>From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <email@example.com>
>Zero Powers wrote:
> > I don't foresee transparency getting to the point that it is legal for
> > old men to leer at people while they are in various states of undress
> > the privacy of their own homes. Perverts will be perverts, but I can't
> > their behavior ever getting the sanction of law.
>Whats all this about it being against the law Zero? I thought you don't
>anyone has a right to privacy, so it CAN"T be against the law, by
I said you donít have a right to privacy *in public*. I never said you
donít have a right to privacy in your bedroom.
> > Sure, once tiny and powerful surveillance technology is in the hands of
> > masses we will all be vulnerable to the inquisitive and prurient
> > of our neighbors. But the same tech that threatens us will also be
> > protect us. It is, of course, a double edged sword. So you watched me
> > lounging in the nude last night? Well guess what? Someone watched you,
> > watching me and now *you're* going to jail. Nyah, nyah.
>Not everyone can watch everyone else all the time. Those who do unpleasant
>things or are unpleasant people will likely be watched much less than the
>pleasant people will be watched by unpleasant people. Thus it is only a
>that such people will be watched at any given time.
People, for the foreseeable future, will break the law. We canít stop
people from shooting and killing innocent people on the streets. We will
probably not be able to keep ďunpleasantĒ people from doing unpleasant
things with surveillance technology. But I donít think we should relinquish
surveillance tech any more than you think we should relinquish firearms.
> > >Good morning Jim.. we all saw you materbating on camera last night..
> > >this is not good for our corporate image, your terminated.
> > 1. You broke the law by spying on me while I was, er, "massaging"
>What law is that? If there is a law against violating a person's privacy,
>what are all these cameras for? Using your logic, if there is a law
>your privacy, then there is no need for cameras that violate your privacy.
First, the cameras exist. Second, the cameras are getting smaller and
better all the time. The only way to stop that is to criminalize the
development, possession or use of small surveillance tech. What are the
cameras for? Because people want them. I canít wait until there is a
camera unobtrusive enough that I can comfortably wear it and with enough
available storage that I can record my entire day, and every conversation
and transaction I make. I want it for *me*. I have a feeling Iím not the
Just because we have nifty tech, though, doesnít mean that laws prohibiting
illegal behavior governing the use of that tech will be repealed. So, let
me turn the tables on you. Using *your* logic, since there *are* laws
prohibiting things like hiding cameras in dressing rooms and posting the
video on the net, we should destroy all video cameras and dismantle the
> > 2. Firing me for doing things on my own time which are not illegal is
> > against the law. So now, I will wait til the $billion IPO and sue the
> > bejesus out of the company for invasion of privacy, wrongful
> > intentional infliction of emotional distress and any number of federal
> > rights violations and...job? I don't need no stinkin' job! Thanks a
> > boss!!
>Firing you is only illegal if you have not signed a contract to that
>With ubiquitous surveillance, employers, government bureaucracies, and
>parties will all mandate that their top people sign contracts that they
>engage in un-PC behavior. Once the public sees how well such clauses keep
>Willy and his kind in check, such requirements will spread to more and more
>occupations, just as drug tests have done. Violating that contract, even on
>own time, means termination.
The courts have held that firing someone for legal off-work activity is a
violation of their civil rights and contrary to public policy. You would be
foolish to agree to give your employer the right to violate your civil
rights, and even if you did, the contract would be probably void as against
> > >Hey George.. we should have Insta-patented that idea we discused last
> > >over a few beers.. Suzie has just stolen the whole deal.
> > Yeah Bob, but good thing for us our whole conversation was recorded, as
> > as the fact that Suzie was listening in. All we have to do is submit
> > data to the Patent Office and her patent never gets issued. Or better
> > we could just sit back and see if the idea actually works. If so, we
> > wait til the $billion IPO and sue the bejesus out of her for
> > with prospective business advantage, unfair competition,
> > trade secrets, commercial espionage and...idea? We don't need no
> > idea! Thanks a bunch Suzie!!
>If there is no privacy, then there is no misappropriation. Your ideas are
>domain as soon as they leave your brain. Heck, I'll bet once surveillance
>to not work well on detering crime, you'll want to put mind taps on people.
Personally I think it would be a boon to society if all expressed ideas were
public domain. If that were the case there would be no way for Suzie to
patent Bob and Georgeís idea in the first place, right? Then it would come
down to who was able to best implement the idea. But since there is so much
money in proprietary intellectual property, I donít see the public domain
scenario being implemented anytime soon. As long as there is legally
protectable intellectual property, it will be illegal to misappropriate
other peopleís trade secrets.
> > >Knock Knock. hello!!! We noticed YOU use this non biodegradable
> > >please have a free sample of our green friendly tampon !
> > Hey thanks! It's free *and* green? Just what I was looking for. I'm
> > really glad you were able to anticipate my needs like that! Sure beats
> > days when I had to go the the market and hunt up and down the aisle for
> > the right kind of widget.
>If you go back to use those bad tampons after your free sample is used up
>will be publicly excoriated for not being sensitive to the environment.
So? Some people are publicly excoriated for getting abortions, or wearing
fur, or being gay, or being black. That is not a surveillance problem.
That is a societal problem. Yet it hasnít stopped people from getting
abortions or wearing fur or being gay or being black (er, except Michael
> > >Damnit I'm sick of never getting a "date" because my penis is too
> > >Why cant they get to know me first!
> > Would you really be interested in someone who would not date you because
> > that? Would you really be interested in someone who would *break the
> > and violate your privacy to find that out about you? If you are that
> > desperate, chances are you would never get a date no matter how big you
>Tell me, who do you think attracts more women? Pee-Wee Herman or Woody
Have no idea. None of the women Iíve had relationships with would be
interested in either.
"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:12:21 MDT