alternatives: ideally it would detect the head on car far enough away that it can slow down to get behind one of the vehicles or even slow down to take the hit. You certainly could work on routines to rank objects by the expected cost of running into them, but doing that well is extremely low down the list. Not to mention that even 1 of the other 3 vehicles was also self-driving then this 1 in 1,000,000 accident would never happen in the first place.
Pointing out that MILF is not a nation is pretty much setting a new record for pointless commentary. If that is your goal, which it seems to be, then nicely done.
Of course, I read that first sentence and dismissed it because it was irrelevant. You "should have let it go" because you were wrong. I clearly quoted the assertion that I took issue with and your half-hearted non-apology for what you imagined I was referring to was a huge waste of time. Next time, try just saying "Oh, I get that now."
You were, indeed, being pedantic, obnoxious, and accurate.
I started off with just making a joke, but because YOU decided to join 00101010 in being pedantic, obnoxious and wrong in responding to a JOKE (you might recall a whooshing noise about that time), yes I decided that I might join you in your colossal waste of time but at least be correct, unlike the two of you.
BTW, google is a thing now and you can look up both MILFish and USian if you had a mind to.
And those people are held responsible for their fucked up mistakes.
Really, it's that simple? When there are multiple cars involved, a myriad of non-optimal decisions and a fatality results it's trivial just to put the blame on one particular person?
Who is responsible when the car makes a mistake. I sure as hell don't want to be financially responsible for some companies fuck up.
Then you must not be a driver, because you put your life in their hands every time you get behind the wheel. You can not just will your brakes not to fail or your engine not to turn off because of a faulty ignition.
This isn't about FUD its a legitimate question of insurance policy and law that will have to be addressed if autonomous vehicles are going to become commonplace.
Nobody says there aren't serious questions of insurance and law that need to be resolved (and which will evolve over time). That's a big part of what this article is about: rules and regulations, liability, etc. Where the FUD comes about is these absurd scenarios from ignorant commenters like this: OMG a car is coming right at you, do you kill the children or sacrifice yourself!!!! Ignoring that these cars, by the time they are widely deployed, will be far safer than human driven cars, not only in the vast majority of ordinary boring cases, but even in most of these extreme and incredibly rare scenarios that JQP imagines. That's FUD.
They are not unsolvable problems but neither can the be ignored by sticking ones head in the sand the way you clearly would like to do just because "omg self driving cars... COOL!"
The issue is that most of the "problems" that luddites like JQP throw out are already solved (better than human drivers) and they are just too dumb, ignorant or lazy to consider them.
I don't know, maybe there is a middle ground between sticking your head in the sand and screaming "OMG. Our cars are trying to kill us and nobody is stopping them. Won't somebody think of the children!" Just saying.