|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,916 Year: 4,173/9,624 Month: 1,044/974 Week: 3/368 Day: 3/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do you dare to search for pressure cooker now? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
I'm not ignorant of my rights. Nor am I intimidated by the people whose primary function is to protect my rights.
ringo writes:
People ignorant of their rights, a lot of people, are. I, for one, am certainly not intimidated by the police. Catholic Scientist writes:
I'm sure they do - and I'm sure they're accused of fucking people over ten times more often than they actually do it.
They do fuck people over, you know. Catholic Scientist writes:
Not the slightest bit. Are all Americans that timid? What about six guys in plain clothes with guns that some of start walking around the side of your house? Not the slightest bit of intimidation? I'd be curious. My first thought would be that they were looking for somebody lurking in my yard. If I asked them what they were doing I'd expect them to politely ask me to stay inside. If, as in the OP, they asked to look inside I'd gladly let them. I would expect them to tell me eventually what they were looking for. I don't see where timidity would cross my mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
He has the court system - or are you going to throw that out along with the police? The courts will often disregard any evidence which was obtained improperly. Even if you gave permission to search without a warrant you could deny it in court, claiming intimidation. Without the proper documentation the case for the prosecution would be considerably weakened. What acceptable recourse does the abused citizen have? Search warrants protect the state as much as they protect you.
ProtoTypical writes:
Until recently we had collective dumpsters. There was no distinction between "my" garbage and anybody else's. Even now that we have individual bins, it would never occur to me that garbage is private. What would you think if your neighbour came over and inspected your garbage? If you were looking through your neighbours garbage wouldn't you feel like you were invading their privacy? When you throw garbage in a public bin, do you have an expectation of privacy?
ProtoTypical writes:
It would be illegal. However, if I threw it in the garbage after reading it, it would be okay for my neighbour to read it.
What if a letter was inadvertently delivered to your mailbox. Would it be ok for you to read it? ProtoTypical writes:
It would be rude but "okay" in every other way.
Say you are dining out with a significant other. You are in a public place so would it be ok for me to come and join you and listen in to your conversation? ProtoTypical writes:
Certainly. Feel free. I'll email you my itinerary.
Is it ok for me to listen in to your conversation from across the room with my sound amplifying spy glasses? ProtoTypical writes:
You can try to. I wouldn't do anything onine that required security if I didn't feel secure. You had said earlier that you consider all of your internet activity to be public. Would that include your banking or shopping info. What about your credit card # or spending history or power use? All of your travel history. That is all online even if you didn't put it there. Is it ok for me to go and seek out that info? You can try to walk into my house and sit down on my couch and watch my DVDs and eat my chips too - but I lock my doors.
ProtoTypical writes:
I knowingly and willingly forfeited any right to privacy (beyond the security measures that I take myself) the moment I flipped the WiFi switch on my laptop. Anybody else's nervousness doesn't enter into it.
Now that you have searched for how to build your own hydrogen bomb should all of your personal information that has been stored electronically be open for scrutiny by the state? Do you forfeit any right to privacy if you have made someone nervous with your reading choices? ProtoTypical writes:
And my position is that there shouldn't be restrictions on either (with the possible exception of second-hand smoke considerations). But we're not talking about the right to possess something; we're talking about letting the police look to see if we possess something.
There are apparently some restrictions regarding the smoking of joints in police stations. There are no such restrictions regarding which books you are allowed to keep on your bookshelves. ProtoTypical writes:
Then in the case we're talking about there's no problem.
The problem comes when the laws that are being enforced are not the laws that you willingly subjected yourself to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
Dividing society into "us" and "them" is exactly what I'm preaching against. "We" are the ones demanding more police action to protect us from "them". If "we", the "law-abiding" majority, treat the police as oppressors we're the ones who are instigating the oppression of "them".
