One day we will all happily be implanted with microchips, and our every move will be monitored. The technology exists; the only barrier is society's resistance to the loss of privacy


more (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1165705809111&call_pageid=968867495754)

I have an intersection in Stockton. Ben Holt and Pacific.

Not only is it monitored with film cameras(speed trap cameras).

It is monitored with video as well.

And people want it to be like that. Americans want cameras on every corner of every street.

George Orwell was short sighted, in that matter. If the People want surveillance, and it requested by the People, there is nothing that you or I can do about it, SF.

Besides changing the opinions of the People. And privacy advocates are not really do a great job of that, right now.

It is monitored with video as well.

And people want it to be like that. Americans want cameras on every corner of every street.Only in crime-ridden areas, where it helps reduce crime. It's not as if you have (or should have) any expectation of visual or aural privacy when you're walking on a public street.

It's also very different from microchip implantation, and please, spare me the libertarian slippery slope arguments.

Like all things, chipping can be abused; however if implemented correctly, it can offer a lot of benefits. RFID has been talked to death on this board already, so I don't really want to start up another conversation on that, but while RFID technology is still riddled with security concerns, just imagine what might happen in the future should those concerns be completely addressed, or (more likely) a better technology is born. I agree with the general tone of the article, I don't think we're there yet technology-wise, but I do think that there are a lot of benefits associated with the idea.

Just think of how nice it would be if you didn't have to carry around your ID, credit cards, or keys with you everywhere you went.

Only in crime-ridden areas, where it helps reduce crime. It's not as if you have (or should have) any expectation of visual or aural privacy when you're walking on a public street.

It's also very different from microchip implantation, and please, spare me the libertarian slippery slope arguments.

It is not a crime ridden area.

It is like 2 blocks from where Alex G Spanos has his house in Stockton.

I am tired of slippery slope arguments, myself, and pretty much have given up on them. They don't work, on people like to go sledding. I have pretty much have given up on most of you people, actually.

It makes little sense to rail against government oppression, when the vast populace keeps asking for its own shackles.

I am tired of slippery slope arguments, myself, and pretty much have given up on them. They don't work, on people like to go sledding. I have pretty much have given up on most of you people, actually.

It makes little sense to rail against government oppression, when the vast populace keeps asking for its own shackles.Are slippery slopes the only ammunition in the libertarians' argumentative arsenal? No wonder your party's following is pitifully small.

Slippery slopes are logical fallacies; you can turn any issue into a slippery slope. It's much like the "prove the negative" tactic of the religious zealots. That's why neither is convincing to any reasonably intelligent person.

Instead of slippery slopes and blanket statements, why don't you try explaining why a video camera in a crime-ridden area (or just an intersection) is akin to government oppression, and how it will adversely affect the average citizen's life. Not some hypothetical Orwellian scenario, but the actual facts.

Are slippery slopes the only ammunition in the libertarians' argumentative arsenal? No wonder your party's following is pitifully small.
I don't belong to a party.

Slippery slopes are logical fallacies; you can turn any issue into a slippery slope.
Incrementalism happens, even if you ignore that it does.

For example, the sales tax in California has risen from 6% in the beginning of my memory to 8 percent now. Virtually every tax enacted, has slowly crept up in the amount that it takes, after inception. And every lost freedom now, is just justification for taking another in the future. "Man, if they can afford 1.5% and don't squawk about this temporary tax to fix stuff for earthquakes, we should just bump it up a few and make it permanent".

Motor cycle helmet laws spurred bicycle helmet laws. You think that they are directly causative, or think that I say that they are, but you could not have had bicycle helmet laws without motor cycle helmet laws before them. They laid the ground work and precedence for them.

It's much like the "prove the negative" tactic of the religious zealots. That's why neither is convincing to any reasonably intelligent person.
Not really.

Instead of slippery slopes and blanket statements, why don't you try explaining why a video camera in a crime-ridden area (or just an intersection) is akin to government oppression, and how it will adversely affect the average citizen's life. Not some hypothetical Orwellian scenario, but the actual facts.
I already told you why they don't work. People want the security instead of freedom, that is simple, but evidential.

They like the idea that a camera can just take a picture of an offender, and then have a computer just send out a bill, and then have a computer collect on the bill. Without an officer, or a court, or a judge getting in the way of the process. It makes perfect sense to do it this way.

And when this goes on for a year or two, they will just buy more cameras with the fines that they already collected, for no one is squawking now; which means that people like this, they want it to happen.

