[modi123_1]

A similar case mentioned in the video just had a decision.. sort of.

Quote

May 9, 2012
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the controversial Illinois law prohibiting people from making audio recordings of police officers in public "likely violates" the First Amendment and ordered that Cook County prosecutors be prevented from enforcing it.
...
In January, the Department of Justice argued in a Maryland case that "the First Amendment protects the rights of private citizens to record police officers during the public discharge of their duties."

cite

[no2pencil]

Likely. Nothing ambiguous about that.

[h4nnib4l]

no2pencil, on 14 May 2012 - 09:18 PM, said:

That was the national guard, as already pointed out by ishkabible. Not the military.

The Marines and the Army were eventually involved as well.
Cite

This post has been edited by h4nnib4l: 14 May 2012 - 07:33 PM

[KYA]

Due to the Posse Comitatus Act, they cannot be used as law enforcement unless authorized by the Constitution or Congress [which it isn't]. However, in the event of rebellion, etc... martial law can be declared. Two different things.


In a nutshell, the military is not to bear arms inside the United States.


But there are distinctions when the Governor remains in control rather then federalizing it, etc... The National Guard exists for just such occasions.


Situations where the act does not apply:

*National Guard under the authority of the governor
*Troops used to quell domestic violence as was the case during the 1992 Los Angeles riots
*Troops used under the order of the President pursuant to the Insurrection Act
Under 18 U.S.C. § 831, the Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide emergency assistance if civilian law enforcement is inadequate to address certain types of threat involving the release of nuclear materials, such as potential use of a Nuclear or Radiological weapon. Such assistance may be by any personnel under the authority of the Department of Defense, provided such assistance does not adversely affect U.S. military preparedness

[h4nnib4l]

Right, I was responding more to the scenario that ishkabible was referring to. At a certain point of escalation, active duty troops will be brought in, and in the case of a violent revolution, they will most certainly be involved if the guard cannot control it.

[calvinthedestroyer]

What everyone needs to realize is that you ARE on CAMERA.

Look around you the next time you:

• go shopping
  
• buy gas
  
• run a red light
  
• go to work
  
• and visit a friends house

Try to count how many cameras you see. Even if you drive by my house, you'll be on camera. DO ANY OF THESE PLACES ASK FOR YOUR PERMISSION TO FILM YOU? NO.. The public has realized this and had to bend over and take it. The police have realized this too, but they are using their status to protect themselves from being caught on camera.

Granted, if you do come to my house you will see a sign that states "neighbor hood watch is in effect" so it's not like we didn't warn you.

[Choscura]

I may be the only one here to think this way, but I have absolutely no problem with spending my entire life on camera on the conditions that my actions are not judged for any unnecessary reason (ie, unless I commit a crime) and that the actions that are examined are judged with an understanding of human nature the way it is, rather than the way we wish it was.

[dorknexus]

the only reason people care about privacy in the first place is because their private information could be used to harm them in some way.

[jon.kiparsky]

dorknexus, on 15 May 2012 - 12:17 PM, said:

the only reason people care about privacy in the first place is because their private information could be used to harm them in some way.

That may be true of some people. It's certainly a pragmatic view. However, it's hopelessly simplistic and probably misleading when it comes to considering issues of privacy.

To begin with, one might take a more nuanced pragmatic view: I care about your privacy because privacy is only effective when everyone has it. (If I'm the only one using strong encryption, it's pretty obvious that I'm concerned about something, and it's relatively easy to focus resources on cracking it. If everyone is using encryption, even relatively weak encryption, we all have more privacy)
Another form of pragmatic view: I care about privacy because social change has often come about in conditions of danger from state forces (or, in the union struggles of the early 20th and late 19th century, non-state forces assisted by state forces), in circumstances where privacy either protected or would have protected the people engaged in improving the world. Since I want the world to improve, I want those people to have privacy. Since (as above) they can't just have privacy when they need it, I want them to have privacy all the time, by default. That means, I want privacy for myself.

There are other cases: I might be planning on benefitting from my private information, and only be able to benefit from it if I'm the only one who knows it. Or I might have a particular piece of private information that would do me no harm if known, but which I simply wish to keep to myself. For example, I might have a particular kink, legally and morally quite permissible, and not wish to discuss it with people I don't choose to discuss it with.
Even if everyone I know would approve, I might simply not want to talk about it with them. (Suppose my boss, far from disapproving, would approve very much, and then want to talk about nothing else, all the time, which I'd find annoying)

Could go on, obviously, but the point begins to be obvious. Missing these points means you don't understand the issues involved in privacy, and you won't make correct policy.

[ishkabible]

Quote

I may be the only one here to think this way

did you read my post(#6)? cuz I basicly agreed with you. You can film basically anything you want about me, you just can't show it to someone else without my permission unless it's evidence in a court case.

