home

Friday Night Open Thread

The association football starts early tomorrow, with Greece facing South Korea at 7 am on the East Coast and Argentina facing Nigeria at 9:30am.

The big one for us is at 2 pm - USA v. England.

I like Greece, Nigeria and England. More on these games at Sportsleft.

< Joran Van der Sloot Transferred to Miguel Castro Castro Prison | World Cup: Argentina v. Nigeria >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    OMG UK really? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 09:52:51 AM EST
    What a traitor!  USA!  USA!  USA!

    Don't worry... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by desertswine on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 11:51:12 AM EST
    it looks like the reverse jinx is in effect.

    Parent
    Here's hoping Big Tent goes 0-3 (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by catchy on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 12:10:03 PM EST
    .

    Oil Experts Upset Obama Changed Report (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 12:38:04 AM EST
    WASHINGTON -- A group of engineers and oil experts said Friday that the Interior Department changed the language of a high-profile oil spill report after they'd signed it, falsely signaling their support for a drilling moratorium that they thought went too far.

    The new language called for a stronger and wider moratorium on some oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico than the experts thought necessary. In fact, one said Friday, the stronger moratorium might instead increase the risks slightly.

    McClatchy:

    Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/11/95776/engineers-say-interior-changed.html#ixzz0qc98Fuq4

    What happened to your expertise re (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 12:44:36 AM EST
    links?

    Parent
    Link Works (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 01:19:35 AM EST
    Some sites, like McClatchy automatically add links for each copy and paste, I missed the second one.

    And I do make mistakes.

    Parent

    I am certainly glad Mexico/SFA game (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 12:45:13 AM EST
    did not start at 4 am EDT!

    Bob Herbert NYT OP ED (none / 0) (#5)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 06:06:41 AM EST
    "Ultimately, the public is at fault for this catastrophe in Afghanistan, where more than 1,000 G.I.'s have now lost their lives. If we don't have the courage as a people to fight and share in the sacrifices when our nation is at war, if we're unwilling to seriously think about the war and hold our leaders accountable for the way it is conducted, if we're not even willing to pay for it, then we should at least have the courage to pull our valiant forces out of it".

    A very true assessment of the apathy that has overrun this country.

    Way past limit asking Public to set hair on fire (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Ellie on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 10:12:57 AM EST
    ... for every GD thing, big or small.

    To me, that's not so much apathy as the public having more common sense than opportunistic players running their own agendas.

    The Alarmist Aughts started out with genuinely perturbing assaults on rights and franchise under the fraudulent guise of Terra Terra Terra!

    Whether to expose what was behind the fearmongering or consolidate a decent pushback, raising the alarm (by "our" side) I was willing to contribute wherever and whatever I could.

    What became of that?

    Shorter Dems: OMFG, it's the Repug steamroller! Set YOUR hair on fire while we hitch our comity-numb @sses to the zamboni!

    Shorter (Actual) Librul Media: OMFG! Set YOUR hair on fire while we attempt to adopt a Fox model for access, ratings and CHA-CHING!!!

    Shorter Blogistan: OMFG! Some blogger you never read said something about some other blogger you also never read. Hair! On Fire! GO!

    And what now? Fast forward to Carly Fiorina weighing in on Barbara Boxer's hair; poli-celeb sex tapes and psychodramas; twitters, tweets and drivel filling every last microspace of on/offline real estate with inflammatory clutter designed to be set alight for the barest attention.

    I find myself lucky enough still to have any hair that's not smoldering. As for anyone's particular agenda, traffic req'ts and fortunes, I'm more inclined to pull back than go for the butane coif lighter on demand.

    I need a cool head to support the issues and causes that have always mattered to me.

    Parent

    Super Bad News For USC (none / 0) (#6)
    by Saul on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 08:11:19 AM EST
    Ton of sanctions on USC.  But they are on appeal which I heard are very hard to over turn.  Investigation by NCCA found marketers offering all sorts of stuff.  Will lose 20 scholarships, band on bowl games for 2 years, Bush to lose Heisman Trophy, will have to forfeit all wins since 2004.  