There is nothing hypothetical about it, it is happening right now, before your very eyes. And it happens because people want it to happen.

Crimes happen in private, in privacy.

It just makes sense for most Americans to remove privacy, to make crimes harder to commit.

It's not like you really even need privacy, really.

In a generation, it will make complete rational sense to implant chips into people to monitor them. It will make them safer, and feel safer.

People will ask for it, even.

Incrementalism happens, even if you ignore that it does.But when it reaches a threshold, we don't allow it go any further. We don't have a 50% sales tax, even though California's legislators would love to enact one. They couldn't do it even if they passed 0.25% increases every year, because eventually, we wouldn't allow it.

Your threshold may come long before mine, but there is, undeniably, a threshold out there, and that's why slippery slope arguments fail.I already told you why they don't work. People want the security instead of freedom, that is simple, but evidential.To an extent. These aren't black and white concepts, but decisions which balance freedom versus convenience or safety. Even you, a libertarian anarchist, voluntary give up a multitude of freedoms for the sake of living in a convenient society. Total freedom (anarchy) and no freedom (totalitarianism) are both bad.

The rest of us also balance. We don't just blindly accept any denial of freedom because it's only a little bit more than yesterday's denial of freedom.

If a camera on one street corner turns out to work well and not intrude on our lives, we'll probably agree to another, and another. The only reason we won't agree to cameras everywhere at once is because we aren't sure whether it will be a good idea. So we take it slowly. But rest assured, the minute it does intrude on our lives, we'll put a stop to it.

You are a man who wants to make Crisco and margarine illegal.

I am sure that at one time, the idea of making food illegal, was silly and absurd to you. There has to be a time in your life, when you were younger, where the idea of making food illegal might have been out of the realm of your imagination even.

But something has changed. Your opinion has changed. And there are plenty of people now, who share your opinion. Enough people to actually start legislating food(beyond just warnings). And when food warnings and labels were first started, there were critics at the time who said, "This is a slippery slope, first you put warnings, next you will want to start making them illegal." And those critics were drowned out at the time, and given assurances, "Naaw, we would never make foods illegal, that is just absurd. Your slippery slope idea of yours just does not add up, it never happens."

And then the next thing you know, you find the concept of making foods, Crisco and margarine, illegal a great idea. Your threshold theory is null, because the thresholds(of what are rational and reasonable) are being moved.

Your rationale for making food illegal, your reasoning may not even come from food labeling. It may stem from another slippery slope. Drugs. 100 years ago most drugs illegal today were not illegal. When the first people got the notion to take Cocaine out of elixers and soda, there were plenty of critics who said, well if you make this stuff illegal, next thing you know, you will want to make foods illegal too. Hemp is a natural plant, but in 1935, we made it illegal to sell without a stamp and a tax. Seems reasonable and all. Its not like we are going to make it totally illegal.

And then the next step, well if you can make it illegal to sell it, then it makes perfect sense to make it illegal to buy it. And then you do, because for everyone is is a reasonable thing to do.

And then in 1970, we even pass the Controlled Substance Act. Most states already have many of these drugs illegal. We have a huge bureaucracy set up just to make natural chemicals illegal, so happens it is the same agency which regulates foods. It is completely rational now for many people, to just protect society, and make foods illegal.

No, slippery slopes are not logical fallacies, as you say. They happen. The Marijuana Stamp act of 1935 or the Control Substances Act of 1970 have no actual causation on you thinking that Crisco should be illegal. But you would not have gotten here, without those there before. It is not a logical concept.

I can tell you now, well if you make Crisco illegal now, that the next thing you will want to do is make other foods illegal, foods which NOW like and think are safe. You will ignore the idea, say slippery slopes don't happen, they don't exist. But you are wrong, history has proven you already wrong. Make Crisco illegal now, and there will be foods in the future that we will make illegal, for it will be reasonable to us. We will say, "Well, just look at Crisco and margarines, they were bad for you, so we made them illegal." We will say, "This food is just as bad as trans fats are, we should make it illegal too." And we will make it illegal. /shrug

At one time, certainly in 1948, the idea of cameras on every corner, and in every public building, was a scary thought. Today we expect it, and we want more of them.

I bet you even Swiftfox would agree with that, considering his past stance on the surveillance images of the plane flying into the Pentagon. I bet you that he would prefer that there were more cameras that day. Or that they were recording faster than 4 frames per second. Even Swiftfox wants more cameras, I bet(for his own reasons, of course). And that is why, I introduced the topic of cameras from my very first post in this thread.

