# Lifestyles & Discussion > Privacy & Data Security >  Now Disney Can Track Your Every Move with NSA-Style Wristbands

## CaseyJones

http://entertainment.time.com/2014/0...ds-theme-park/




> Families planning trips to one of Disneys theme parks can now get waterproof rubber wristbands embedded with computer chips in lieu of paper tickets. When scanned, the bands can act as a park entry ticket, a FastPass, a hotel room key and a credit card. The Magic Bands  which are currently optional  are part of a new MyMagic+ vacation management system that can track guests as they move throughout the park.
> 
> Efficient? Perhaps. But post-Snowden, some worry that Magic Bands are nothing more than NSA-esque tracking devices. The MyMagic+ system is designed to track users purchasing habits, and if parents agree to certain settings, employees playing characters in the park can use hidden sensors to track children and their information; so Goofy can walk up to a child and say something like, Hi Bobby. Happy birthday. Pretty creepy. Plus, others worry that someone might be able to hack your band and thus access your hotel room and credit card.
> 
> Massachusetts Rep Ed Markey publicly criticized the bands after they were announced last year, saying that he worried that the new tickets invade the privacy of millions of children. Disneys CEO, Bob Iger, responded by calling Markeys statements ludicrous and ill-informed.
> 
> Disney fanatics, for their part, cant wait to get their hands on the devices.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...mpaign_id=yhoo



> Gateway Drug:
> 
> The answer was on the electronic bands the couple wore on their wrists. That’s the magic of the MyMagic+, Walt Disney’s (DIS) $1 billion experiment in crowd control, data collection, and wearable technology that could change the way people play—and spend—at the Most Magical Place on Earth. If the system works, it could be copied not only by other theme parks but also by *museums, zoos, airports, and malls*. “It’s a complete game changer,” says Douglas Quinby, vice president for research at PhoCusWright, a travel consulting firm.

----------


## AlexAmore

I don't care about private usage. In fact I encourage private businesses to use advanced technology as they see fit for their businesses. The Boston bombers were caught because of private surveillance, it was a helpful argument for government being obsolete in the surveillance arena.

It's impossible to "invade" someone's privacy if they consented to it. It's an absolute joke of an argument. This tracking band technology could help lost children, abducted children, reduce insurance, increase profits, increase customer service and overall enjoyment.

*This has NO comparison to the NSA.* With that fallacious argument, I could call all guns "cop-style guns". Obviously just because cops use guns doesn't mean guns are bad. Tracking chips don't kill people, people kill people.

----------


## dannno

> I don't care about private usage. In fact I encourage private businesses to use advanced technology as they see fit for their businesses. The Boston bombers were caught because of private surveillance, it was a helpful argument for government being obsolete in the surveillance arena.
> 
> It's impossible to "invade" someone's privacy if they consented to it. It's an absolute joke of an argument. This tracking band technology could help lost children, abducted children, reduce insurance, increase profits, increase customer service and overall enjoyment.
> 
> *This has NO comparison to the NSA.* With that fallacious argument, I could call all guns "cop-style guns". Obviously just because cops use guns doesn't mean guns are bad. Tracking chips don't kill people, people kill people.


Well sure, but think of Disney as not only a test of the system which could later be implemented by the state as well as helping people to get comfortable using these types of devices.

----------


## Mini-Me

> I don't care about private usage. In fact I encourage private businesses to use advanced technology as they see fit for their businesses. The Boston bombers were caught because of private surveillance, it was a helpful argument for government being obsolete in the surveillance arena.
> 
> It's impossible to "invade" someone's privacy if they consented to it. It's an absolute joke of an argument. This tracking band technology could help lost children, abducted children, reduce insurance, increase profits, increase customer service and overall enjoyment.
> 
> *This has NO comparison to the NSA.* With that fallacious argument, I could call all guns "cop-style guns". Obviously just because cops use guns doesn't mean guns are bad. Tracking chips don't kill people, people kill people.


...yes, until so many private establishments use this that it's as ubiquitous and unavoidable as Google tracking, and all of the records are collated and entered into a central database, sold to third party advertisers you've never heard of, and - of course - accessed overtly or covertly by the government with impunity, regardless of what any laws say (because how could they resist?).  I'm not saying "there oughtta be a law," but it's a mistake to be enthusiastic about supporting this kind of stuff, because it can and will become part of the all-encompassing panopticon.

----------


## DamianTV

> I don't care about private usage. In fact I encourage private businesses to use advanced technology as they see fit for their businesses. The Boston bombers were caught because of private surveillance, it was a helpful argument for government being obsolete in the surveillance arena.
> 
> It's impossible to "invade" someone's privacy if they consented to it. It's an absolute joke of an argument. This tracking band technology could help lost children, abducted children, reduce insurance, increase profits, increase customer service and overall enjoyment.
> 
> *This has NO comparison to the NSA.* With that fallacious argument, I could call all guns "cop-style guns". Obviously just because cops use guns doesn't mean guns are bad. Tracking chips don't kill people, people kill people.


You know that the NSA gets much of its data from private companies, right?  After all, planning to crash airplanes into World Trade Center buildings is ALWAYS preceeded by "Im goin to Disneyland"!

Theyre not spying on terrorists, theyre spying on YOU.

Now, what happens when you live in a world where EVERYONE spies on you as much as the NSA?  Doesnt that make you think that you are trustworthy?  Doesnt that make you feel like youre not a resource to be data mined and harvested?

Three Felonies per day my friend.  Three Felonies per day.  See you in FEMA Camp.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Short sighted nonsense.

It is *precisely* this kind of thinking, that will permit this technology to become commonplace and unavoidable.

Why would government need the NSA anymore, once they have all the "private" data in their hands?

You don't care about privacy, whether encroached by the government or "private" megacorps?

Fine, go dance down 42nd Street waving your dick around all you want.

Leave me out of your Orwellian wetdreams.





> I don't care about private usage. In fact I encourage private businesses to use advanced technology as they see fit for their businesses. The Boston bombers were caught because of private surveillance, it was a helpful argument for government being obsolete in the surveillance arena.
> 
> It's impossible to "invade" someone's privacy if they consented to it. It's an absolute joke of an argument. This tracking band technology could help lost children, abducted children, reduce insurance, increase profits, increase customer service and overall enjoyment.
> 
> *This has NO comparison to the NSA.* With that fallacious argument, I could call all guns "cop-style guns". Obviously just because cops use guns doesn't mean guns are bad. Tracking chips don't kill people, people kill people.

----------


## Anti Federalist

"Private" company's technology can't invade your privacy and be used to ill intent?

Yah, tell that to the Jews and other "undesirables" tracked by IBM punch card systems in Nazi Germany.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Disney fanatics, for their part, can’t wait to get their hands on the devices.


And that's why we're just pissing in the wind here.

People *hate* freedom, they'll fall all over themselves to enslave themselves, just so long as they are fed and entertained.

----------


## malkusm

I'm with Alex on this. The privacy concerns stem from two sources here:

1. Government will get access to the data and use it to spy on you.
2. These practices will become so commonplace that it will be impossible to simply "take your business elsewhere."

Both are problems of public apathy - there should be protests when government is found to access this data without consent, and individuals who don't want this practice to become commonplace should stop patronizing the first adopters NOW, so that no one else feels compelled to follow.

But of course, in this regard we get the government we deserve - most people don't care even if the NSA does track their every move, which is disturbing.