    I was listening (none / 0) (#7)
    by Zorba on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 08:28:48 AM EST
    to some sports commentators talk about this the other day.  They basically felt that the loss of twenty scholarships meant the loss of twenty scholarships, in effect, for all of Division 1A college football.  The twenty who won't get scholarships to USC will go and get scholarships elsewhere, displacing twenty from that school, and those twenty will then go somewhere else, as well, and on and on, leaving a net loss for twenty kids (presumably at the bottom end of the talent pool) who won't get scholarships anywhere.  Makes some sense to me.  Which is not to say that USC shouldn't have been punished- the NCAA has, in the past, been too easy on some of the offending schools.

    Parent
    As a UT fan may I wish (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 08:42:56 AM EST
    Kiffin a Happy New Year watching bowl games from his home in 2011 and 2012.

    Karma. It's what for dinner.

    Parent

    Too true (none / 0) (#10)
    by Zorba on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 08:56:11 AM EST
    Between the loss of the bowl games, and the loss of the scholarships, USC's recruiting,and therefore its football program, will be impacted for years.  (Correction:  it's not 20 scholarships, it's 30- 10 each for the next three years).  It's just too bad that former USC coach Pete Carroll gets away with nothing happening to him.  He left some months ago for a job with the Seattle Seahawks.  

    Parent
    Agree on Carroll (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 11:59:52 AM EST
    But Kiffin had to know about the investigation when he took the job. And some may even date back to his previous stint at USC.

    That I have zip sympathy for Kiffin, the guy is "Big I" personified, is obvious. If he had stayed at TN he would have eventually hurt the school.

    I firmly believe that it is past time for college players to start being paid a reasonable wage in addition to their scholarships. The NCAA's "rules" are the essence of hypocrisy.

    And I have to wonder how the powers that are took his press conference statements on how "powerful" USC is. Almost sounded like a threat.

    Parent

    Yes, Kiffin is (none / 0) (#25)
    by Zorba on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 12:30:11 PM EST
    a peace of work, himself, and I think you're right that he must have known.  I also agree about the NCAA being steeped in hypocrisy.  The big sports schools make a pile from their teams (particularly football, and basketball, too).  Stop all this hypocritical nonsense about "student athletes."  These schools essentially are the "minor leagues" for the pro teams.  Pay the kids (and get the pro teams to kick in a pot to be divvied up for salaries, as well as using some of the money the schools make on the teams).  

    Parent
    I meant to write (none / 0) (#26)
    by Zorba on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 12:33:50 PM EST
    "piece of work," of course.  Darned spell-check; it should have known which homophone I wanted!  ;-)  

    Parent
    Concur about (none / 0) (#27)
    by brodie on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 12:34:59 PM EST
    compensating players, at least enough to keep them and their families away from temptation and enough to begin to address the fairness questions regarding the princely sums the coaches and schools are making off the players' sweat and physical sacrifice.

    And while I'd normally want to go off on the nitpicking rules and selective enforcement by the NCAA, and it's possible the sanctions here are excessive compared to the infractions committed, from what I've read it appears Garrett, USC football and Carroll did little to supervise their star players and their immediate families -- 1 or 2 rather underworked compliance officials at SC to go with a remarkably stupid wide-open-to-all locker room policy by Carroll.  

    Basic common sense, from AD Mike Garrett to Pete Carroll, should have mandated at least a closer and more frequent monitoring of the few superstar/Reggie Bush (and parents) living situations.  But apparently SC didn't even do that.

    Too bad, but from the early looks of it, USC probably deserves this one.  And one strongly suspects Pete Carroll knew a major hammer was about to come down on his program, and nimbly sought a quick exit to the pros.  

    Parent

    As an A&M fan (none / 0) (#37)
    by jbindc on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 03:33:56 PM EST
    While it wouldn't be the same not playing t.u. every year, I'd rather see A&M go to the SEC - same time zone and better competition.

    Parent
    passion is as passion does (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 08:40:25 AM EST

    Love Hormone Could Also Lead to War

    A brain hormone that fosters fuzzy feelings between mothers and children may also goad soldiers to launch preemptive strikes in defense of their comrades, according to new research.