It is rather a good idea that people have microchips implanted in them. Which contain all their records. Family diseases, STDs, HIV, income and credit information, criminal records, tracking component. And everyone has a reader who wants one. Meet some cute chick in the park and are thinking to ask her out, scan her, and find out she has Herpes and her mother was a schitzophrenic. You pass on the pass, because she is not really a great candidate as a breeder, and everything is nice and safe and cozy. And every one is happy and secure.

Nobody really needs privacy, unless they want to do something harmful anyway. Privacy is just another way of lying.

Swiftfox, what exactly is it that you want to do in private anyway? Trying to get away with something illegal perhaps, or just harmful to the rest of us, I would say.

I am sure that at one time, the idea of making food illegal, was silly and absurd to you. There has to be a time in your life, when you were younger, where the idea of making food illegal might have been out of the realm of your imagination even.

Selling poisons and toxins to people under the guise of food has always been illegal. We now ban other harmful foods that are detrimental to our health as well. It has never been outside our imagination.

Alcohol was determined to be detrimental to our health, and even made illegal at one point. But somewhere down the line we said it was ok again. Now alcohol is only detrimental enough to slap a warning label on. Maybe trans fats will be reduced to that state as well, "Warning, this product may make you less fat than lard, but will probably kill you with cancer."

All you have to remember is that governments will do only what the people will let them do. However, I believe you are right. People want to be monitored for their safety. Eventually, someone will take advantage of that monitoring in a way we don't like but we won't see it coming because we refuse to see it coming. Yea, that makes me a paranoid fool, but I am still me.

Its called a slippery slope argument if its something you don't agree with.

Its called logical prevention if its something you do agree with.

On the other hand, you can darn well bet not everyone will be allowed to have a chip reader. It is best handled by a responsible party like the government. We all know the government is impeccibly responsible.

Maybe trans fats will be reduced to that state as well, "Warning, this product may make you less fat than lard, but will probably kill you with cancer."

Compare it to dangerous pesticides say, not alcohol.

My argument against implanted microchips would be to consider a case where we had the chips and everyone had access to the information. Would everyone be happy if their parents, their children, their spouse, their neighbours, their boss at work, and all their friends could see where they were all the time? I'd guess the answer would be no. We know the reasons. We just like our privacy. Those same reasons scale up and show why faceless government officials shouldn't track our movements either.

LOL, I sure as hell don't want more cameras.

If I wanna tug my unit watching japanese midget **** I don't need the government watching. ;)

Actualy Here's where its already getting out of control. I work for a company with fleet vehicles. I am pretty good at my job and as such I earn a good amount of free time. I don't want more work. What I found out is my friend in the company has talked senior managment into secretly putting a GPS tracker into a couple vehicles and then will compare them to what the driver said they did all day on their work sheet. So yeah, I guess its cause I want to be able to lie. I don't want the shackles of slavery to get tighter, I don't mind working for a living but I don't want them to make it hell.

That video where the phone operator tells that feller he cant order a pizza cause he's got high cholesteral isn't that out to lunch.

Re: Anka -

The chips wouldn't have to be set to broadcast, that's just a current implementation suggestion. Instead you could have a system where you'd have to "palm" a station in order to make the chip active. Yeah, you could track someone by following the usage, but technically the credit card companies can do that already. No, the information is not public, but it is there and it is sometimes used in law enforcement.

You are a man who wants to make Crisco and margarine illegal.

I am sure that at one time, the idea of making food illegal, was silly and absurd to you.I want to make toxins illegal, not the foods. The "food" can be reformulated without the toxin. At no time in my life was the concept of making dangerous toxins illegal silly or absurd.And then the next thing you know, you find the concept of making foods, Crisco and margarine, illegal a great idea. Your threshold theory is null, because the thresholds(of what are rational and reasonable) are being moved.The threshold moves most often when the facts change, not the opinions.I can tell you now, well if you make Crisco illegal now, that the next thing you will want to do is make other foods illegal, foods which NOW like and think are safe.If the foods which we now think are safe turn out not to be safe, then yes, we will consider making them illegal, or at least the harmful substances in them illegal.

That will be because the facts have changed, not our opinions on making food illegal.

