Invasion of Privacy

[Fukthenannystate]

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/11/14/debate-over-license-plate-readers-grows-in-maryland/

My home town, Baltimore, has been up in arms about the new license plate scanners. The ACLU is involved, as well as Bmore Against Big Brother. In all of the debate, and all of the possible good that might emerge from this technology-- have we really learned nothing?

we've read 1984, anthem, a scanner darkly, a brave new world, etc. but all of the sudden negative utopias are a good thing... and rejecting this kind of invasion of privacy can only lead to one conclusion--- you're guilty.

Like Hunter S. Thompson said -- In a closed society where everyone is guilty the only crime is getting caught.


What does privacy really mean to us? More and more of our rights are stripped in the name of safety and by the time our rage ebbs at the latest piece of fucked up legislation that gets approved, the one we USED to be enraged about is already comfortably condoned and put to the back of society's mind. Eventually we view these trespasses as if they are completely normal, and that they've really been there all along and life as we know it could not function without them.

When people ask me about why I hate the 1984 type surveillance, they normally decided unilaterally that I support anarchy and don't want criminals to be prosecuted. The reality is that I actually don't have any qualms with using certain forms of technology defensively in the pursuit of apprehending actual criminals -- but I do find it absurd to collectively insist we are all a nation that needs to suffer this kind of offensive surveillance.

My argument is that it simply weirds me out to have people spying on me. The same way girls don't like to be starred at when they're at the gym, and people don't like their roomates hearing them fucking in the other room. That's why I ask, What does privacy really mean to people and where do they think the line is drawn?

 

[bolil]

Seems like a great market for privacy protecting tech, which is the better solution. Except that it would be outlawed.

 

[Danke]

What are you trying to hide?

 

[Fukthenannystate]

What are you trying to hide?

Haha, it's nice to hear the hits

Anyway, I think that all too often what we're trying to hide is our basic human instincts in knowing that this shit is fucked up all on its own.. and we are detached from a bluntness that expresses our rejection to the mere idea of having somebody else "superior" to us that can watch us any time they want. We prefer to be analytical and academic about it instead, as if there exists some logical explanation of why we do not want to be scrutinized.... when there is none.

Some good counter-questions to ask the supporters of these measures is -- Why do you feel others should have the right to invade your privacy?.. What qualifies another person to have the right to unveil what you're trying to hide in the first place? Where does that authority come from?

 

[otherone]

People don't want to be spied on. They want the other guy to be spied on. People don't want to stop texting when driving, They want the other guy to stop texting when driving. It goes on. It's the foundation of the nanny state.

 

[osan]

Seems like a great market for privacy protecting tech, which is the better solution. Except that it would be outlawed.

The better solution? Not even close. Consider what that position implies.

How can anyone argue that the better solution to violation is to incur further damage in the form of the cost of having to purchase technological solutions to counter the prying that should never have happened in the first place? That makes as much sense as two monkeys humping a football.

The better solution is to hold the violators accountable up to and including putting their manky, rancid carcasses into jail or even prison for some much needed reflection.

 

[osan]

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/11/14/debate-over-license-plate-readers-grows-in-maryland/

My home town, Baltimore, has been up in arms about the new license plate scanners. The ACLU is involved, as well as Bmore Against Big Brother. In all of the debate, and all of the possible good that might emerge from this technology-- have we really learned nothing?

In the general? Pretty much.

 

[Natural Citizen]

My argument is that it simply weirds me out to have people spying on me. The same way girls don't like to be starred at when they're at the gym, and people don't like their roomates hearing them fucking in the other room. That's why I ask, What does privacy really mean to people and where do they think the line is drawn?

Tonight on coast to coast AM, Bioethicist and biotechnology expert Lori Andrews has advised companies, politicians, and consumers about the impact of various technologies. She'll discuss her latest work on how our digital identities are starting to overshadow our physical identities, and why recent uncontrolled changes in privacy are altering power relations in society.

Live stream ... http://www.newsradioklbj.com/Other/Stream.html

The thing is that people just don't get it. They don't fully comprehend why their data and personal information and privacy are such a gold mine.
Not only a gold mine but a means of retaliation if someone has a gripe with you. The link to Lori's website should serve well as a platform for discussion that should be expected tonight. Will probably answer some of your question's too. Personally, I think people bring it on themselves. Consumerist mindset and the like. I've heard her before so I'll probably not be up to lidsten but who knows.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

OP, are you involved with Bmore Against Big Brother? If so, what is their approach to addressing this issue? I ask because there are two ways to approach these types of issues: principle and practicality. The approach of principle is laudable, but it falls on deaf ears if not supported by the practical. People proposing and using these technologies really don't care about the constitution. They'll tell you that you have no expectation of privacy because your plate is in plain view. It's really no different than police who have manually run plates for decades. The technology just increases numbers. That's not me talking; it's (generally) the courts and just harsh reality.

I remember seeing one or two pieces of research showing the ineffectiveness of these readers. It follows the law of passive observation, which is simply hoping to identify something by chance. It doesn't work in nature and it certainly does not work with technology. If you are involved with these organizations and want to pursue the information, then I can try to find it again. I know it was just found on the internet and not in some special database.