Absent these societal / public apathy concerns, though, property rights reign supreme, and property owners should be able to monitor their property however they see fit, tracking devices included. Again, people should stand up and boycott the establishments if they object. 

The alternative is to have a law put in place to prevent these practices. And who would enact such a law? The same government that you are worried about spying on you? Surely, there would be no unintended consequences there.

----------


## AlexAmore

There's no perfect solution when government is involved and obviously you guys aren't advocating a law to prevent this.

The best we can do is let freedom take it's course and let the market decide. The market has anti-rfid wallets and pouches. The market will come out with advanced technologies to prevent spying as there is a demand for it. So businesses who want it can have it and the people can opt out.

We don't have any right to privacy. Are you entitled to privacy? Who's going to enforce that if you can't? You're entitled to it, so someone must.

In reality, you can make an individual claim to privacy and make choices to defend it. That's the best we've got, anything else is perverting society around your ideals.

----------


## Danke

> And that's why we're just pissing in the wind here.
> 
> People *hate* freedom, they'll fall all over themselves to enslave themselves, just so long as they are fed and entertained.


Extremists are already monitored and tracked.

----------


## malkusm

> We don't have any right to privacy. Are you entitled to privacy? Who's going to enforce that if you can't? You're entitled to it, so someone must.


Insofar as you do have a "right to privacy" you *certainly* don't while on someone else's property.

"Hi, I'm just going to walk around your property for a while. OMG you have cameras on your property!!! This is a violation of my rights!!"

----------


## Mini-Me

> Insofar as you do have a "right to privacy" you *certainly* don't while on someone else's property.
> 
> "Hi, I'm just going to walk around your property for a while. OMG you have cameras on your property!!! This is a violation of my rights!!"


True, but there's a limit to how far you can go before it violates free market protections against fraud (and perhaps stalking, if that violates the NAP in some way?).  For instance, what if you went over someone's house, and they didn't tell you about the toilet camera?  If that's not fair game, where do you draw the line?  Perhaps you can say people have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the bathroom, but can you justify that on purely libertarian grounds?  Either way the common interpretation is this does not apply outside the bathroom, where you can reasonably expect to be recorded from time to time...but is stalkerish 100% surveillance really the same thing?  *That is, assuming we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the bathroom, do we have a reasonable expectation of not being perpetually stalked outside of it?  Why or why not, given consistent libertarian justification for both cases?*

Of course, if public venues (owned by private companies of course) someday install urinal and toilet cameras and sell the footage to fetish porno sites or the government (for blackmail), you can bet they'll be protected by the small print specifying terms of consent.  "Informed consent" of course, just like with the lengthy power-tripping EULA's you (and people of less than 10% your intelligence) become desensitized to clicking through a dozen times a day without a lawyer to advise you.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Enjoy your brave new world.





> I'm with Alex on this. The privacy concerns stem from two sources here:
> 
> 1. Government will get access to the data and use it to spy on you.
> 2. These practices will become so commonplace that it will be impossible to simply "take your business elsewhere."
> 
> Both are problems of public apathy - there should be protests when government is found to access this data without consent, and individuals who don't want this practice to become commonplace should stop patronizing the first adopters NOW, so that no one else feels compelled to follow.
> 
> But of course, in this regard we get the government we deserve - most people don't care even if the NSA does track their every move, which is disturbing.
> 
> ...

----------


## malkusm

> True, but there's a limit to how far you can go before it violates free market protections against fraud (and perhaps stalking, if that violates the NAP in some way?).  For instance, what if you went over someone's house, and they didn't tell you about the toilet camera?  If that's not fair game, where do you draw the line?  Perhaps you can say people have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the bathroom.  This does not apply outside the bathroom, where you know you might be recorded from time to time...but is stalkerish 100% surveillance the same thing as?  *That is, do we have a reasonable expectation of not being perpetually stalked?*


I think it's fair to have protection laws against certain practices unless they are explicitly consented to. Posted privacy notices at the ticket office of Disney World would pass that test. But such laws shift the burden of proof from the guest to the property owner, and therefore, they would need to be carefully defined so as not to be overly broad. It's very easy to slip down the slope where you're into the territory of "no one may smoke in your establishment, *even if* you consent as the property owner."




> Of course, if public venues (owned by private companies of course) someday install urinal and toilet cameras and sell the footage to fetish porno sites or the government, you can bet they'll be protected by the small print specifying terms of consent.  "Informed consent" of course, just like with the EULA's you (and people of less than 10% your intelligence) become desensitized to clicking through a dozen times a day without a lawyer to advise you.


I can't emphasize enough here that *public venues/property are an altogether different matter*. I will always resist and oppose the use of surveillance on public property, as I think everyone should. The state should be impeded in its attempts to gather data in an organized manner in pretty much all instances.

----------


## Mini-Me

> I think it's fair to have protection laws against certain practices unless they are explicitly consented to. Posted privacy notices at the ticket office of Disney World would pass that test. But such laws shift the burden of proof from the guest to the property owner, and therefore, they would need to be carefully defined so as not to be overly broad. It's very easy to slip down the slope where you're into the territory of "no one may smoke in your establishment, *even if* you consent as the property owner."


There's indeed a slippery slope, and I don't really know the answer either.  I agree that practices far outside "reasonable expectations" would be fraudulent without due notice, and posted privacy notices can address this issue...but then we get into the EULA problem, where the list of abusive practices becomes so long that:
almost nobody even reads them anymorefew are intelligent enough to comprehend them anyway, especially in all their subtletiesmost people just pray they'll eventually be found unenforceablethe EULA authors KNOW nobody reads them and few couldthe EULA authors KNOW that virtually all consent is uninformed and people are praying they're unenforceablethe EULA authors KNOW society is so inundated with these agreements that it's impossible for people to get the legal assistance required to understand them, as if they'd even have enough time in the day to read what they're agreeing tothere is absolutely no "meeting of the minds" whatsoeverbased on this information, the EULA authors cynically increase the abuse and power-tripping to get away with more and more (which I personally believe brings promissory estoppel into the equation, because it's predicated on the author's recognition of the established knowledge that real-world consent isn't informed in the first place, no matter how much the agreements themselves purport to deny this)
I think this article is pretty important on the subject too: http://archive.mises.org/9923/the-li...rap-clickwrap/

So, once we arrive at the EULA problem regarding toilet cams and/or pervasive stalking, is there any objective way to draw the line from a libertarian point of view, aside from "anything goes?"  I just know I sure as hell don't want to live in a panopticon!   Just so I know where you're coming from, are you approaching this from a roughly Constitutionalist point of view, a libertarian minarchist point of view, or what?

I edited my post above to focus on questioning whether there's a libertarian justification against toilet cams (as a form of fraud or aggression) where you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy," and if so, whether that would apply to more constant and pervasive forms of stalking in places where that doesn't apply (and if so, why; if not, why not).  Perhaps a good first step would be analyzing whether stalking itself (in any of its forms) can be legitimately defined as aggression in a consistently libertarian sense, and if so, when and why.  Something tells me there HAVE to be situations where it qualifies.  Hopefully someone here might have some useful insights, because everything is too subjective without this kind of understanding, and it gives us little ground to stand on against even the most flagrant violations of human decency by "private companies."

EDIT: I'll move some findings to a new post...




> I can't emphasize enough here that *public venues/property are an altogether different matter*. I will always resist and oppose the use of surveillance on public property, as I think everyone should. The state should be impeded in its attempts to gather data in an organized manner in pretty much all instances.