In the 1940s and 50s, we had posters saying "DDT is good for me-e-e! (http://www.whale.to/a/ddt.html)" We don't anymore. Not because of "incrementalism" or slippery slopes, but because we learned it was unsafe. Had the public known in 1945 what we know today, the posters would never have existed. Simple mistake of fact.At one time, certainly in 1948, the idea of cameras on every corner, and in every public building, was a scary thought.Was it?

The chips wouldn't have to be set to broadcast, that's just a current implementation suggestion. Instead you could have a system where you'd have to "palm" a station in order to make the chip active. Yeah, you could track someone by following the usage, but technically the credit card companies can do that already. No, the information is not public, but it is there and it is sometimes used in law enforcement.

But what are the reasons why you wouldn't want a spouse, a friend, or a work colleague to know where you are at any time? One simple answer is that you don't always agree with them, you don't want to always be following their lifestyle, you want privacy to do things your own way without their interference or judgement. That argument scales up very nicely as the reason why we don't want the government or any law enforcement to stop us living our lives in the way we want without their interference (within reason).

There's no need to consider the reality of everyone tracking everyone else's movements. We only need to consider the implications to understand how invasive other people can be, even if they're well intentioned.

Voluntary chipping for whatever reasons people want, you can't stop that. It's a free country. If people want to get surgically altered to look like cats and lizards, and we let them walk around loose, you certainly can't argue with a chip.

On the other hand,

Making microchipping mandatory for otherwise law-abiding American citizens for ANYTHING (say, buying and selling of goods, services, and financial transactions) will result in mass killings of anyone foolish enough to try mandating a chip into every American arm (or right hand. . or forehead. . hmm that sounds familar)

So chipping slippery slopes, slide, slide away! Just remember if the slope ever touches bottom (i.e. mandatory chipping) there's a .45 ACP Black Talon waiting for those that would force otherwise law-abiding American citizens to get a microchip implanted. (We'll let the ACLU gnaw on chipping convicts or not)

Selling poisons and toxins to people under the guise of food has always been illegal. We now ban other harmful foods that are detrimental to our health as well. It has never been outside our imagination.

Well for authoritarians it has never been, of course. But I was referring to right minded individuals.

Everything is a toxin, it's just a matter of dosage.
Water and oxygen are both toxins, in the right amount.
I had two patients last summer who had water intoxication, and it was very detrimental to their health; with the increased intra cranial pressure I am sure that there was neurological damage even.

Sugar can be toxic to a diabetic, are you going to make sugar illegal too? I am sure that you will want to try sometime, if not now, then in the future.

I want to make toxins illegal, not the foods. The "food" can be reformulated without the toxin.
Any substance is a toxin, in the right dose.

Crisco can not be reformulated, because to solidify vegetable oil(at room temperature) you have to bend the C-H chains with hydrogenation. I have not seen a workaround for this; other than using palm or coconut oils(and I remember a health problem with too, just not exactly what it is). Which is not a reformulation, but only a substitution.

At no time in my life was the concept of making dangerous toxins illegal silly or absurd.
Foods. The idea of making different types of foods illegal, is a very new notion.

The threshold moves most often when the facts change, not the opinions.If the foods which we now think are safe turn out not to be safe, then yes, we will consider making them illegal, or at least the harmful substances in them illegal.
Most of what you call facts are really opinions. There are very few real facts, and when they are real facts, they are hardly even mentionable. All of what we are talking about here are merely opinions. Which will change again, just like bran preventing cancer, just like eggs causing heart disease, etc.

That will be because the facts have changed, not our opinions on making food illegal.
True facts don't change. Opinions do. You only need a tide of change of opinion to make things illegal. Very very infrequently, does an opinion make something that was illegal, legal again. 21st Amendment, Plan B going OTC are rare things.

In the 1940s and 50s, we had posters saying "DDT is good for me-e-e! (http://www.whale.to/a/ddt.html)" We don't anymore.
DDT is good in certain circumstances. Depends on your point of view, though. If you are concerned with Third World overpopulation, it makes better sense to outlaw DDT there, and let people die of malaria(serves them right for breeding uncontrolled).

Not because of "incrementalism" or slippery slopes, but because we learned it was unsafe. Had the public known in 1945 what we know today, the posters would never have existed.
No, we just convinced enough people that it was unsafe, and then changed their opinion to make whatever illegal.

Simple mistake of fact.
Difference of opinion, is not really a mistake of fact.

Was it?
Well it was enough to affect the collective consciousness of millions of people for decades. Today people want Big Brother, they even want to be on a TV show called Big Brother. Orwell's vision was predicated on the idea that we really don't want that kind of watching on us, or maybe that was his real point, that at one time in the future that we WOULD want that kind of oversight. People today seem to want all this government intrusion in their lives. Serves them right, I hate most of them anyways, they deserve it.

