eugene Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 i don't think i that ever implied that those values aren't important, you really need to work on you reading comprehension, it's not the first time. im studying sociology so i kinda feel obligated to also question many things besides government, the fact that i'm using some gvmnt-friendly reasoning lines doesn't mean i believe anything it tells me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 all of those "personal responsibility" causes for accidents can be reduced with the help of technological means if you use some imagination, and it's nothing futuristic really. (save for distraction maybe, can't think of anything to prevent it atm) i haven't really started arguing anything about how the wiretapping should be implemented yet, for now i'm simply coming against this religious attitude towards civil liberties and constitution and such. Really? drunk driving? drowsiness? speeding (if you build a car which has computer controls, they can be overridden)? aggressive driving? what tech would you use to reduce those incidences that doesn't impinge on a responsible person's control over the car? Can you foresee an incident where until we have fully automated roadways (which means car and roads working together) a driver might need to exert sudden changes on his driving environment? Wiretapping is already implemented in a perfectly reasonable manner (although I'm sure Robbie will disagree) - the FBI/local PD goes to a judge, provides evidence that a wiretap is required and either they have enough evidence or the judge says come back. Reduction of civil liberties is never to be encouraged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Wiretapping when gone through the legal protocols, i am fine with. If someone has legitimate probable cause for a crime being committed i'm ok with that. Of course there are aspects of the law like drug trafficking and dealing that they spend way too much energy on in wire tap cases. on top of the normal legal requirements for wire tapping, there have been several court decisions since 9/11 that say that the police can 'wiretap' you in other ways without requiring previous authorization from a judge. A cop can put a GPS tracker on your vehicle without your knowledge without prior authorization from a higher authority simply for 'probable cause'. There are many more things like this now that i cant remember off the top of my head. If you now travel through airport security and have your cellphone and laptop seized, even for a couple of hours, Homeland security has the authorization to literally clone all of your data and check it out later to assess if you are a threat for their databases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 all of those "personal responsibility" causes for accidents can be reduced with the help of technological means if you use some imagination, and it's nothing futuristic really. (save for distraction maybe, can't think of anything to prevent it atm) i haven't really started arguing anything about how the wiretapping should be implemented yet, for now i'm simply coming against this religious attitude towards civil liberties and constitution and such. Really? drunk driving? drowsiness? speeding (if you build a car which has computer controls, they can be overridden)? aggressive driving? what tech would you use to reduce those incidences that doesn't impinge on a responsible person's control over the car? Can you foresee an incident where until we have fully automated roadways (which means car and roads working together) a driver might need to exert sudden changes on his driving environment? Wiretapping is already implemented in a perfectly reasonable manner (although I'm sure Robbie will disagree) - the FBI/local PD goes to a judge, provides evidence that a wiretap is required and either they have enough evidence or the judge says come back. Reduction of civil liberties is never to be encouraged. a car and its behavior on the road is a traceable thing, it can send information to some enforcement center in case it behaves erratically or in any way that endangers someone. surely if there's more accurate info about shitty/drunk/crazy drivers it'll help to prevent accidents. i can brainstorm more if you wish. are the current levels of crime and terror reasonable ? is it possible that more surveillance will help make it even more reasonable at a reasonable cost of privacy ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 i don't think i that ever implied that those values aren't important, you really need to work on you reading comprehension, it's not the first time. actually you have, many times over the course of the last 3 years on this forum. I have a very good memory, don't need to use the search function to confirm that you have continually apologized on behalf of Israeli and american methods of 'fighting terror' by circumventing the already existing laws on the books. Don't try and rewrite history, you've shown your stripes repeatedly. the only 'new' trick you use is detaching yourself from the specifics of the issue instead taking a more philosophical/sociological approach... more often than not, the result is exactly the same, apologizing. the blind spot a lot of people seem to have when discussing these laws (eugene included) is that a lot of the surveillance technology is intended to give off a chilling effect to the public at large. From my research a lot of these draconian measures do not make it easier to catch real criminals. Take the jon turley speech where he talks about consulting for a security firm that wanted to put cameras on every public school bus. He told the person that he was consulting with to basically fuck off, that he doesnt agree with the idea, the guy responded with 'oh no, you have the wrong idea, we're not putting tapes in any of these cameras, we just want the kids to think we are' . Essentially using the chilling effect as a method of control. To me this is the core of the issue, that the more surveillance we are, the less we will act like our natural selves.. And yeah i'm going to quote the Avengers here, but Loki is right, humans crave subjugation, it's been a theme running through out the entirety human civilization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 all of those "personal responsibility" causes for accidents can be reduced with the help of technological means if you use some imagination, and it's nothing futuristic really. (save for distraction maybe, can't think of anything to prevent it atm) i haven't really started arguing anything about how the wiretapping should be implemented yet, for now i'm simply coming against this religious attitude towards civil liberties and constitution and such. Really? drunk driving? drowsiness? speeding (if you build a car which has computer controls, they can be overridden)? aggressive driving? what tech would you use to reduce those incidences that doesn't impinge on a responsible person's control over the car? Can you foresee an incident where until we have fully automated roadways (which means car and roads working together) a driver might need to exert sudden changes on his driving environment? Wiretapping is already implemented in a perfectly reasonable manner (although I'm sure Robbie