To clarify, I really meant private property frequented by the public, e.g. stores, theme parks, that kind of thing.  Since we're the people talking about privatizing a whole lot of stuff (in a non-fascist manner that is, unlike usual), publicly owned venues would become fewer if we had our way anyway.

----------


## Anti Federalist

That's what I would have said, were I not so worn down, sick, and tired of watching this unfold on a daily basis.

*Without the ability to freely come and go, in privacy and anonymity, then you have, and will never have, any semblance of freedom.*





> True, but there's a limit to how far you can go before it violates free market protections against fraud (and perhaps stalking, if that violates the NAP in some way?).  For instance, what if you went over someone's house, and they didn't tell you about the toilet camera?  If that's not fair game, where do you draw the line?  Perhaps you can say people have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the bathroom, but can you justify that on purely libertarian grounds?  Either way the common interpretation is this does not apply outside the bathroom, where you can reasonably expect to be recorded from time to time...but is stalkerish 100% surveillance really the same thing?  *That is, assuming we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the bathroom, do we have a reasonable expectation of not being perpetually stalked outside of it?  Why or why not, given consistent libertarian justification for both cases?*
> 
> Of course, if public venues (owned by private companies of course) someday install urinal and toilet cameras and sell the footage to fetish porno sites or the government (for blackmail), you can bet they'll be protected by the small print specifying terms of consent.  "Informed consent" of course, just like with the lengthy power-tripping EULA's you (and people of less than 10% your intelligence) become desensitized to clicking through a dozen times a day without a lawyer to advise you.

----------


## donnay

These bracelets do nothing more than acclimate people to be tracked a traced.  

Katherine Albrecht has been warning people of this for about 15 years.





> Katherine Albrecht, a longtime consumer privacy advocate and co-author of the 2005 book Spychips, said MyMagic+ seems more appropriate for lab rats than Mouseketeers. She expressed deep concerns for the broader implications of the worlds largest "family entertainment" company normalizing RFID technology in the eyes of young people, and she worried that MyMagic+ was only the first step toward a surveillance society that will ultimately invade every aspect of our lives.
> 
> Theyre basically conditioning young children to wear tracking devices, Albrecht said. Well, one day these kids will be lawyers and doctors, and theyll grow up thinking its completely normal to have their whereabouts tracked and their behavior monitored.


http://www.ibtimes.com/disney-worlds...vocate-1001790

----------


## DamianTV

> There's no perfect solution when government is involved and obviously you guys aren't advocating a law to prevent this.
> 
> The best we can do is let freedom take it's course and let the market decide. The market has anti-rfid wallets and pouches. The market will come out with advanced technologies to prevent spying as there is a demand for it. So businesses who want it can have it and the people can opt out.
> 
> We don't have any right to privacy. Are you entitled to privacy? Who's going to enforce that if you can't? You're entitled to it, so someone must.
> 
> In reality, you can make an individual claim to privacy and make choices to defend it. That's the best we've got, anything else is perverting society around your ideals.


How can a free market exist if the Govt is paying Disney for access to all their data?  Paying with money they just "print up"?  A free market solution would work, but everything we have in place prevents the existence of a free market and any corrections that would result from one.

---

Edit:

Being Jewish is not a crime.  But collecting that type of information effectively turned the Jews into criminals that cost many their lives.

At what point should people draw the line in regards to the types of information that is collected?  It can ALL be used as a form of abuse.

----------


## Mini-Me

I originally included this in a late edit to my post above, but it's probably better to organize it as a complete thought of its own.  All of this follows from the thought that companies stating practices (to avoid becoming fraudulent) may still suffer from the EULA problem.  That makes the fraud issue a lot stickier and harder to pin down in the face of uninformed "consent" masquerading as informed consent.  As a result, we may need better and more explicit protection from practices constituting stalking, based on a sensible libertarian characterization of some forms of stalking as aggression in violation of the NAP...and aha, I found something!:
http://archive.mises.org/9791/stalki...of-aggression/

It will take some time to absorb the multiple articles linked on that page, but I'm really just hoping we can develop the strongest libertarian case we can against the worst and most pervasive stalking practices *without* creating a slippery slope extending to genuinely non-aggressive practices.

Kinsella wrote a comment on the page that resonated with me:



> Threats are a form of aggression if, because, and to the extent they are a sufficient communication of intent to commit a battery on someone, that puts the putative victim in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery. It is, in effect, a type of assault (which is intent to commit a battery, or putting someone in fear of receiving one). Stalking is aggression if and to the extent it amounts to such a threat; and communications need not be made verbally–all communication is contextual, and context, actions, gestures, activities, etc. can also be communicative.


The definition of a "threat" can itself can be very subjective, in the sense that recognizing and correcting *standing threats* would probably be resolved by juries in a free society.  (There are also immediate/imminent credible threats which justify proportionate self-defense in the moment, like someone pointing a gun at your head...and yet it has to be both imminent and credible for this to apply, or we'd turn into neocons attacking anyone who looked at us funny. )  However, we don't live in a free society at the moment, and a jury is unlikely to rectify standing threats.

Back to what Kinsella says, recall: _"Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law...or to give us an excuse to no-knock raid you and kill you with impunity."_  Slippery slopes aside, THAT is undoubtedly a threat.  So, let's say private companies are pervasively stalking you without a making an explicit threat of violence themselves.  Does that still meet Kinsella's definition by itself?  In a free society, probably not, but what if the private companies do this in the presence of a violent government like our own...when would that constitute a threat of aiding and abetting violence against you?
If the company willingly hands the data over, I think it most certainly constitutes a threat of violence.If the company knows the government is likely to intercept the data, that would also probably be a threat.What if the company doesn't know, because it's illegal for the government to do so, but if they did it could be disastrous (consider DamianTV's example of Jews in Nazi Germany above)?  Does the mere existence of such a government turn "non-threatening" pervasive stalking by private companies into a threatening form that violates the NAP?  Considering the world we live in, I'm inclined to say yes.
Of course, we'd still have to objectively define what pervasive stalking actually entails, but...thoughts?

----------


## TomKat

I heard of these before I went to DisneyWorld in Orlando last January. Then they were only offered to people staying at the Disney resort and visiting the park kinda like the "ID" you get on a cruise that is your id and credit card (that is registered with it) all in one, which was their selling point. I didn't get one, nor had the option to get one because I was staying off of the resort, not that I would anyway. I did see that every single entrance to the Magic Kingdom and Animal Kingdom had turnstiles with thumbprint scanners in them, you know, the older outdated technology!! That tech only id's you, it cannot track you like the neato NSA-style wristbands.

----------


## ghengis86

Lol. I was just there (thanks old man).

The "tickets" are cards with RFID chips or the wristbands. When you enter the park, you sync the "ticket" to, get ready, YOUR FINGERPRINT!  Just put it on the little finger scanner like the nice lady says!  Kids too!  Everybody!

Me: WTF?

Her: it's so no one else can use your card or band and if you lose it we can get you a new one. 

Me: so does Disney sell me fingerprints?

Her: it's not a real finger print scan. It just takes a picture of the contours and outline of your finger. 

Me: isn't that what a fingerprint is?

Her:  well, um ...uh, it's not required

Me: no, not yet?  So I can opt out?

Her:  yes

Me:  so just like the TSA?  $#@!ing great...