This post has been edited by ishkabible: 15 May 2012 - 11:09 AM

[lordofduct]

This is a topic I've been following for a long while now. I'm happy to see more and more news about it. I know several people who've been arrested and jailed for laws like this and laws similar to this in absurdity.

calvinthedestroyer, on 15 May 2012 - 02:16 AM, said:

What everyone needs to realize is that you ARE on CAMERA.

Look around you the next time you:

• go shopping
  
• buy gas
  
• run a red light
  
• go to work
  
• and visit a friends house

Try to count how many cameras you see. Even if you drive by my house, you'll be on camera. DO ANY OF THESE PLACES ASK FOR YOUR PERMISSION TO FILM YOU? NO.. The public has realized this and had to bend over and take it. The police have realized this too, but they are using their status to protect themselves from being caught on camera.

Granted, if you do come to my house you will see a sign that states "neighbor hood watch is in effect" so it's not like we didn't warn you.

I would like to point out that the laws in most all the states with these laws like Illinois and New Hampshire are actually "wire tapping" laws. The definition of which is the recording of AUDIO. There's very few 'imaging' laws out there, hence how stores, your personal home camera, PIs, etc get away with no audio recordings. With audio recordings in semi-public places like stores usually have giant signs at the entrance stating you'll be on audio/video recordings when entering the property.





As for the laws in reference. I believe they're complete and utter bullshit, and the reasons for which are pretty obvious.

I want to say though to Kilorn:

Quote

Anyone else remember the days when a cop told you, not asked you, to sit down and shut up that you actually did? We were once respectful of the authority that police officers have. What happened that respect? Did a few episodes with a few bad cops here and there really make so many of us go out of our way to make police officers' days harder? There are far too many people who question the authority of police officers claiming that they know their rights, and they seem to think they know the law better than the police. What happens when this continues to get worse and worse and one day not a single citizen respects the authority of police officers? What happens when a day comes when there aren't enough people who want to deal with the entitled little shits who seem to think they're above the law just because they've watched a few episodes of Law & Order on tv and we don't have enough cops to do the jobs that these brave men and women have to do every day? What happens to society when we lose the peacekeepers and the criminals continue their actions uninhibited because being a cop is more hassle and less money than it's worth?

I hope this is sarcastic. Officers do not inherently deserve my respect. Not because I know the law better than them, but because I believe respect should be given to those who return it.

To often have I been treated like a second class citizen by cops for no apparent reason. I've had cops pull guns on me, my friends, and my family when we've been un-armed, minding our own business, on our own property. I've been kicked, and beaten by cops with little to no communication as to why I'm even stopped. I've actually been blind side hit by a cop, smashed to the ground, and I started fighting back because I had NO IDEA it was a cop kicking me at the moment. What was I doing that was so heinous? Walking down the fucking sidewalk at sundown...

Do I think all cops are dicks? NO! Do I immediately spit at them upon meeting them? NO! I offer them neutral response, with polite normal speech, until they prove themselves as respectful or not. And if I get kicked in the gut because I don't fucking 'yes-sir' salute his fucking ass... that's not me being disrespectful... I just don't submit to fear tactics.



Some of you people may not know what this is like. You might grow up in places where cops are pretty cool. But not where I'm from. At the mere age of 9 years old I watched a cop flick a quarter at my 7 year old brother and tell him to "let your mama know she was good last night". My brother was just sitting in a sandbox minding his own business when this happened. Let's just say the cop was to embarrassed to charge my brother with assault after he climbed up on the cop and started beating him upside the head.




Now thankfully I'm smart enough to know that just because some cops are bad, that not all cops are bad, and this is why I don't immediately turn rabid at the sight of them. Instead I turn very scared and shakey... which doesn't help as they're usually all like, "what you scared about? You got something to hide?"... no I'm just afraid you're like the last cop and are going to kick my teeth in because I turned my head to fast.

Thing is I can empathize with those who do turn rabid. I have to fight hard not to. So those self entitled people you refer to Kilorn... they aren't that way because they feel like they know better. They're that way because they've been trained to hate cops. If a dog bites you ever time you see a dog, you might start thinking that all dogs bite.

And it's not the job of the person in fear to start fixing that. It's the job of the cop to STOP BITING... then maybe the afraid will stop being so terrified and reacting with strong emotion.

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 15 May 2012 - 11:27 AM

[modi123_1]

Quote

You can film basically anything you want about me, you just can't show it to someone else without my permission unless it's evidence in a court case.

Yes.. having your entire existence on storage somewhere with a stern warning to the people who have access to it to 'not peek' is a totally brilliant idea.

"No, no, no Mr. Senator... no peeking or I'll wag my finger at you!" because that is about as much weight you'll have if you rely on The System that is being exploited for your entire taped existence..

