[Trinidad]

Congrats!

Rik

[kenberg]

Allowing the search, subject to first getting a warrant, sounds right to me. Protecting privacy is good, punishing people who get drunk and cause accidents is good, requiring a warrant seems right.

[GreenMan]

Not a complete win, but we'll take it. Thanks for your hard work.

[kenrexford]

The key society gain is twofold. First, requiring a warrant stops most abuse. Second, any evasion of the warrant for improper purposes is probably now actionable (sue the culprit). Process is important.

[onoway]

well done sir.

[mike777]

As always the concern is in the pursuit to protect the innocent far to many guilty remain on he streets killing and other. It is always easy to say let a thousand guilty go on killing and hurting thousands to protect the one innocent.


It is always easy when those hurt are not those close to you.

One example only


a Million or more of children are raped, sex for money, yet almost no one goes to jail for rape of these children, over years and years.

Please note I am only discussing rape/sex for money and yet almost no one goes to jail


Now add in the constant rape and sexual assault inside prison/jail that goes unpunished

[kenberg]

Listening to the Kojo Namdi show today:

Jill Lepore was on, discussing her new book The Secret History of Winder Woman.

I had the largest comic book collection of anyone I know including a good many Wonder Woman. I had forgotten about her golden lasso which compelled anyone who was roped to tell the truth.

http://thekojonnamdi...x500-000000.jpg

The whole interview, which I found delightful is at
http://thekojonnamdi...er_woman/@13:20

[kenrexford]

 mike777, on 2014-November-05, 00:31, said:

As always the concern is in the pursuit to protect the innocent far to many guilty remain on he streets killing and other. It is always easy to say let a thousand guilty go on killing and hurting thousands to protect the one innocent.


It is always easy when those hurt are not those close to you.

One example only


a Million or more of children are raped, sex for money, yet almost no one goes to jail for rape of these children, over years and years.

Please note I am only discussing rape/sex for money and yet almost no one goes to jail


Now add in the constant rape and sexual assault inside prison/jail that goes unpunished

I have no statistics to back me up on this. However, I find it hard to believe that requiring a police officer to ask a judge please would cause thousands of children to be raped and murdered. If so, then by God we had better hand over our naive liberty immediately.

[kenberg]

If this thread wanders, as threads do, from the original formulation I would like to see a general discussion of privacy. The legal iussues of the state violating privacy is one thing, but I seldom bump up against it. If the NSA is having someone listen to my phone calls, I hope that they provided him with plenty of coffee. This doesn't mean that it is ok, it just means that my objection is more theoretical than practical. Other issues include employers snooping on their employees and, the part that most all of us might well encounter, snoopy neighbors and acquaintances. It is now so easy to find out a great deal.

I think there should be a fairly strong social taboo about snooping. The fact that technologically we can do it does not require that it be socially acceptable to do so. Laws often follow public change in what is acceptable, and so a social taboo against casual snooping might build support for legal restrain on government and employer snooping.

If KenR would prefer that we keep the thread more focused, I withdraw this suggestion.

[mike777]

Regarding privacy, not sure it exists in 2014 with the machines.
Perhaps it might be better if the young and youngish who literally seemed addicted to the machines speak on the issue of privacy than old fogeys such as me who pine for the olden days of privacy and gossip.

[kenrexford]

 mike777, on 2014-November-05, 18:54, said:

Regarding privacy, not sure it exists in 2014 with the machines.
Perhaps it might be better if the young and youngish who literally seemed addicted to the machines speak on the issue of privacy than old fogeys such as me who pine for the olden days of privacy and gossip.

I grok you. I miss rolling down my car window by hand.

[onoway]

http://www.ted.com/t...privacy_matters I particularly like the response he has to people who say to him that they don't really care because they have no need for privacy, only people who have something to hide worry about it.

[onoway]

Speaking of which I found the other day in order for Apple to allow me to use my new iPad fully, and to have any sort of protection from whatever bugs and such are out there, I have to tell them my birthday. I see no reason why they need to know that. It seems to me like buying a car and finding out after you have paid for it that unless you give the manufacturer whatever private information they wish to ask you won't be able to use reverse... the car is still usable to a point but certainly not as usable as you would reasonably have expected it to be as a new vehicle. I know I could lie but that's not the point, why should I be forced into a situation where my choices are to be forced to give information they have no reason or right to ask, to live with an overpriced and nearly useless gadget, or be dishonest?

[1eyedjack]

 onoway, on 2014-November-09, 10:51, said:

... or be dishonest?

That's the key. You have to tell them your birthday, but just don't to tell them your REAL birthday.
Best to keep track of which birthdays you have told to whom, mind.
You can store stuff like that in your LastPass vault.