    Oxytocin has received much attention for boosting social bonding and cooperation, but it also appears to trigger defensive aggression against outsiders who might threaten an individual's social group, psychologists say. That indicates the hormone has a much more complex role in social dynamics than just encouraging humans to make love and not war.



    It's not Big Brother we need to worry about (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 09:48:41 AM EST
    It's "300 million Little Brothers"

    h/t Volokh

    Much of our law is based around fear of surveillance by the government (Big Brother).  The Fourth Amendment is the easiest example; it is based around a fear of an overly intrusive government acting in its role as sovereign.  Statutory law like the Electronic Communications Privacy Act also seeks to protect individual privacy against the government.  And laws like the Stored Communications Act and HIPPA prohibit corporations from revealing certain information about you.

    But now an equally real risk is 300 million Little Brothers.  We've moved from the Panopticon--where the guards can see everything--to a suburb of glass houses where everyone can see each other.  This is a powerful development for politics (we can now watch the watchers), but it has changed inter-personal privacy as well.  What laws (if any) should be updated to reflect this new reality?  Or should we all just get used to living in public-to quote Google CEO Eric Schmidt "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."  The power of the Internet is increasingly moving toward making sure that everybody knows what everybody does.  Is this the right direction?



    It goes beyond (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by JamesTX on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 12:25:11 PM EST
    laws to changing the very psychological environment in which we must live. The boundaries of self are being torn down, so that there is no longer any clear distinction between what is "me" and what is others. Some might call it a loss of "privacy", but the term privacy doesn't really capture the full impact of the development. The concept of privacy is at the heart of our psychological sense of self. It depends on a establishing a clear and reliable boundary for where I end and others begin. It has long been held by psychodynamic theorists to be that adaptive information processing structure which emerges in children during the period from 18 months to 3 years. It is the fundamental way in which we mentally organize our worlds. These developments threaten the basic personality structure which is the foundation of our culture and social reasoning. Not only will laws need to change, but everything will change dramatically.

    Parent
    I had some thoughts along these lines (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 12:53:23 PM EST
    but you said it better. Privacy issues now include identity issues. Controlling identity via monitoring is an issue beyond stealing an identity - but includes it. The new power is who can see and record who?

    Parent
    No doubt... (none / 0) (#34)
    by JamesTX on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 01:05:53 PM EST

    The new power is who can see and record who?

    One explanation for that power is that the old ways of thinking about ourselves and identity will no longer do. As long as we are still operating on 20th century assumptions about others and self, there will be awesome power in being able to show those assumptions are false. Our identities are abstract and idealistic constructions. Everybody, in some small part of their life, is the exact opposite of the identity they portray. Exposing that, and making it bigger than life by freezing it in media, destroys them.

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#42)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 04:12:52 PM EST
    Our identities are abstract and idealistic constructions

    I guess our faces are too. I recently fought an exorbitant traffic ticket that was from a hidden camera. The driver was not me tho the car was mine. The whole thing was extremely creepy and it took me months and $$ to fight it. The facial recognition thing is alarming to me.

    Another aspect of s/he who records holds the power is gotcha politics like that guy O'Keefe who set up Acorn workers. Slanted his recording to show what was not there. It was an identity theft in the deepest sense.

    From the link jbindc started this subthread with:

    The figures above don't even count the fact that some forms of advocacy corporate surveillance would increase in a world with easy facial recognition.  Why would anti-abortion groups not photograph every person who walks into an abortion clinic, use facial recognition to identify them, and use public name-and-address databases (see below) to target mailings (or harassment) to each person's home?  Why would anti-gay advocates not do the same for people who frequent gay bars, or liberals target "Tea Party" activists, or statists target libertarians, etc?  Or insurance companies outside bars to monitor drinking and driving, smoking, or any other risk factor that could increase rates?

    What does this mean for privacy?   If the freedom to take and post photos cannot or should not be changed, should there be regulation of the uses of facial recognition software?  Should it be a privacy tort to publicly identify private citizens by name if they are walking into an abortion clinic, a gay bar, a Tea Party rally, a divorce lawyer's office, a police station (to "snitch"), or a substance abuse treatment facility?  What does it mean when Google indexes a list of these names and it comes up first for a search for your name?  How will it affect job prospects, inter-personal relations, and more?