Her: enjoy your day!

(And everybody's pissed that I held up the line for 45 seconds)

----------


## ghengis86

Mind you, the bill for two days for 7 people was $1,300+ for this privilege. Plus the $4 bottles of water, $8 hot dog and chips and $5 ice cream. 

People line up by the hundreds of thousands to pay for this. The wristbands are linked to your account so you can pay for things with the swipe of your wrist. 

Since its on a wristband, how far off is the implantation just under the skin?  <10 years is my bet

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Mind you, the bill for two days for 7 people was $1,300+ for this privilege. Plus the $4 bottles of water, $8 hot dog and chips and $5 ice cream. 
> 
> People line up by the hundreds of thousands to pay for this. The wristbands are linked to your account so you can pay for things with the swipe of your wrist. 
> 
> Since its on a wristband, how far off is the implantation just under the skin?  <10 years is my bet


I went once back in the late 80s, and I put on happy face for everybody, but felt like a herded steer the whole time, never been back and never will.

Implanted RFID chips...they stepped on their dick on that one when they rolled too soon.

Yeah, ten years or less for them, now

Let this current generation of cattle get acclimated to stuff like this, and you'll see that, and of course it will be "private" at first.

Then, there will be no way to function without it.

Then, it will be mandatory.

That's how tyranny rolls.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> (And everybody's pissed that I held up the line for 45 seconds)


I get this at the airport gate rape stations all the time.

Nothing gets the $#@!s more upset than delaying their turn at abuse.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Now that I think about it...$#@! Disney's "property rights".

My right to live my life without spying and surveillance trumps their right to spy on me to wrench another tenth of a cent out of every stupid sheeple that passes through that place.

$#@! them, and $#@! you Google and your spy cars and satellites.

The only place you have  a "right" to put people under surveillance is in the places where nobody should be anyway: inside your home.

$#@! it, not only should there be a law, but there should be a full blown SWAT raid, complete with flash bangs, on every corporate office that uses this $#@!.

*$#@! 'em.*

----------


## Anti Federalist

////dupe post////

----------


## Mini-Me

> I get this at the airport gate rape stations all the time.
> 
> Nothing gets the $#@!s more upset than delying their turn at abuse.


People have no dignity or pride anymore, and we have to practically BEG them to reclaim their own souls.  It's sick.



> Now that I think about it...$#@! Disney's "property rights".
> 
> My right to live my life without spying and surveillance trumps their right to spy on me to wrench another tenth of a cent out of every stupid sheeple that passes through that place.
> 
> $#@! them, and $#@! you Google and your spy cars and satellites.
> 
> The only place you have  a "right" to put people under surveillance is in the places where nobody should be anyway: inside your home.
> 
> $#@! it, not only should there be a law, but there should be a full blown SWAT raid, complete with flash bangs, on every corporate office that uses this $#@!.
> ...


I'm trying to build a libertarian case for "$#@! all of them" up above too, to distinguish this kind of pervasive stalking as a form of aggression rather than a legitimate nonthreatening use of property rights.   My argument doesn't go as far as "no cameras anywhere but the home," but you and I both know that pervasive stalking is so truly different from nonthreatening property rights in an "I'll know it when I see it" sense...it just takes a little more to effectively demonstrate *why* when you also believe in property rights and you need to convince others who believe the same.  Hopefully we can all come to a better consensus on this soon that includes "$#@! all of them."  Seriously.

----------


## malkusm

> The only place you have  a "right" to put people under surveillance is in the places where nobody should be anyway: inside your home.


So if I live in Detroit, in a neighborhood where there are ostensibly no police, I shouldn't be able to post a camera at the street outside my house to deter would-be robbers?

If I own a convenience store, I shouldn't be able to have any type of surveillance whatsoever?

In a libertarian utopia, wouldn't society *depend upon* private surveillance as a crime deterrent?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I'm trying to build a libertarian case for "$#@! all of them" up above too, to distinguish stalking as a form of aggression rather than a legitimate use of property rights.   You and I know that pervasive stalking is so truly different in an "I'll know it when I see it" sense, but it takes a little more to effectively demonstrate *why* when you also believe in property rights and you need to convince others who believe the same.  Hopefully we can all come to a better consensus on this soon that includes "$#@! all of them."  Seriously.


And doing a much better job than my foul mouthed angry rant can do.

But your case is correct: this amount of data, being held by "private" interests that have no compunction *whatsoever* about handing it all over to government, is, given the actions of this government and it's million man army of oppression, a _de facto_ threat of aggression and a violation of the NAP.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> So if I live in Detroit, in a neighborhood where there are ostensibly no police, I shouldn't be able to post a camera at the street outside my house to deter would-be robbers?
> 
> If I own a convenience store, I shouldn't be able to have any type of surveillance whatsoever?
> 
> In a libertarian utopia, wouldn't society *depend upon* private surveillance as a crime deterrent?


Put up motion activated spotlights.

We don't live in a libertarian utopia.

We live in a full blown police state.

Collection of individual surveillance data, *in such an environment* is a clear violation of the NAP.

----------


## malkusm

> Put up motion activated spotlights.
> 
> We don't live in a libertarian utopia.
> 
> We live in a full blown police state.
> 
> Collection of individual surveillance data, *in such an environment* is a clear violation of the NAP.


Isn't this the same argument lobbyists use to justify their actions?

"Well, in a free market, I wouldn't have to lobby, but everyone else is lobbying and I'll be run out of business if I don't...."

To me this doesn't pass muster. Especially considering, what are the alternatives? A government ban on private surveillance? So that they can have a monopoly on surveillance to go along with their monopoly on force?

----------


## malkusm

Is it safe to say you oppose this as a form of private surveillance? 

http://www.copblock.org/filmthepolice/

----------


## LibertyRevolution

It is private property and optional, I have no issue with this at all.

----------


## ghengis86

> It is private property and optional, I have no issue with this at all.


Please define private and how the government doesn't get it's hands on 'private' data

----------


## malkusm

> Please define private and how the government doesn't get it's hands on 'private' data


Then your anger should be at the government, not at the business, unless you can demonstrate that the business is complicit or is engaging in surveillance specifically to provide it to the government.

We have no chance of defending property rights or voluntary society if we take the opportunity to bash a private company for doing something that they are completely within their rights to do. There is a line, of course. This doesn't cross it. You don't have a "right" to visit Disney World without being surveilled, no more than you have a "right" to the labor of a cake baker for your gay wedding.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Isn't this the same argument lobbyists use to justify their actions?
> 
> "Well, in a free market, I wouldn't have to lobby, but everyone else is lobbying and I'll be run out of business if I don't...."
> 
> To me this doesn't pass muster. Especially considering, what are the alternatives? A government ban on private surveillance? So that they can have a monopoly on surveillance to go along with their monopoly on force?


Look, you can try and pin me down on this, or just outright call me a hypocrite, but you are just *not* going to convince me that training kids at DizNee Whirled to wear surveillance tracking bands is a good thing.

----------


## ghengis86

> Then your anger should be at the government, not at the business, unless you can demonstrate that the business is complicit or is engaging in surveillance specifically to provide it to the government.
> 
> We have no chance of defending property rights or voluntary society if we take the opportunity to bash a private company for doing something that they are completely within their rights to do. There is a line, of course. This doesn't cross it. You don't have a "right" to visit Disney World without being surveilled, no more than you have a "right" to the labor of a cake baker for your gay wedding.