[dorknexus]

Quote

To begin with, one might take a more nuanced pragmatic view: I care about your privacy because privacy is only effective when everyone has it. (If I'm the only one using strong encryption, it's pretty obvious that I'm concerned about something, and it's relatively easy to focus resources on cracking it.

Why are they cracking into my encrypted data unless they mean me some form of harm? Just for fun? This assumes that there are people out there cracking into encrypted data which assumes that, most likely, there are people out there who want to do me harm.

Quote

Another form of pragmatic view: I care about privacy because social change has often come about in conditions of danger from state forces (or, in the union struggles of the early 20th and late 19th century, non-state forces assisted by state forces), in circumstances where privacy either protected or would have protected the people engaged in improving the world.

So, again, they were concerned about privacy because the information they were keeping private could have lead to them being harmed.

Quote

Even if everyone I know would approve, I might simply not want to talk about it with them. (Suppose my boss, far from disapproving, would approve very much, and then want to talk about nothing else, all the time, which I'd find annoying)

Again, you are keeping information private from your boss because he is going to talk your ear off about it and that's going to harm you in some way (productivity, sanity, etc.)

You just gave a bunch of examples of how people could be harmed/hurt/disadvantaged/inconvenienced if they didn't keep information private. If we lived in a world where nobody meant us harm then we wouldn't have a need for privacy (pragmatically speaking). Still awaiting a counterpoint on that one.

However, I would agree that the need for privacy goes beyond simple consequences in that it is probably some primitive human need. Privacy equates quite directly to safety which means that people may just want private information because it makes them feel more comfortable.

This post has been edited by dorknexus: 15 May 2012 - 11:32 AM

[lordofduct]

An extra thing I want to make clear after my wall-o-text that was a lot of cop hating.

I must repeat, I don't think all cops are bad. I've met several good cops, I've even been arrested by some good cops, and feel no hate towards them just doing their job (did you know that technically in some legal contexts arrested can just mean stopped by an officer). I even have a couple friends who grew up to become cops. This is why I say I don't immediately prejudge them... I'm lucky enough to have met several good cops.

But this is why I said cops don't 'inherently' deserve respect just because they're a cop. These cops I know who are cool, aren't cool because they're cops. They're cool people whose jobs are being cops.

[jon.kiparsky]

dorknexus, on 15 May 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

Why are they cracking into my encrypted data unless they mean me some form of harm? Just for fun?

Frequently, yes. I mean, the original hackers were just guys who liked opening up things that they weren't supposed to open up. And I suspect that this is still the motivation for a lot of hackers today, although clearly many of them pursue this into theft and other tangible violations.

Quote

So, again, they were concerned about privacy because the information they were keeping private could have lead to them being harmed.

I don't think that they were so much concerned about being harmed - if that were the concern, they would have just bowed out. They would have been concerned about their movements being harmed.

But the point is, I'm concerned about their safety because I think that they are bringing good to the world, not out of fear of some harm to myself.

Quote

Again, you are keeping information private from your boss because he is going to talk your ear off about it and that's going to harm you in some way (productivity, sanity, etc.)
You just gave a bunch of examples of how people could be harmed/hurt/disadvantaged/inconvenienced if they didn't keep information private. If we lived in a world where nobody meant us harm then we wouldn't have a need for privacy (pragmatically speaking). Still awaiting a counterpoint on that one.

If any circumstance which I prefer not to happen is "harm" to me, then sure, you're right by definition. However, with this sort of sophistical definition of "harm", anything that isn't my preferred outcome is "harm", and I don't think that's the way anyone views the world. Suppose I want to throw you a birthday party - I need privacy to pull this off, but the only one "harmed" by my failure would be you (assuming you'd enjoy a surprise party). However, if you're a sophist you can say that it's really my own ends that I'm serving, and what I'm really after is engineering your pleasure, ergo, I want privacy to prevent the harm of being deprived of your pleasure.

I think that's silliness, but it's pretty much where your arguments above lead.

But I think that these cases also don't get to the root of it. I think most people want privacy for its own sake. You wouldn't want to live in a big dorm full of people who love you and have your best interests at heart, if it meant you'd never be able to close a door or keep anything to yourself. You don't tell everyone everything you think, and that's often because you want to keep some of it to yourself.

I can offer you another case which might clarify things for you:
Someone who is madly in love with another person will often keep this private, despite being well aware that they are more likely to achieve their presumed ends by making the other person aware of this. That is, their privacy is contrary to their best interests, and yet they value their privacy to the point that, if you were to violate it by revealing this amorous state that they're in, anyone would consider it a gross and unpardonable violation. This is manifestly true, and impossible to reconcile with your "harm prevention" view of privacy.

If this example does not cure you of your misapprehension, I'm not sure that a cure is possible.