will disagree) - the FBI/local PD goes to a judge, provides evidence that a wiretap is required and either they have enough evidence or the judge says come back. Reduction of civil liberties is never to be encouraged. Just use your imagination. Throw some sensors into a car registering eye-movements, or registering the direction of the car with respect to the road, for instance. And give some feedback to the driver by using some tomtom kind of solution for instance. Surely people could think of more examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 i don't think i that ever implied that those values aren't important, you really need to work on you reading comprehension, it's not the first time. actually you have, many times over the course of the last 3 years on this forum. I have a very good memory, don't need to use the search function to confirm that you have continually apologized on behalf of Israeli and american methods of 'fighting terror' by circumventing the already existing laws on the books. Don't try and rewrite history, you've shown your stripes repeatedly. I see people are not allowed to change their views? Opinions are static indeed. What's your opinion on Osama Bin Laden nowadays, btw? Just kidding ;p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 i don't think i that ever implied that those values aren't important, you really need to work on you reading comprehension, it's not the first time. actually you have, many times over the course of the last 3 years on this forum. I have a very good memory, don't need to use the search function to confirm that you have continually apologized on behalf of Israeli and american methods of 'fighting terror' by circumventing the already existing laws on the books. Don't try and rewrite history, you've shown your stripes repeatedly. and how does that contradict the fact that i do value civil liberties ? i simply don't think that they are holy, there are instances where you must check your priorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Be careful eugene. He's keeping a file on you. Everything you've said in the past is being recorded. Call it freedom in the third person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 i don't think i that ever implied that those values aren't important, you really need to work on you reading comprehension, it's not the first time. actually you have, many times over the course of the last 3 years on this forum. I have a very good memory, don't need to use the search function to confirm that you have continually apologized on behalf of Israeli and american methods of 'fighting terror' by circumventing the already existing laws on the books. Don't try and rewrite history, you've shown your stripes repeatedly. and how does that contradict the fact that i do value civil liberties ? i simply don't think that they are holy, there are instances where you must check your priorities. that's a bit of a cop out argument though, what do you actually believe then about civil liberties in a country you do not live in? Ok you don't think they are 'holy' but you value them apparently. Why do you value them? I'm giving you the opportunity here to explain what aspects of civil liberties you find most important, i rarely hear you speak on this and i'd like to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 i also have similar liberties in israel, why do you want me to relate to usa ? i very much enjoy having those liberties, freedom of speech, right to privacy etc, i'd definitely feel worse if i didn't have that. i feel that they are essential to normal conduct of life as i see it. though there is room in getting all anthropological about this issue and finding some instances were limited freedom, but on the other hand, some religious or spiritual purpose makes people just as happy, i can't cite an example but it seems plausible enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 What is there to invalidate? Other than that the FBI is the law? My only claim was that the FBI are not the bad guys per se. Which you in a way confirmed by giving the Hoover example. So there. Everybody happy. edit.: or concerned groovy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 a car and its behavior on the road is a traceable thing, it can send information to some enforcement center in case it behaves erratically or in any way that endangers someone. surely if there's more accurate info about shitty/drunk/crazy drivers it'll help to prevent accidents. i can brainstorm more if you wish. are the current levels of crime and terror reasonable ? is it possible that more surveillance will help make it even more reasonable at a reasonable cost of privacy ? And if the sensor breaks? the wireless link drops out? person cannot afford to buy new car with sensors? Current levels of crime and terror reasonable? Such a loaded question. Obviously lower crime and lower terrorist attacks are better. But since there has been sufficient evidence provided that governments will abuse unchecked power (hell they abuse checked power), the return between increased unchecked monitoring and decrease in crime/terror is well past the point of optimal return and is now marginal. I'll give you a very pertinent example - imagine if, in the 1930s and 1940s, the German government had had unrestricted access to communication networks. Do you think the Polish uprising of 1943 would have been possible? What about the networks who hid jews during the holocaust? Now, let's say that I am a civil liberties activist in the US during the 1800s. The southern states governments have unlimited power to tap network communications. What do you think happens to the underground railroad? In the modern era, with the idea of civil liberties fairly established in the minds of most (although not all, clearly), what happens if I am a marijuana advocate in the US with this kind of wiretapping capability? Just use your imagination. Throw some sensors into a car registering eye-movements, or registering the direction of the car with respect to the road, for instance. And give some feedback to the driver by using some tomtom kind of solution for instance. Surely people could think of more examples. See above - sensors break, people can't afford new cars, wireless networks break down. How is the government going to enforce those things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 doesn't the gov already enforce yearly/mileage based car checkups in usa or canada ? or even simpler - if the sensors break the owner gets an sms to fix it because the center isn't receiving any data. but anyway, i don't really see where you are going with it..what if the brakes stop working ? they might, but generally they don't, same thing with many essential technologies. you don't really argue the actual benefit of such tech and get stuck on some minor details instead. keep in mind that i was speculating after all and maybe there are better ways, but if something like this is really beneficial in reducing accidents then it makes sense for it to be subsidized by the gov. those historical analogies and "slippery slope" style arguments just don't cut it imo, it's like asking what if you give evil power hungry people more power. in more recent times, is institutional abuse of power a rule