Oh, believe me, I blame the government. But tell me how Disney resists as a 'private' entity. Just because the government is a disease doesn't private business isn't gangrenous.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> We have no chance of defending property rights or voluntary society if we take the opportunity to bash a private company for doing something that they are completely within their rights to do. There is a line, of course. This doesn't cross it. You don't have a "right" to visit Disney World without being surveilled, no more than you have a "right" to the labor of a cake baker for your gay wedding.


Apples and bowling balls.

Being refused a cake is not the same as violently agressing against my person and broadcasting and databasing my every move.

I can walk out and find another baker.

I can not walk out, once your "security" puts me in the matrix.

If a "voluntary society" is one in which every Tom, Dick and Harry can put me under the most intense forms of electronic surveillance whenever they feel like it, then maybe I want no part of such a society.

More likely it is just the tsunami of technology that cannot be stopped.

And that ain't freedom.

And *that* is why the future is fail.

----------


## ghengis86

Put this in perspective. I had less issue with TSA than Disney this trip. 

Traveling with a stroller, you walk through a magnetometer and that's it. No Rapescan, no opt out, no nothing. Just like the old days; bags get x-ray'd, walk through magnetometer, board the plane.

----------


## malkusm

I don't understand. Disney did a whole bunch of things you disapproved of because you felt they violated your privacy. *You still went to Disney World anyway.* Why?

----------


## ghengis86

> I don't understand. Disney did a whole bunch of things you disapproved of because you felt they violated your privacy. *You still went to Disney World anyway.* Why?


Uh, I opted out of the disapproved policies bro. My privacy was intact. I still had a choice, so I exercised it. When they require it or refuse me for not complying with their 'mandatory' programs, then I peace out and don't enjoy their services. Simple. 

Who am I to stop the American Sheeole from thier pricesses

----------


## liberty2897



----------


## AlexAmore

> Look, you can try and pin me down on this, or just outright call me a hypocrite, but* you are just not going to convince me that training kids at DizNee Whirled to wear surveillance tracking bands is a good thing*.


Beautiful straw man argument. The mark of a defeated debater.

----------


## malkusm

> Uh, I opted out of the disapproved policies bro. My privacy was intact. I still had a choice, so I exercised it. When they require it or refuse me for not complying with their 'mandatory' programs, then I peace out and don't enjoy their services. Simple. 
> 
> Who am I to stop the American Sheeole from thier pricesses


Gay Marriage Activist: This cake baker can't discriminate against me! There ought to be a law!
Libertarian: Well, you can go elsewhere. I mean, why would you want to give your money to a bigoted cake baker anyway, right?
Gay Marriage Activist: Hey, good point! 
Libertarian: Thanks!
Gay Marriage Activist: So, what are you up to this weekend?
Libertarian: Actually, the family and I are going to Disney World.
Gay Marriage Activist: Oh really? I heard they were using RFID tracking devices on the premises now.
Libertarian: Seriously? That's terrible!
Gay Marriage Activist: Yeah, but you can go elsewhere. I mean, why would you want to give your money to such an invasive company anyway, right?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> It is private property and optional, I have no issue with this at all.


Until it isn't any longer.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Short sighted nonsense.
> 
> It is *precisely* this kind of thinking, that will permit this technology to become commonplace and unavoidable.
> 
> .



Once technology exists it will always become commonplace eventually.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Beautiful straw man argument. The mark of a defeated debater.


Good thing I never approached this as a philosotarian debate club, where winners and losers are assigned.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Once technology exists it will always become commonplace eventually.


So, there you have it.

Welp, glad that's settled.

I'll sweep up the joint...who is going to put the chairs away?

----------


## malkusm

> Now that I think about it...$#@! Disney's "property rights".
> 
> My right to live my life without spying and surveillance trumps their right to spy on me to wrench another tenth of a cent out of every stupid sheeple that passes through that place.
> 
> $#@! them, and $#@! you Google and your spy cars and satellites.
> 
> The only place you have  a "right" to put people under surveillance is in the places where nobody should be anyway: inside your home.
> 
> $#@! it, not only should there be a law, but there should be a full blown SWAT raid, complete with flash bangs, on every corporate office that uses this $#@!.





> So if I live in Detroit, in a neighborhood where there are ostensibly no police, I shouldn't be able to post a camera at the street outside my house to deter would-be robbers?
> 
> If I own a convenience store, I shouldn't be able to have any type of surveillance whatsoever?
> 
> In a libertarian utopia, wouldn't society *depend upon* private surveillance as a crime deterrent?





> Put up motion activated spotlights.
> 
> We don't live in a libertarian utopia.
> 
> We live in a full blown police state.
> 
> Collection of individual surveillance data, *in such an environment* is a clear violation of the NAP.


Please explain: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-home-security




> 3.Install cameras.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...issed-by-judge




> The state has claimed the right to stick cameras in our face everywhere we go, watching, monitoring and recording us, claiming that we have no expectation of privacy in a public place. Well, citizens have the same right.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Please explain: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-home-security
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...issed-by-judge


I have no explanation, you caught me in an obvious contradiction.

Like I said before, this isn't a philosotarian debate club AFAIC.

This technology has ramifications far beyond what DizNee is going to do with it to pinch a penny.

ETA...

I'm trying to come to grips with an idea that says that an unlimited surveillance grid, watching every move you make, is somehow "freedom", just so long as it's GlobalHyperMegaCorp doing it.

In retrospect, I probably should have just shut up and let Mini Me pose the questions.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

> Please define private and how the government doesn't get it's hands on 'private' data


Private, as in owned by someone, not government owned.

As a private company, they can give/sell that data to whomever they wish, even the government.

If Disney said you have to get an anal probe before they let you on the teacups, that is their prerogative.
You can choose to not do business with them if you don't like their rules.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Private, as in owned by someone, not government owned.
> 
> As a private company, they can give/sell that data to whomever they wish, even the government.
> 
> If Disney said you have to get an anal probe before they let you on the teacups, that is their prerogative.
> You can choose to not do business with them if you don't like their rules.


And that's the problem.

No, sorry, a business does *not* have the right to ass rape you.

Especially in a semi-fascist system that we have now, where all businesses end up doing it.

Good luck selling *that* to _Boobus_.

No, strike that, go ahead and do so, you'll make millions.

_Boobus_ loves to be abused.

----------


## liberty2897



----------


## JasonC



----------


## DamianTV

So now people support total surveillance?

Tell you what.  I'll put a camera in my toilet and invite everyone to come over my house, but not bother to tell anyone there is a camera aimed directetly at peoples poopers as they squat.

The biggest misinterpretation that people seem to make is that Privacy can only exist inside your own home.  It does not.  That means you still have a 4th Amendment Right in PUBLIC.  Reasonable Privacy.  Individually tracking you, selling that data, giving it to Govt, offering it to marketers, analyzing every microfacial expression is as unreasonable as forcing pics of your privates, or the Naked Body Scanners.

You have a Right to Privacy, reasonably, while inside someone elses home.  Just because you choose to visit someone does not mean that they have any Right to expect you to show them all your naughty bits.  As it is their property, they can make a demand or kick you off their property, but should have no expectation that just because you set foot on what is theirs that they now have unlimited powers over another.

The Rights of people END where the Equal Rights of others BEGIN.