    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 04:18:05 PM EST
    I, for one, am not willing to give up any more ground on the fourth amendment, because some feel the need to be protected by the police, aka the law.

    Imo, it is the same argument that brought us the patriot act, and every right wing tough on crime law. It is a scary place out there, but it is much more scary when we legislate away our freedoms for the sake of perceived safety.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#49)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 04:52:53 PM EST
    I'm not arguing this, or anything at the moment. I'm just interested in how privacy is a conceptual underpinning of identity. I'm interested in being informed about it and protecting privacy as a way of keeping the power to self-define. New technology pushes the old limits of this, opening up new issues of self-identity via privacy.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 04:57:07 PM EST
    From your personal anecdote and quote, you seem scared.

    Parent
    not scared (none / 0) (#51)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 05:16:42 PM EST
    just interested. Aren't you? As an artist issues of cultural practice, identity and cultural critique can be important. Don't you think what O'Keefe did to Acorn was interesting? It certainly pushed the boundaries of self definition. It was identity recording used as a weapon, and it worked.

    Parent
    It Worked (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 05:22:15 PM EST
    Yeah, cheap political trick. It also worked that some tricked us into attacking and occupying Iraq, so what.

    As far as technologies go, I am usually interested, particularly with imaging software. But there will always be criminals who exploit technology, if they steal from me, I hope that they get caught and I am made whole.

    But I am not willing to exchange my feeling of safety, for creating new laws that restrict my freedom.

    Parent

    good for you (none / 0) (#53)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 05:24:51 PM EST
    I think the (none / 0) (#57)
    by JamesTX on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 06:04:58 PM EST
    argument here represents one form of the thesis and antithesis for which the synthesis will be a change in the structure of personality. Excuse the grandiosity, but I think the answer is that both paths are impossible.

    Parent
    I hope I'm following you JamesTX (#57) (none / 0) (#58)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 06:44:33 PM EST
    It seems to me that technology redefines people. Or perhaps it is the other way around - or both occur sympathetically. In any case changes in personality seem to correlate to advances in technology. It seems organic tho, which I understand your point to be - the new incorporated into an existing cultural personality structure.  hm......too wordy.... for example, my nephew is only partly self defined by his facebook persona (and oddly he has allowed me complete access to his page and info - he is only 14). New concepts of technology are just part of him. But he still is a human boy and he uses technology like he would use anything. (like shooter games and to talk about girls and to assert his prowess)

    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#63)
    by JamesTX on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 08:10:19 PM EST
    It seems to me that technology redefines people. Or perhaps it is the other way around - or both occur sympathetically.

    I think I finally understand contextualism!

    If we can't control surveillance (laws wouldn't work if we had them) and we don't want to control surveillance (because it would result in limiting our own freedom), then we have to change such that the consequences of surveillance are not so dangerous. That requires becoming immune to it somehow. Even the person with the strongest sense of integrity can be reduced to a stammering mess with the right kind of surveillance. Our identities, our self-concepts, will have to change such that the products of surveillance are less relevant.

    One thing I read somewhere (or heard on a talk show) was a conversation about how celebrities deal with spying paparazzi. One person simply responds to unflattering film and photos with the claim "that's not me." And, in reality, no matter how it was produced, it's not! It is data.

    Parent

    JamesTX (none / 0) (#64)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 09:01:24 PM EST
    I think I finally understand contextualism!

    Why thank you JamesTX. That sentence might have been a bit mush-brained, but in hindsight I consider it a work of contemporary art.  :)

    There are so many levels this conversation is on and, as a daughter of a psychologist, I relate to your take. It will be the survival of the psychologically fittest who can define themselves in ways other than their outer image - or their facebook image (or the likes), or their image on their online banking page. People always use reflections to define themselves - family, vocation, wealth, many more.... and now our electronic persona(s). Hey, we are here in internetland having a sort of conversation so that is a sort of definition.

    Ways to define the self that are not reflected by outer emblems have traditionally been spiritual or religious. Often (IMO) the religious usurps the spiritual and then defines as some outer form. Nevertheless, a true self definition is a sort of non-definition that is an essence of being. But this is getting into philosophy.