Voluntary chipping for whatever reasons people want, you can't stop that.....there's a .45 ACP Black Talon waiting for those that would force otherwise law-abiding American citizens to get a microchip implanted. (We'll let the ACLU gnaw on chipping convicts or not)

It would start slow of course.

Most likely with children.
It might even become mandatory before entering Kindergarten.
And will be sold as a way to help them keep safe from predators, or whatever.

Or it may even be sold as a way to prevent Identity Theft.

Until everyone has one.
And then you need one to drive.
Or collect some welfare check.
Or open a bank account, or use a credit card.
Then need one to get a job.

Now, it will be sold to you in a slow and reasonable manner to you, just like Tudamorf outlined.

And you will want it and like at the time. And you think this is so much more reasonable now, how did those barbarians do all these things back in the 2000's....Brutes!

Crisco can not be reformulated, because to solidify vegetable oil(at room temperature) you have to bend the C-H chains with hydrogenation.That's why you use fully (and naturally) hydrogenated oils. There are plenty of trans fat free shortening brands out there. The same product, the same uses, just without the toxin.Foods. The idea of making different types of foods illegal, is a very new notion.We are not making a food illegal. We are making an ingredient illegal. An unnatural, chemically produced ingredient. An ingredient which can be easily substituted with another ingredient.

It's no different than banning drug ingredient X in favor of drug ingredient Y when X is shown to be too dangerous.No, we just convinced enough people that it was unsafe, and then changed their opinion to make whatever illegal.The public did not know the objective dangers of DDT. It's not as if they knew, but felt it wasn't important enough to justify banning it. Had they known, they would have called for a ban early on. It's a mistake of fact.Well it was enough to affect the collective consciousness of millions of people for decades.Orwell's book was not about cameras in public areas. It was about extreme totalitarianism through monitoring of private areas and even thoughts and manipulation of media and the public.

A public video camera is no different than a public security guard. I doubt anyone would have cared back then more than they do today.

I guess you are right.

One of the biggest fallacies that Libertarians actually do have is that people are not stupid and are smart enough to make up their own minds, to think, and choose for themselves.

Libertarians are definitely wrong about that one.


Time to just switch to Mustapha Mond's point of view, instead of John Savage's.

But what are the reasons why you wouldn't want a spouse, a friend, or a work colleague to know where you are at any time? One simple answer is that you don't always agree with them, you don't want to always be following their lifestyle, you want privacy to do things your own way without their interference or judgement. That argument scales up very nicely as the reason why we don't want the government or any law enforcement to stop us living our lives in the way we want without their interference (within reason).

There's no need to consider the reality of everyone tracking everyone else's movements. We only need to consider the implications to understand how invasive other people can be, even if they're well intentioned.
I still don't understand where you're getting the assumption that any information on where you are/what you're doing will automatically be made public should chipping be made a common practice. Right to privacy laws would still apply even if something like this did take place, so it's not like everyone who gets chipped would automatically get thrown onto some massive Google Maps with a little red dot over your head :texla:

I'm sure it'll be there as an option, and yeah, to borrow a line from Fyyr, maybe even for a "Do it for the children!" safety measure for parents of young kids, but yes, even with just the fit that America would have with chipping in the first place, I can't see the citizens all standing up and saying "Ok!" to being tracked 24/7 on some <i>public</i> database.

I still don't understand where you're getting the assumption that any information on where you are/what you're doing will automatically be made public should chipping be made a common practice.

I'm not assuming that. That extreme is not going to become a reality. I am suggesting though that you consider the hypothetical situation, consider the reasons why you wouldn't like that situation, then consider if those ethical reasons would also apply to a real scenario of authority based monitoring.

Authority based monitoring has always been in a reality, and its even been "upgraded" as technology progressed. Whether it was from the King's riders patrolling the lands and collecting taxes, or the forcibly tattooed criminals or ex-military, or more recently the social security numbers, drivers licenses, state IDs, credit cards, passports, or whatnot. Yes, it will become harder and harder to live off the grid, but I guess it'll be up to society in general at the time to decide if the benefits outweigh the consequences.

Are slippery slopes the only ammunition in the libertarians' argumentative arsenal? No wonder your party's following is pitifully small.