What has happened to Disneyland is they have far exceeded their Rights.  They are doing nothing short of flat out claiming complete and total ownership of all visiting patrons.  And the idea that people actually are willing to pay someone else to become the product that is being sold is apphauling to the point of total nausea.

----------


## AlexAmore

> So now people support total surveillance?
> 
> Tell you what.  I'll put a camera in my toilet and invite everyone to come over my house, but not bother to tell anyone there is a camera aimed directetly at peoples poopers as they squat.
> 
> The biggest misinterpretation that people seem to make is that Privacy can only exist inside your own home.  It does not.  That means you still have a 4th Amendment Right in PUBLIC.  Reasonable Privacy.  Individually tracking you, selling that data, giving it to Govt, offering it to marketers, analyzing every microfacial expression is as unreasonable as forcing pics of your privates, or the Naked Body Scanners.
> 
> You have a Right to Privacy, reasonably, while inside someone elses home.  Just because you choose to visit someone does not mean that they have any Right to expect you to show them all your naughty bits.  As it is their property, they can make a demand or kick you off their property, but should have no expectation that just because you set foot on what is theirs that they now have unlimited powers over another.
> 
> The Rights of people END where the Equal Rights of others BEGIN.
> ...



You guys are sounding like liberals with your positive rights and twisting the Constitution. Next you'll tell me you have a right to healthcare? You clearly have not read the 4th amendment in a while:

_"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."_

This was directed at the GOVERNMENT. The Bill of Rights was the swan song of the Anti-Federalists as they failed to curb the creation of the Constitution which would create a big centralized government. So they ceded with a compromise of creating a Bill of Rights to curb only what the government could do. It would be absolutely silly to say it equally applies to free people. Why would the Anti-feds put any federal limits on free people considering what they fought for? For example, I can limit free speech on my property, I can prevent guns from coming on my property...clearly the Bill of Rights does not limit me as a free person.

Tell me where it says "privacy" anywhere in the documents. 

Rights don't actually exist, they are abstract concepts. If you want privacy, be the rugged individualist you guys claim to be and defend it. Don't claim a right to some entitlement you assume to have and appeal to a greater power (government) to defend them for you... YUCK. Contracts exist and can thus be defended on rational grounds. Write up privacy contracts and make businesses/other homes sign them, if they don't, don't patronize them. Rid your mind of these made up "rights" and get into the contract realm....rational people live there.

Damien, they are offering optional rfid bracelets, your last part is way overboard. Some people may prefer the perks that an rfid chip coupled with the park brings. Who are YOU to say they can't because they are "far exceeding their rights."?

Smells like statism in here.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Now that I think about it...$#@! Disney's "property rights".
> 
> My right to live my life without spying and surveillance trumps their right to spy on me to wrench another tenth of a cent out of every stupid sheeple that passes through that place.
> 
> $#@! them, and $#@! you Google and your spy cars and satellites.
> 
> The only place you have  a "right" to put people under surveillance is in the places where nobody should be anyway: inside your home.
> 
> $#@! it, not only should there be a law, but there should be a full blown SWAT raid, complete with flash bangs, on every corporate office that uses this $#@!.
> ...


This is the same justification liberals use for civil rights and anti-discrimination laws; that somehow, business property is separate from personal property.

Worse than just liberal, that is Marxist. Worse than just a facet or tangent, _this is the basis of Marxism_.

Congratulations, comrade.

----------


## ghengis86

> Gay Marriage Activist: This cake baker can't discriminate against me! There ought to be a law!
> Libertarian: Well, you can go elsewhere. I mean, why would you want to give your money to a bigoted cake baker anyway, right?
> Gay Marriage Activist: Hey, good point! 
> Libertarian: Thanks!
> Gay Marriage Activist: So, what are you up to this weekend?
> Libertarian: Actually, the family and I are going to Disney World.
> Gay Marriage Activist: Oh really? I heard they were using RFID tracking devices on the premises now.
> Libertarian: Seriously? That's terrible!
> Gay Marriage Activist: Yeah, but you can go elsewhere. I mean, why would you want to give your money to such an invasive company anyway, right?


If directed at me, nice straw man douchenozzle. If directed at "Libertarians", nice job at collectivism.

----------


## tod evans

Lotsa different subjects being bantered around in this thread....

My concern is, and has been, government using data for criminal prosecution...

Private entities should be able to use whatever technology they have available for their own purposes, government however must be required to obtain permission to "use" any data about a citizen from that citizen prior to even looking for it, including data purchased from private entities...

In other-words, government must request a privacy waiver from a citizen every time an agency wishes to access any digital content relevant to said citizen. 

Failure to obtain written consent would bar prosecution of the citizen and would open government and its individual employees to liability at the citizens discression ..

This is my version of the 4th for use in todays world...

----------


## malkusm

> Tell you what.  I'll put a camera in my toilet and invite everyone to come over my house, but not bother to tell anyone there is a camera aimed directetly at peoples poopers as they squat.


How is this in any way comparable to having a wristband to track people who are paying to be on your property after consenting to publicly posted privacy policy?

This concept isn't that difficult to grasp: If you don't like what Disney is doing, don't visit their park. Protest it publicly, if you want. Just *don't* ask for what they are doing to be made illegal. It shouldn't be, and if it were, it opens up a whole can of worms that makes it illegal to film police officers, deter crime with surveillance cameras at your private residence or place of business, etc. It makes us more dependent on government for protection by concentrating the power in the hands of the few. 

Let's say Disney armed every employee with a firearm which was visible as you walked around the park. Some people would object to that. Some (liberals) would call for this practice to be banned. And if it were banned, you'd invite government to ban firearms in all sorts of private business settings.




> If directed at me, nice straw man douchenozzle. If directed at "Libertarians", nice job at collectivism.


Not a "straw man" - the concept is exactly the same. We (rightfully) tell people that they should take their business elsewhere when it comes to issues that our lower on our priority list. Unfortunately, the concept is lost when it's one of these pet issues that people here are paranoid about.

----------


## donnay

So I will put this article right here.

*Revealed: How the CIA helped Disney conquer Florida and buy super-cheap land that is 'above the law'*

Disney World's special legal arrangements help it avoid tax and regulation, new book claims
The laws which underpin the two phantom cities it sits on require office holders to own property there
That defies provisions in the U.S. and Florida constitutions against such laws


By Damien Gayle 


Disney conspired with the CIA to buy up cheap land in Florida for Disney World and orchestrate a unique legal situation that makes the theme park above the law, a new book claims. 

The company took advice from former CIA agents and lawyers to engineer statutory grounds which still allow Disney World avoid taxation and environmental regulation, it is alleged.

The special legal situation underpinning the site is not only unconstitutional, it is claimed, but allows the company to avoid any inconvenient decisions democratically taken at the local level.

In 2005 the then chief of Florida's Bureau of Fair Rides Inspection summed up the impunity with which Disney World operates when he admitted: 'We don't have the authority to close the park down or close the rides.'

The allegations have been made in a new book, Finding Florida: The True History Of The Sunshine State, by investigative journalist Timothy Allman, extracts from which have been published by the *Daily Beast*.

Best known for his work on the CIA's 'secret war' in Laos and interviews with world figures as foreign correspondent for Vanity Fair, Allman has now turned his attention closer to home with this exposé of Florida's murky past.

In Finding Florida he claims that Walt Disney conspired with William 'Wild Bill' Donovan - the so-called 'Father of the CIA' - to establish a state-within-a-state where he could 'control the overall development' of Disney World.