    Still, it will also come in for legal considerations. Read that photoing or videoing police is illegal (!?!!) in some places - so there is that. What is admissible in court is one thing, but to record some people associated with government (cops) is illegal? Recording people and stealing their identities, like in the O'Keefe case (and frankly, the Yes Men on the left -- to a lesser extent certainly) are newly powerful political weapons = cheap tricks. If these are the "new laws" then I am with Squeaky calling for no new laws 110%. Too bad the genie is already out of the bottle. And this also gets into copyright issues - who owns or controls what images? Do we own images of our bodies? Or do we own images (text images like in facebook) of our inner personalities?


    Parent

    ;-) I don't know if (none / 0) (#66)
    by JamesTX on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 10:50:37 PM EST
    the laws prohibiting filming police have had much time to be tested, but I would think they would be fertile ground. But you are right that the ultimate power to deny others surveillance is power in the new world. Our government has always leaned toward openness in the long run (with many diversions in the short term), but it may not go that way now. The issue is that due to some rather effective marketing over the last few decades, people do not identify the police with the government. The police are good. The government is bad. With that kind of newspeak, who knows where we are going?

    Artists are already adapting to the inability to copyright and sell their work. They use their work to get a name and a following, then they sell the name.

    Applying the rules of matter (property) to information (intellectual property and identity) raises problems. Information does not behave like matter. It is not the same kind of stuff. It is not conserved. Hence we are usually quite clear on reasoning about who owns a car, but who owns an image of someone is going to be the subject of endless debate. That problem is about to become bigger than it has ever been, and it has had quite run in the last century.

    Parent

    also..... (none / 0) (#65)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 09:38:53 PM EST
    I think I finally understand contextualism!

    Context and contextualism (a heinous word, truly) are just ways to try to control and thus answer the original query..... or from another (context) pov, joke  -- what comes first the chicken or the egg?


    Parent

    Contextualism (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by JamesTX on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 11:50:22 PM EST
    is not only synthetic but dispersive (Stephen Pepper, World Hypotheses, 1942), which in this...context...I think of as seeing the world as an endless sea of information not required to be tied together or connected in any way -- no ultimate order or truth. Everything depends on the perspective, or...the context. Psychologically, everything is what we choose (or our cognitive equipment chooses) to pay attention to. It is figure and ground decisions, and there are infinite figures against infinite backgrounds. When I understood it was quite possible that other people "saw" something different than I did, and  we could both be right, I finally grew up! It took a long time. Some of us are slow.

    Parent
    Don't (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 05:54:47 PM EST
    let anyone take your picture and then post it on the internet or on their phones.

    Parent
    Dont let yourself (none / 0) (#56)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 06:01:53 PM EST
    lose any sleep worrying about it; the way Jim worries about Focus on the Family's place being usurped by radical Islam..

    Parent
    (#54) Jbindc (none / 0) (#60)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 07:03:17 PM EST
    Don't let anyone take your picture and then post it on the internet or on their phones.

    Good luck with that. Your image is just out there these days - unless you stay in a room with the shades drawn. It is no longer in your control. Watch how Jordan vdS is followed around via camera. Just go into any mini-mart or pretty much anywhere and your image is captured. Sorry, permission days are over (if they ever existed). And who are you to give permission anyway? Maybe it is another person's right to take your photo. Who owns your image?

    Parent

    Which was the whole point to begin with (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 08:27:18 AM EST
    Many people (especially here) lament what the government can do with surveillance. That's one issue - the other issue is that we may have more to worry about from our friends, our family, our neighbors, corporations, or random people on the street.

    I know, for instance, the chances of me getting caught on camera robbing a bank, or planting a bomb at a federal building, are exactly zero. I feel pretty confident that I am not going to be a terror suspect or wanted in murder.  I don't do anything on my computer that is illegal or say anything I wouldn't say to a cop or judge's face. I do, however, have very real concerns about my information being sold by people I do business with, my credit card number being stolen by a clerk when I use it at the mall, etc.