or an exception ? i wasn't really participating in the discussion of how to implement such things but i'd definitely not want it to be unchecked anyway. regarding the ineffectiveness, it'd be nice to have some articles about it, i remember some stuff about uk's cctv not being effective but then it's a different thing altogether. you can easily imagine what'll happen if a weed activist gets busted by the fbi with the help of wiretapping - you'll hear of it in every liberally inclined blog/forum/facebook and whatever, it's like you said, some values are very well rooted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ego Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 In more recent times I'd be more wary of power hungry American institutions than of terrorist attacks. I also do not believe this will only be used for "national security". What's stopping the FBI from doing unwarranted surveillance for the media industries in a few years? Protecting people from their overreaching governments seems very important to me. An abusive state can have much more devastating effects than a few crazy terrorists. Why can't they just go through a judge? If they do not have a good reason to go through my mail, they shouldn't be doing it. What are they going to do? Do keyword searches on gmail? It doesn't make any sense to give them that power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 Historical precedent is only of the few strongest arguments as to why this proposed monitoring system is a horrible idea. I don't really think there needs to be more elucidation than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 those historical analogies and "slippery slope" style arguments just don't cut it imo. Yeah those slippery slope arguments don't really cut mustard the other way either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Enter a new display name Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 A wiretap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zaphod Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 i'm not even sure how we're defining "terror" at this point. the data on whether or not these kinds of measures actually work is vague and meaningless. i think it's very important to speak out against this kind of thing because exercising that right is really the only civil liberty you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 See above - sensors break, people can't afford new cars, wireless networks break down. How is the government going to enforce those things? Reduction of civil liberties is never to be encouraged. Chen, it's really simple. There's a couple of examples where the government already enforces certain things for the better of the people by reducing civil liberties: - wearing a helmet while on a motor - wearing seatbelts in a car - working lights on your vehicle which also match certain rules - having a drivers license - having traffic rules - having a law to have your car checked from time to time - keeping track of people which have broke some of the rules already mentioned (after x-points you can temporarily loose your drivers license, etc) Seriously, the list can go on and on. These are all rules which arguably reduce civil liberties for the better. And here in one case by storing information of individuals. Are we really having this discussion? It's clear that trust in government is unreasonably low. Big up to the republicans and the media. Their strategies really do work! Let's focus on the extremes and the absurd and whehey, government doesn't work.....yeah right. The joke's on you. And yes, sensors/lights do break and people don't always have the money to buy a new car. That's reality, isn't it? How government enforces those things? Example: how many cars are on the market without seatbelts? Without lights? Right, there aren't (in general). The government makes sure - within its means - that if people buy a car, it has lights and a seatbelt and what not. Sounds trivial, doesn't it? It should. That's government in action reducing civil liberties for a greater good. It's everywhere. And not all of it is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 What's stopping the FBI from doing unwarranted surveillance for the media industries in a few years? what's stopping a police officer from punching you in a face instead of giving you a speeding ticket if you did that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 1. Those are not examples of civil liberties. Civil liberties are not simply some libertarian fantasy of being able to do whatever the fuck one wants in a society. They have a fairly well understood definition. 2. The government creates those laws. It is powerless to enforce them, it can simply react to people who break the laws. Eugene's initial response was he expects the government to do everything they can to prevent accidents. So while the creation of laws is good in and of itself, if a person decides to flaunt those laws and then dies or causes fatalities as a result the regulation has had little impact. Looking at the data from the US: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx it's pretty easy to see that while there has been some decrease in the last 2 years for data available, fatalities remained remarkably consistent. So the conclusion we can reach here is that government efforts have little effect on the number of accidents. Now how you got from that to concluding that I think the government doesn't work (and we've had this argument in reverse regarding health care) is a huge strawman. I enjoy the benefits of a working government, and believe people have a moral and civic duty to contribute by paying taxes and acting responsibly within a given society. Now, to repeat - none of those incidences you listed above are civil liberties. However, the right to privacy and free speech are civil liberties (article 8 of your EU convention on human rights, somewhere in section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, first and fourth amendments of US bill of rights). Uncontrolled wiretapping is most certainly a breach of civil liberty and it is these restrictions to which I am referring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 So the conclusion we can reach here is that government efforts have little effect on the number of accidents. you're looking at the wrong rows, see National Rates: Fatalities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 So the conclusion we can reach here is that government efforts have little effect on the number of accidents. you're looking at the wrong rows, see National Rates: Fatalities Why? You asked to prevent accidents. The number of fatalities from accidents has remained essentially static. But ok, I'll humour you. From 1994 to 1996, the number of fatalities per 100,000 licensed drivers has decreased by 7. From 23 to 16. But the number of licensed drivers has gone up from 175,413,000 to 209,618,000. So again, the total number of fatalities has remained essentially static. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 are you trolling ? i thought you understood the meaning of rates as opposed to total numbers, decreasing rates mean the decrease of the phenomenon called traffic accident fatality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.