Donovan, founding partner of New York law firm Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, whose attorneys included future CIA director William Casey, provided lawyers to help Disney distract attention from its plans, says Allman.

These attorneys, it is claimed, provided fake identities for Disney agents, set up a secret communications centre and organised a disinformation campaign to make sure sellers had no idea who was buying their property.

In this way, Disney was from the mid-Sixties able to snap up 40 square miles of land in the Sunshine State for a knockdown price of less than $200 an acre.

Disney and his advisers then sought a way to 'limit the voting power of the private residents' of the area, to control the impact that local democracy might have on the company's plans.

They employed a scheme devised by senior CIA operative Paul Helliwell to establish two phantom cities populated by hand-picked Disney loyalists around which Disney World would be based.

The cities were based around Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista, two artificial reservoirs Disney engineers created by obstructing the area's natural water flow.


The company could then 'use these fake governments to control land use and make sure the public monies the theme park generated stayed in Disney's private hands,' Allman writes.

Teams of Disney lawyers working out of Donovan's New York law firm drafted the legislation to establish the two pseudo-cities, which was passed by the Florida legislature in 1967.

However, in violation of both the U.S. and Florida Constitutions, the carefully drafted laws specified that any elected office holder must own property within the cities.

The law, which states that each candidate for office 'must be the owner, either directly or as a trustee, of real property situated in the City', ensured any local politician would be intimately linked with Disney.

On the day of the magic kingdom's inauguration, Walt Disney, speaking from beyond the grave in a recorded presentation, boasted of creating a new kind of America.

'Of course he was right about creating a new kind of America,' Allman writes. 'By turning the State of Florida and its statutes into their enablers, Disney and his successors pioneered a business model based on public subsidy of private profit coupled with corporate immunity from the laws, regulations, and taxes imposed on actual people that now increasingly characterises the economy of the United States.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...heap-land.html


It's a small world after all.

----------


## ghengis86

> Not a "straw man" - the concept is exactly the same. We (rightfully) tell people that they should take their business elsewhere when it comes to issues that our lower on our priority list. Unfortunately, the concept is lost when it's one of these pet issues that people here are paranoid about.


Yes, it is. My point being, who you calling we?  

Believe me, I understand your position and the supposed hypocrisy your trying to pint out. But you're assuming something to set up an example to prove a point which was never argued in this thread to begin with.

----------


## malkusm

> Yes, it is. My point being, who you calling we?  
> 
> Believe me, I understand your position and the supposed hypocrisy your trying to pint out. But you're assuming something to set up an example to prove a point which was never argued in this thread to begin with.


Really, no one in this thread is saying that Disney shouldn't be able to surveil their property as they wish? I would beg to differ...




> Theyre not spying on terrorists, theyre spying on YOU.





> Short sighted nonsense.
> 
> It is *precisely* this kind of thinking, that will permit this technology to become commonplace and unavoidable.





> "Private" company's technology can't invade your privacy and be used to ill intent?
> 
> Yah, tell that to the Jews and other "undesirables" tracked by IBM punch card systems in Nazi Germany.





> *Without the ability to freely come and go, in privacy and anonymity, then you have, and will never have, any semblance of freedom.*





> The only place you have  a "right" to put people under surveillance is in the places where nobody should be anyway: inside your home.
> 
> $#@! it, not only should there be a law, but there should be a full blown SWAT raid, complete with flash bangs, on every corporate office that uses this $#@!.





> What has happened to Disneyland is they have far exceeded their Rights.  They are doing nothing short of flat out claiming complete and total ownership of all visiting patrons.  And the idea that people actually are willing to pay someone else to become the product that is being sold is apphauling to the point of total nausea.

----------


## DamianTV

> Really, no one in this thread is saying that Disney shouldn't be able to surveil their property as they wish? I would beg to differ...


There is a big difference between generally keeping an eye on things and total behavioral analasys.  Theyve left generally keeping patrons happy to the point where the patrons themselves are what is for sale.  It wont be long until every private company claims to do the same exact thing to you in your own homes as well because it is part of some obscure legalese policy that you agreed to by consuming one of their products.

When I go to a bar, I expect others will see me there, but not to walk around with a camera / rfid / computer shoved up my ass.  And at the rate we are going, that is the only type of business that will exist is the camera ass shoving ones.

----------


## donnay

> There is a big difference between generally keeping an eye on things and total behavioral analasys.  Theyve left generally keeping patrons happy to the point where the patrons themselves are what is for sale.  It wont be long until every private company claims to do the same exact thing to you in your own homes as well because it is part of some obscure legalese policy that you agreed to by consuming one of their products.
> 
> When I go to a bar, I expect others will see me there, but not to walk around with a camera / rfid / computer shoved up my ass.  And at the rate we are going, that is the only type of business that will exist is the camera ass shoving ones.


That's okay...it is done for your safety.  It allows them to tie-in medical (a one-stop shop) to their program to make sure your colon is in good shape. <s>

----------


## angelatc

> There is a big difference between generally keeping an eye on things and total behavioral analasys.


Absolutely!  When they are only generally keeping an eye on things, they aren't managing the crowd efficiently and their guests stand in long lines.  When they analyse behaviors, they learn how to preemptively shift resources in order to maximize the entertainment value their guests receive.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> This is the same justification liberals use for civil rights and anti-discrimination laws; that somehow, business property is separate from personal property.
> 
> Worse than just liberal, that is Marxist. Worse than just a facet or tangent, _this is the basis of Marxism_.
> 
> Congratulations, comrade.


OK, so there is nothing that can be done, any company can erect a surveillance network that can count the pimples on your ass, and if you say anything about it, you're a Marxist.

Again, this analogy fails, because if one wants to leave an establishment that does not cater to your needs, then no harm no foul, and you are very likely to find one down the street that will.

That is a much different proposal than being actively spied on and included for all time in God only knows what sort of database.

That is violation of the NAP as far as I'm concerned.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Let's say Disney armed every employee with a firearm which was visible as you walked around the park. Some people would object to that. Some (liberals) would call for this practice to be banned. And if it were banned, you'd invite government to ban firearms in all sorts of private business settings.


It sure as hell would be "banned" and rightly so, if these guards went around shooting people indiscriminately with said firearms.




> Not a "straw man" - the concept is exactly the same. We (rightfully) tell people that they should take their business elsewhere when it comes to issues that our lower on our priority list. Unfortunately, the concept is lost when it's one of these pet issues that people here are paranoid about.


So property rights trump the NAP.

Got it.

----------


## donnay

> It sure as hell would be "banned" and rightly so, if these guards went around shooting people indiscriminately with said firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> So property rights trump the NAP.
> 
> Got it.


Edmund Burke said, "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

----------


## Matt Collins

For at least 10 years Disney has been scanning the fingerprint of everyone entering the Magic Kingdom in Orlando.

----------


## Schifference

What about store reward cards or store membership cards like Costco? If you do not utilize store cards you pay way more for items. However, most times the cashier will just scan a card to give the discount. That is probably why they link the card to a gas discount thus encouraging the shopper to use the card.  I brought my elderly father to Foxwood casino about 10 years ago and he wandered off from the area he agreed to be and did not meet me at the designated time & place. His exact location was revealed instantly via his rewards card.

----------


## donnay

> For at least 10 years Disney has been scanning the fingerprint of everyone entering the Magic Kingdom in Orlando.