I wasn't talking about you. But you're good, so fuck everyone else, eh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
We're not talking about "working around" the system. As I've said, that would not stand up in court. Absolutely, the system protects everyone and that is why nobody should be trying to work around it. On the contrary, if you force the police to "work to rule" you're putting an unnecessary strain on the rules - and probably an unwise confidence in the perfection of the rules. I'm suggesting that when the police work according to the spirit of the law instead of the letter of the law they'll be less oppressive, not more.
ProtoTypical writes:
Precedent. Letters have always been private; billboards have not.
Why is it that a folded piece of paper can exceed the privacy offered by the best encryption in the world? ProtoTypical writes:
Profound.
ringo writes:
Bullshit. ProtoTypical writes:
Certainly. Feel free. I'll email you my itinerary. Is it ok for me to listen in to your conversation from across the room with my sound amplifying spy glasses? ProtoTypical writes:
No, the point is that I protect my own privacy. I don't expect the state to do it for me.
The point is that you expect privacy. ProtoTypical writes:
The operative word in my sentence isn't "looking"; it's "letting". If we let them look at things that don't matter, they're less lkely to think we're hiding things that do matter.
ringo writes:
Why should the police be looking to see if we possess something that it is legal to possess? we're talking about letting the police look to see if we possess something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
No, that was me separating myself from your description of "them". I don't believe "they" are as timid or ignorant as you portray them.
When I talked about people being ignorant of their rights and being intimidated by the police, your response was "well I'm not ignorant and I'm not intimidated". That was you immediately separating yourself from "them". Catholic Scientist writes:
Or take MADD or SADD.
We have corporations lobbying the government to pass laws that the citizens do not want. Take SOPA, for example. Catholic Scientist writes:
They are not "walking all over us". You do not live in a police state. And if we don't call out their oppression, then they're gonna keep walking all over us. Yes, there are some bad cops. The solution to that is to improve our screening procedures and our training procedures. We do have systems in place to weed out the ones who fall through the cracks. If you marginalize the police, treat them like enemies, dehumanize them, you're only giving them an excuse to entrench the bad behaviour.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
The whole concept of society is based on giving up individual rights in favour of collective security and collective convenience in general. The reason we have police in the first place is to protect society from individuals. The ultimate individual right is the right to be a criminal.
By protecting the individual's rights we protect society. ProtoTypical writes:
What's dated is the ability to extend the protection. It used to be possible to protect yourself from danger by just running away but bows and arrows made that form of protection obsolete. The spirit of the law demands that the protection be extended to all private communications.The letter of the law is dated and fails to do that. Sometimes you lose something and you can't turn back the clock to get it back.
ProtoTypical writes:
We weren't taking about objections. I object to you wearing that orange sweater but even you probably wouldn't enshrine that objection in law. I do object to your rudeness but I don't wish to prevent you from being rude. I guess that I cannot say how you value your privacy but everyone I know would object to having a conversation that they thought was private being listened to by some uninvited third party. If I want something to be private then I keep it damn well private. If I'm concerned with electronic eavesdropping, I keep it inside my own skull. If you can get it out of there, more power to you.
ProtoTypical writes:
How far do you want the state to go? I would at least expect the state to lend a hand in safeguarding my privacy and it should certainly not be the state that I have to guard against. Around here, we have people who go through garbage bins looking for cans and bottles to recycle. Should the state be throwing them in prison for violating our privacy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rahvin writes:
I got a notice in the mail that there's another piece of mail waiting for me at the local substation. All I have to do to pick it up is present photo ID. The spirit of the same law that guarantees privacy in regular snail-mail through the postal service would seem to apply to email - at least to a reasonable person. I don't have photo ID. My mail is so private that even I can't see it. On the other hand, I can send somebody else to pick it up as long as he has photo ID. The Post Office, which represents "the state", is fiddling with my privacy in ways that would have been hard to predict. I'd be further ahead if they just thumbtacked the thing to my front door where the whole world can see it. (That's assuming that I even want to see it. I don't know if I want to see it because it's so private that I don't know what it is.) Edited by ringo, : Spelang. Thrice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
Tell that to the bees.