Slippery slopes are logical fallacies; you can turn any issue into a slippery slope. It's much like the "prove the negative" tactic of the religious zealots. That's why neither is convincing to any reasonably intelligent person.

Instead of slippery slopes and blanket statements, why don't you try explaining why a video camera in a crime-ridden area (or just an intersection) is akin to government oppression, and how it will adversely affect the average citizen's life. Not some hypothetical Orwellian scenario, but the actual facts.

Because the camera doesn't go into crime ridden areas. It goes into black areas...or white areas bordering on black area's.

If they were going to put cameras in crime ridden area's, every corporate boardroom in America would have cameras.

Its bull****, it shouldn't be permitted, and ****ing assholes like yourself are why our nation is going to hell. You claim slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies, while ignoring the fact that we're already well on our way down the slope. The slippery slope started a long time ago, and every time one of you ****tards make the arguement that we don't actually have any privacy anyways, so we might as well just give it all up, you simply prove that the slippery slope argument was valid.

Because the camera doesn't go into crime ridden areas. It goes into black areas...or white areas bordering on black area's.Finally, someone answers the question without merely philosophizing.

But what if the cameras actually are placed only in those areas that are statistically crime-ridden?

Also, what privacy right are you losing by installation of a public camera? People can already take pictures of you in public.

One of the biggest fallacies that Libertarians actually do have is that people are not stupid and are smart enough to make up their own minds, to think, and choose for themselves.And one of libertarians' biggest fallacies is that they believe every loss of freedom of is necessarily bad, and every grant of freedom is necessarily good.

Instead of slippery slopes and blanket statements, why don't you try explaining why a video camera in a crime-ridden area (or just an intersection) is akin to government oppression, and how it will adversely affect the average citizen's life.

What if a government agency monitored the entrants to an abortion clinic and then took action to persuade the individuals not to have an abortion? Would it depend upon how much action is taken or is it right/wrong anyway? This is a contempory example of government morality and personal freedoms clashing. There will be other examples in our future.

Finally, someone answers the question without merely philosophizing.

But what if the cameras actually are placed only in those areas that are statistically crime-ridden?

Also, what privacy right are you losing by installation of a public camera? People can already take pictures of you in public.

Because public monitoring can be abused. From the theocratic mechanizations of a bible-beating suburb to track and follow godless souls who go to Planned Parenthood...or simply are out shopping on Sunday, to the corrupt police monitor who uses the camera's to track the movements of specific women before he rapes thems during opportune moments when it will be safe.

Because the Government doesn't need to track what the people are doing, it doesn't help, it only instills fear of the government and an quashing of free speech and association when those same camera's are used to track who was at such and such rally against such and such governmental program.

And, yes, the philosophical issues surrounding public cameras are every bit as important as theoretical practical issues. Even if someone magically found a way to remove the taint of corrupt humanity from the monitoring process...it ignores the fact that our society and nation was supposedly premised on the concept that the Government should have limited powers, and that the people should be able to carry on their lives without monitoring or interference until such time as their actions prove to be an overwhelming infringment on the rights of others.

And one of libertarians' biggest fallacies is that they believe every loss of freedom of is necessarily bad, and every grant of freedom is necessarily good.

And part of the fascists greatest dangers is their belief that the loss of freedoms to promote further power of the government is beneficial to society as a whole.

And one of libertarians' biggest fallacies is that they believe every loss of freedom of is necessarily bad, and every grant of freedom is necessarily good.

Double plus good goodthink, brother Tudamorf.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Crimespeak is oldthink!

Double plus good goodthink, brother Tudamorf.Yes, if you don't like one extreme, you must necessarily take the opposite extreme. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

If we gave our military the freedom to now go to your house and torture you, I guess that would be a good thing too.

What if a government agency monitored the entrants to an abortion clinic and then took action to persuade the individuals not to have an abortion?The problem there isn't the monitoring per se, but the actions taken based on the monitoring. We'd have the same problem if a government official stood at the door, doing the same thing.

Because public monitoring can be abused.Any technology can be abused; that doesn't mean that we must necessarily abandon it. Governments can be abusive and corrupt even without technology. Our goal shouldn't be the removal of technology, but the formation of a free and fair government without corruption.Because the Government doesn't need to track what the people are doing, it doesn't help, it only instills fear of the government and an quashing of free speech and association when those same camera's are used to track who was at such and such rally against such and such governmental program.Well, monitoring an area is a lot different than tracking individuals. I suppose if you have cameras covering every square meter of public space, and foolproof recognition software, it could be the same thing, but that's not what we're talking about here.