And see how well you have been acclimated to accept it.  "No big deal they have been using biometrics for, at least, 10 years."

----------


## Anti Federalist

> For at least 10 years Disney has been scanning the fingerprint of everyone entering the Magic Kingdom in Orlando.


Yup, and I opposed *that* for the acclimating affect it would have.

Now they're taking it to the next level, and ten years from now it'll be "no big deal" outside of a few paranoid Marxist loudmouths, when some new surveillance horror is brought online.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Just to clear, I'll repeat myself once more:

Without anonymity and privacy to freely go about your business, you will *never* have freedom.

It does not matter who is putting you under surveillance and literally folding, spindling and mutilating the very essence of who you are and what you do, government or private business, if this is happening, *you are not free in any sense of the word*.

*You will self censor, self restrict and self regulate in more ways than could be possibly imagined in any authoritarian's wildest wet dreams and fantasies.*

----------


## AlexAmore

> OK, so there is nothing that can be done, any company can erect a surveillance network that can count the pimples on your ass, and if you say anything about it, you're a Marxist.
> 
> Again, this analogy fails, because if one wants to leave an establishment that does not cater to your needs, then no harm no foul, and you are very likely to find one down the street that will.
> 
> That is a much different proposal than being actively spied on and included for all time in God only knows what sort of database.
> 
> That is violation of the NAP as far as I'm concerned.


If we had a voluntary transaction that involved you giving me your license so I could print out a ticket to enter my theme park, well you just gave me your information. In this example you didn't counter my proposal with a contract of your own. So I now have your information in my head and in my database. Information that is in my head is my property and I can do with it what I like....it's my brain data.  So I can sell it, trade it...etc.

I don't have to come up with a valid reason (in your mind) for asking for your information. If you wanted to enter my home, I could ask for anything I wanted...my business is no different from my home. Your argument is essentially saying *"Alex, you don't have a right to do background checks, track, analyze, and surveil people in your own home."* Homes and businesses are both equally property and sometimes the same property.

Right now we have the government doing a lot of the contract based work (they call them laws/regulations) on our behalf to "stop businesses from being abusive and fraudulent". All I'm saying is why not take the responsibility for the contractual work and bring it into the private realm? Individuals and private agencies can do this a lot better in a voluntary society where privacy would be in demand and thus incentivized for an entrepreneur to profit from delivering it.

There is no violation of NAP from Disney in this example. The biggest violations of NAP come from people who don't respect the fundamentals of private property. You have no legs to stand on once you have softened your stance on private property. That softened stance becomes an arbitrary line in the sand that is subjective to your reality. We can't have a rational society that is subjective to your reality. 

By the way, to clarify for anyone who may be confused about "rights". Property is objective. The right to private property is subjective. On the same token, privacy is objective. The right to privacy is subjective. So if you want to argue with me that you have "rights", we can, but I've looked all over my house for my "rights" and I can't find them anywhere. I'm not big on "social contracts" except what is completely voluntary. You have what you can defend.




> So property rights trump the NAP.


NAP is an ethics system based on the premise of self-ownership (i.e property). NAP is a consequence of more fundamental principals. You first have to accept the premise of self-ownership. For example, so many people have different theories about what property is and what constitutes theft, and based on that, accepting NAP can send them to all sorts of corners of the philosophical realms including Communism. Therefore, NAP is not an axiom nor self-evident. You need a good grounding of principals first. So yes, respecting property trumps NAP.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> So yes, respecting property trumps NAP.


I disagree, obviously.

To me, this is inviting someone onto your property and then punching them in the face for no good reason.

It is a violation of my person, an act of aggression against me.




> Former Texas Congressman, and presidential candidate Ron Paul has said, you lose total control of the right to your own body when rights are given to corporations. According to Paul, the freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, etc. are a property rights issue. He imagines that if our own bodies were considered our own property, and the laws protecting ownership of that property were more strictly interpreted, we would all be o.k


http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/02/2...on-personhood/

----------


## Anti Federalist

I stand by this.

Not every person will own property, but we all own ourselves.




> Just to clear, I'll repeat myself once more:
> 
> Without anonymity and privacy to freely go about your business, you will *never* have freedom.
> 
> It does not matter who is putting you under surveillance and literally folding, spindling and mutilating the very essence of who you are and what you do, government or private business, if this is happening, *you are not free in any sense of the word*.
> 
> *You will self censor, self restrict and self regulate in more ways than could be possibly imagined in any authoritarian's wildest wet dreams and fantasies.*

----------


## angelatc

> I disagree, obviously.
> 
> To me, this is inviting someone onto your property and then punching them in the face for no good reason.
> 
> It is a violation of my person, an act of aggression against me.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/02/2...on-personhood/


In the same interview, Ron Paul talks immediately about using technology to effectively monitor corporate activities and their effects on the environment.  I do not think I'm going out on a limb here when I say that using that quote in this context is probably taking it out of context.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> I disagree, obviously.
> 
> To me, this is inviting someone onto your property and then punching them in the face for no good reason.
> 
> It is a violation of my person, an act of aggression against me.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/02/2...on-personhood/


You can't walk into NBC's studio off the street and say whatever you want on camera. Has NBC revoked or restricted your right to free speech?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You can't walk into NBC's studio off the street and say whatever you want on camera. Has NBC revoked or restricted your right to free speech?


That would be *me*, doing something to *them*.

In the case of active, as opposed to passive, surveillance, this is *them* doing something unwanted to *me*.

----------


## AlexAmore

> I disagree, obviously.
> 
> To me, this is inviting someone onto your property and then punching them in the face for no good reason.
> 
> It is a violation of my person, an act of aggression against me.
> 
> http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/02/2...on-personhood/


You're free to defend yourself while on someone else's property. If they punch you for no reason, go ahead and punch back and do whatever it takes to secure your body from aggression. You as an individual will have to make judgement calls in a free society. Judgement calls are a scary concept for people who are used to being taken care of by government from cradle to grave.

Ron Paul has advocated for polycentric law which is basically the strongest form of property you could ask for. If more competition is good and improves things, then more competition among governments must be good and improve things.
*Start at 0:40:*



I never advocated for the creation of corporations. A corporation at it's core is a way to privatize profits and socialize losses, no thanks. Corporations are a creation of the government. You're trying to conflate corporations and property.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> OK, so there is nothing that can be done, any company can erect a surveillance network that can count the pimples on your ass, and if you say anything about it, you're a Marxist.
> 
> Again, this analogy fails, because if one wants to leave an establishment that does not cater to your needs, then no harm no foul, and you are very likely to find one down the street that will.
> 
> That is a much different proposal than being actively spied on and included for all time in God only knows what sort of database.
> 
> That is violation of the NAP as far as I'm concerned.


Or, you can just not give your patronage to their establishment? Your arguments belie the fundamental differences between the grounds that Governments operate upon and grounds market establishments operate upon. There is no 'choose not to patronize the USG'. You are taxed. You are levied, forced, and compelled under their codified laws upon which you are bludgeoned. If we broke your argument down further, it is more a luddite argument than one against the Government per se, as it seems that it doesn't matter what kind of institution uses the technology, merely the fact such technology exists. My view of technology is neutral. It is the institution and the people, its values, and fundamental structure that informs me of the use of such technology. You wouldn't say that guns are 'evil' or should be opposed, because the Government, its goons, and gendarmes use them. It is the context in which the technology is used. You're free to not get these bands; the solution...don't patronize Disney!

----------