It is true that society requires an investment from it's members but societies only work because they benefit the individual. ProtoTypical writes:
You're oversimplifying the definition of "benefit". Like the bees, many members of our society willingly sacrifice themselves, including their lives, for the greater good. You don't get to decide whether letting the police search my house is a benefit to me.
Society works because there is a net gain for the individual and that is why they willingly contribute. ProtoTypical writes:
I told you I was representing the fascist position in this discussion.
You see now that is damn near fascism right there. The ideological start of it anyway. ProtoTypical writes:
On the contrary, the basic unit of humanity is society. Individuals have only obligations to society. They have only the rights that society confers on them. Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals and has no rights of it own. Only obligations. See? I'm also representing the socialist position. Go ahead, call me an ideologue.
ProtoTypical writes:
It shouldn't be. Laws should be based on harm or imminent potential for harm, not on "affronts". Otherwise we'd have laws against ugly sweaters.
The fact that you find the behaviour rude or offensive is the basis for it's being against the law or being recognized as an affront. ProtoTypical writes:
You're mistaking whom the "enemy" is. Even if the NSA "shouldn't" listen in, you can't trust the people you're communicating with not to rat you out to the NSA. Communication by its very nature is never private. At best it's a conspiracy and conspiracies are notoriously fragile.
There is no way that I can compete with the NSA regarding the privacy of my communications. ProtoTypical writes:
The biggest threat to your privacy is you.
ringo writes:
I just want them to not be the biggest threat to my privacy. How far do you want the state to go?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
The state is us. We (society) decide what we will ask us to do.
You are welcome to sacrifice your rights as you see fit. The state, however, should not even be asking you to.... ProtoTypical writes:
No man is an island - i.e. no human is a unit. Children can't even develop without social interaction.
The basic unit of humanity is a human. ProtoTypical writes:
Yes, that's the feudal system but we've moved beyond that. In a democracy, we decide which rights we will grant each other - i.e. which ones are worth defending.
People have the rights that they claim and that they can defend. ProtoTypica writes:
But you are not the supreme arbiter of what is "reasonable". Society is.
My point is that the affront that some feel to their security from my web searches is far less reasonable than the affront that I feel by their looking at my web searches. ProtoTypical writes:
The information belongs to whomever either of the parties gives it to.
There is no similarity between intercepting a private communication and one of the parties betraying the privacy of a communication. The information belongs to the two parties involved and not to any third party. ProtoTypcal writes:
Once again, that is not your call.
Being afraid of what we are talking about or reading is not a legitimate reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholi Scientist writes:
Don't run away. Explain how SOPA is different from SADD and MADD and then we can address SOPA. And then we can address SADD and MADD.
Nah, let's stick with SOPA. Do you care to address the point? Catholic Scientist writes:
You're the one who needs to get out more. That is definiely not an indication of a police state.
ringo writes:
Yeah, you just get a team of six cops visiting your house if you Google the wrong things. They are not "walking all over us". You do not live in a police state.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
I did address your point. If you don't care to address my address I'll wave goodbye as you run away.
Well if you don't care to address my point then I'll just stop replying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Catholic Scientist writes:
That's a safety device, like a fire extinguisher. And you'll get shot to death if you freak out drive around all crazy, even if you have your 1 year old child in the car with you In a police state, they make house calls to wake you up and shoot you. The service is better but the protection is lacking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
We are society. In a democracy, we are the government. Without constant defense of a right against the encroachment of government and society, even in those most disagreeable instances, then that "right" is nothing but platitude. We have met the enemy and he is us. We must defend ourselves against the encroachment of ourselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
Washington D.C. has had a Juvenile Curfew Act since 1995. Apparently it applies to second childhoods too.
Here's some Vietnam vets getting arrested for refusing to leave the NYC memorial:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024