The problem there isn't the monitoring per se, but the actions taken based on the monitoring.

Yes exactly. The actions taken based on the monitoring will be the problem. What are you wanting us to say? People will have their souls stolen by the cameras maybe?

Yes, if you don't like one extreme, you must necessarily take the opposite extreme.

If we gave our military the freedom to now go to your house and torture you, I guess that would be a good thing too

The libertarians (and some conservatives) don't believe that every freedom is a good thing, and any restriction is a bad thing.

The key is that restricting the government's ability to restrict the freedoms of its citizens is always a good thing. Keeping in mind the "Yelling Fire in a theater" test, of course.

There is an unknown line that laws of the kind mentioned above would tread. This line is not identifiable, not quantifiable, but yet is there, nonetheless. If that line is ever crossed, lethal revolution will result. You can only push any populace so far. And you can push the American populace even less than most, as we are most used to the most freedom offered anywhere in the world.

If mandatory chipping ever begins, the sponsors of such a mandate should find dark holes to cower in. This is the power of the Constitution's 2nd amendment. The most egregious examples of violations of personal privacy and freedom will not happen in the USA as long as we have ammunition and firearms, and collectively decide enough is enough.

Sure, we pay an awful price for that protection by increased numbers of random shootings, since all can own guns, but it's a price you have to pay to keep the government within certain limits. All national governments only understand one thing: Power. And all power ultimately descends from the potential ability to inflict violence, which is might. As long as the American people bear arms, the true might lies in the hands of the people, if they have the will and determination to use it.

The government should always fear the people, not the people fear the government. If you had no ultimate recourse (firearms) to preventing the enforcement of unjust laws, tyranny would be inevitable.

Keeping in mind the "Yelling Fire in a theater" test, of course.What is that test, exactly? If the harm prevented by installing cameras in high crime areas is greater than the harm prevented by not letting you yell fire in a theater, does the law pass your test?If that line is ever crossed, lethal revolution will result. You can only push any populace so far. And you can push the American populace even less than most, as we are most used to the most freedom offered anywhere in the world.Well if you ask Fyyr, all that is irrelevant, because we'll like the restriction on our freedom, like Winston ultimately loving Big Brother.

Though I partly agree with you: that line will always remain, as a check on governmental intrusion, and that's why the slippery slope arguments fail.

Well if you ask Fyyr, all that is irrelevant, because we'll like the restriction on our freedom, like Winston ultimately loving Big Brother.
Yup.

As you can see, some of us(or you) already do.

Just strap the rat cage on now, and get it over with, already.

Remember remember the fifth of November....

The problem there isn't the monitoring per se, but the actions taken based on the monitoring. We'd have the same problem if a government official stood at the door, doing the same thing.

The problem is the monitoring.

Once you open the door to permit monitoring...that door will not close again and nothing the people do to rein in the abuses of the government will help. The government will track where people go, who they meet, who they speak with, etc. etc. etc.

Any technology can be abused; that doesn't mean that we must necessarily abandon it. Governments can be abusive and corrupt even without technology. Our goal shouldn't be the removal of technology, but the formation of a free and fair government without corruption.

No, because technology who's sole purpose is to make it easier for the government to monitor and abuse the lives of its citizenry is technology which should never be given even an inkling of contemplation.

Well, monitoring an area is a lot different than tracking individuals. I suppose if you have cameras covering every square meter of public space, and foolproof recognition software, it could be the same thing, but that's not what we're talking about here.

We would be the biggest fools on this green earth to presume that because the technology is lacking the capabilities now, it will never be capable of tracking people or facial recognition, or any number of other odious tasks which current technology does not allow. Once that Pandora's box is open...people like yourself will ensure it is never closed and within this coming century we will live in a police state where your every activity is monitored. It will be done to protect the children, stop crime, and catch terrorists...

What is that test, exactly? If the harm prevented by installing cameras in high crime areas is greater than the harm prevented by not letting you yell fire in a theater, does the law pass your test?

The standard is that your rights do not necessarily permit you to place other people in immediate danger. Your right to speech does not permit you to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Your right to free expression of religion does not permit you human sacrifice, torture, or bondage.

However, in no way does a person's right to privacy and anonymity pose a direct risk to anyone.

Well if you ask Fyyr, all that is irrelevant, because we'll like the restriction on our freedom, like Winston ultimately loving Big Brother.Though I partly agree with you: that line will always remain, as a check on governmental intrusion, and that's why the slippery slope arguments fail.