[Trinidad]

 onoway, on 2014-November-09, 10:51, said:

Speaking of which I found the other day in order for Apple to allow me to use my new iPad fully, and to have any sort of protection from whatever bugs and such are out there, I have to tell them my birthday. I see no reason why they need to know that. It seems to me like buying a car and finding out after you have paid for it that unless you give the manufacturer whatever private information they wish to ask you won't be able to use reverse... the car is still usable to a point but certainly not as usable as you would reasonably have expected it to be as a new vehicle. I know I could lie but that's not the point, why should I be forced into a situation where my choices are to be forced to give information they have no reason or right to ask, to live with an overpriced and nearly useless gadget, or be dishonest?

One of my kids had to buy an iPad for school. (No, not just any tablet, an Apple iPad 2.) I am an oldtimer and I was under the impression that an iPad is a stripped down computer in a more compact format than a laptop, primarily geared towards using internet, social media and small programs called apps. (She is using it with apps that the school provides.)

Boy, was I wrong. It turned out to be impossible to download any apps (even free ones or the ones that the school provides) unless you:

- either: Give your credit card information and agree to pay whatever bill Apple will be sending you.
- or: buy a prepaid iTunes card (for a minimum amount of 15 euro = $19).

My conclusion was that an iPad is a device to play whatever Apple sells with a built-in cash register.

To stay with your vehicle analogy: It is like buying a car and paying it in full. But you can't start it unless you give your credit card details (or pay for a voucher) to buy CDs for the CD player.

Rik

P.S. Don't get me started on the stability of this thing.

[kenberg]

 onoway, on 2014-November-09, 10:41, said:

http://www.ted.com/t...privacy_matters I particularly like the response he has to people who say to him that they don't really care because they have no need for privacy, only people who have something to hide worry about it.

A very interesting talk.

Privacy is such a broad topic. A good part of my response to all of this sharing and monitoring comes from my childhood, which I believe was almost infinitely less monitored than is the case for the modern child. Parents, some of them, monitor the child's whereabouts through cellphones. I know they mean well, but how awful. Just how is the child to develop any sense of his own identity? I know of a couple, now divorced, where the husband monitored his wife's location by tracking her cellphone. To protect her, of course. Of course, my ass. Or even if this was the intent, neither I nor my wife would welcome such protection. As we age, our views may change on this for reasons of practicality, but really we need to give others some space, including parents and children and including husbands and wives.

Growing up, I and others often made our own decisions and checked for approval with no one. In my view, this is an absolutely essential part of growing up. As an adult, I don't wish to check up on others, I have no intention of letting them check on me.

I am sure Greenwald is right that a sense that your every action may well be monitored acts as a great restraint on personal development. He didn't put it exactly that way, but I think he would agree with this phrasing.

Catching the monsters who intend evil complicates this equation. We need to get it right. Evil exists, and it has to be coped with. It was easier when privacy could only be invaded one opened envelope at a time.

[barmar]

 Trinidad, on 2014-November-09, 12:43, said:

Boy, was I wrong. It turned out to be impossible to download any apps (even free ones or the ones that the school provides) unless you:

- either: Give your credit card information and agree to pay whatever bill Apple will be sending you.
- or: buy a prepaid iTunes card (for a minimum amount of 15 euro = $19)

Yes, you have to give your CC#, but you can still limit yourself to only downloading free apps.

AFAIK, this isn't specific to the iPad. Apple has the same policy with full-blown Macintosh computers: to register with the App Store or iTunes Store, you need to provide a CC#. But no one is forcing you to buy stuff with it.

But this week's episode of South Park shows that even "free" apps can be expensive.

[1eyedjack]

Rather disenfranchises anyone who doesn't have a credit card

[kenberg]

 1eyedjack, on 2014-November-10, 11:46, said:

Rather disenfranchises anyone who doesn't have a credit card

This is in fact how I ended up with first one and then two. This was quite a while ago, the first time around 1980. I was planning on seeing a play, i stopped at the box office a couple of weeks in advance to buy tickets. They would take neither cash nor a check! So I got a MasterCard. About 15 years later, a repeat. They wouldn't take MasterCard, onlyVisa. Apparently the Credit Card companmies work out some sort of deal with the theaters. Or something. Similar to soft drinks. The University of Maryland is a Pepsi campus, you cannot buy CocaCola there. I have thought it could be fun to start an illicit business selling CocaCola and then, when caught, say that I was busted for selling Coke.

Of course now I have joined the world and use a credit card for damn near everything. So, like Santa, they know what I've been eating, they know if I've been bad or good, etc.

For some reason, every time I log on to BBO they want to sell me women's dresses. I am not sure what to make of that.

[billw55]

 kenberg, on 2014-November-10, 12:13, said:

I was planning on seeing a play, i stopped at the box office a couple of weeks in advance to buy tickets. They would take neither cash nor a check! So I got a MasterCard.

This hasn't happened to me yet, but I have my argument all ready. All US paper money says right on it, "this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private". I will therefore claim that they are legally obligated to accept cash, especially exact change. I may get barred from the place, whatever it turns out to be.