Will that line always remain? You, who are a proponent of this enhanced government surveillance of her own citizens, also promote gun control and argue that there is no reason for individual American's to be permitted to own guns...besides, I would rather not have to stage a revolution. It is much preferable to nip such insideous growths in the bud.

Tangentially, I find my opinion regarding the Transfat ban in NYC has changed.

People are still permitted to use them themselves, for their own cooking, from what I understand. It is simply that restraraunts are no longer permitted to use them. I see nothing wrong with it. They are harmful and people have no real means of determining if a restaraunt is or is not using transfat.

However, in no way does a person's right to privacy and anonymity pose a direct risk to anyone.It does if they're committing a crime in private, or anonymously.No, because technology who's sole purpose is to make it easier for the government to monitor and abuse the lives of its citizenry is technology which should never be given even an inkling of contemplation.Like identification documents, phone usage records, Internet usage records, licenses, credit card records, bank records, tax records, satellites, and so on? We would be unable to function as we do today without surveillance technology.

Will that line always remain?

In America it will, because they will never get us to give up our guns. We may only have pistols and rifles, but if large masses of people begin rising up, the military will fragment. It's already happened in this country, about 150 years ago.

Depending on the oppressive nature of the law in question, it can happen again.

I would rather not have to stage a revolution. It is much preferable to nip such insideous growths in the bud.

I agree here. I'm a lazy patriot. I like my computer, games, music, groceries, clean water, showers every day, and all the convienence of the modern life. If you revolt, quite obviously, you have to give all that up to drop off the government's radar long enough to start taking them out when they least expect it.

Another reason for keeping cash. There needs to be a potential for revolution to keep the government in check. Cashless would make it virtually impossible for any resistance to organize beyond a certain level. And the founders wrote that concept into the Constitution, that of a potential revolution always hanging over the heads of the politicans.

And if you nip it in the bud, you save lives, because you never let it progress to the "Give me liberty, or give me death!" stage.

If potential for evil is all Tudamorf needs to restrict the rights of US Citizens then he is essentially saying that all rights descend from the government, to be handed out or taken away at the government's whim. This is not so. Fyyr has argued in a previous thread that only the rights you are willing to fight for exist, which is not entirely so. Rights can be oppressed for a time, but the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, in that order, can only be suppressed, never taken. They come from an unimpeachable, unassailable Creator. This concept, too, was written into our founding documents, regardless of the pitiful retcon attempts to excise US History.

It does if they're committing a crime in private, or anonymously.

No, for the privacy an anonymity is not the proximate cause, but the illegal action thereof.

This is why I loathe drunk driving laws, because the thought process behind those shows themselves in situations like this as well "Because having privacy and anonymity might possibly permit someone to be dangerous, we must ban them!"

The slope is indeed slippery and we started down it years ago. We need to dig in our heels and bring it to a stop, not sit there pushing it along faster.

Like identification documents, phone usage records, Internet usage records, licenses, credit card records, bank records, tax records, satellites, and so on? We would be unable to function as we do today without surveillance technology.

The government should never issue nor demand identification documents. Nor should they maintain phone usage records or internet usage records, indeed, noone should maintain such records unless ordered to do so by a court, not even the private industries. Licenses are for those things which are not rights and should be held to a minimum of information. Tax records should also be limited to amount of income and amount owed. Satellites we can't do much about other than enforce the Constiutional protections which forbid the government from using those satellites to spy upon US citizens. Surveillance technology needs to be controlled, must like Kyllo v United States forbade the use of thermal imaging in police investigations. Just because the tech has other legitimate uses (and thermal imaging does, fire rescue being one instance), does not mean the Government has, or should be permitted, full reign to use it as it sees fit.

In America it will, because they will never get us to give up our guns.

There are significant Tudamorf's in this nation that they will continue to try mightily to do so. The great hypocracy on Tuda's part is, he's long been a proponent of outright gun bans, and yet he then attempts to use the 2nd Amendment as justification for further governmental intrusion, suggesting we can always revolt if we don't like it.

We may only have pistols and rifles, but if large masses of people begin rising up, the military will fragment. It's already happened in this country, about 150 years ago.

Fortunately, the US military are made up of everyday people. Can you really see the Ohio National Guard obeying federal orders in such a situation? Or Texas, or Wyoming? Hell Montana's national guard would all defect from the Feds en masse just for the hell of it.