    Which was the entire point of the post - not my opinion on Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 11:10:15 AM EST
    Your point was clear.
    the other issue is that we may have more to worry about from our friends, our family, our neighbors, corporations, or random people on the street.
    Unlike you, I worry more about government surveillance, than any public attempt to photograph me and use that material for criminal purposes.

    As I said, these kinds of worries, seem to always come from the tough on crime sector of the public who would trade away liberties for the false sense of security.

    Legislators love this kind of stuff because they jump on the bandwagon rushing to promise a slew of new laws that will make the bedwetters feel safe. Of course the reasoning behind people like you who call for more protection, is that it will only affect "bad people". Well does the patriot act affect only bad people? Did the illegal government wiretapping only affect bad people?

    As I have said before, living in a relatively free society involves accepting the fact that bad things can happen to you. I would rather take that risk than live in fear of the government.

    Oh, and by the way, the authors twist on "big brother" for the sake of selling a few books and software, seems really pretty reprehensible to me. It is fearmongering worthy of BushCo.

    Parent

    I guess I thought the point was (none / 0) (#70)
    by ZtoA on Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 01:43:25 PM EST
    more about using imaging - facial imaging - to control someone, and not just about ownership of one's information. This is about one's very face. The technology is getting vastly more powerful and more accessible to the everyday person. Now we all can be private investigators. We could use facial imaging for personal control issues - checking up on lovers/partners or children or rivals or to bully perceived enemies or whatever. Or as the article says, imaging can be used to intimidate people for quasi political reasons like searching for who has visited an abortion clinic or attended a TeaParty. Like virtual stocks. Its not really that new, just getting more powerful.

    Parent
    Yes Technology (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 01:50:34 PM EST
    The technology is getting vastly more powerful and more accessible to the everyday person. Now we all can be private investigators. We could use facial imaging for personal control issues - checking up on lovers/partners or children or rivals or to bully perceived enemies or whatever.

    And guns can be used to kill people. This technology, seems much more benign than guns, imo.

    Do you think that this technology is only something that would be used for nefarious purposes?

    When it is disallowed for people to video, or photograph in public places, only the government will have that power. When it is disallowed for people to copy and use images in the public domain (internet etc) then the government will be the only one to use those images.

    Hey, it is risky living in a free country. People should go to Singapore if they want to live in a nanny state.

    Parent

    Well I agree (none / 0) (#73)
    by ZtoA on Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 02:31:34 PM EST
    about not restricting it. It would be futile anyway - the genie is out of the bottle. And yes, there are risks - no need to hide one's head in the sand to avoid seeing them. Besides, imaging technology is such a hallmark of our times it is interesting just because of that. Some laws probably will change and then get challenged, and it probably will change personal psychology and self identity, and relationships too....facebook, match.com, blogs  etc.

    As far as your question - can't answer since I can't tell out of which left field it comes from. But I will say that I use imaging everyday. I might be nefarious tho.

    Parent

    Andy Warhol's wildest speculations (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 02:11:19 PM EST
    come true. In a manner of speaking.

    Parent
    Personally I think (none / 0) (#55)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 05:58:51 PM EST
    the idea that people "self define" at some relatively early developmental stage is more of a holdover from a time when we weren't all embedded from birth in a McLuhanesqe electronic, informational "matrix".

    And what do we say about those who seem so caught up these days in actively courting - through the constant twittering, Face Book networking etc etc - a loss, or at least, a radical redefinition of "privacy"?

    Parent

    (#55) Jondee (none / 0) (#59)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 06:55:50 PM EST
    You know, one way people have self defined (like you say) since early childhood is thru photos or home videos. Photographic reproduction becomes a part of memory and "that's me". That happened during the last century. For example my mother showed me photos of all of her relatives and the ones who passed away around mid 1900s had only a few old photos. Now, the kids are documented in utero and on and on. And you are right about all the relating via facebook and twitter etc, but those who use this use it as just another technology, like a car gets you places.

    Another aspect of this that interests me is the fact that documentation and the sharing of documentation is dependent on the internet which is dependent on the electrical grid. We are so very interconnected these days. Sometimes it makes me want to be a survivalist, but that doesn't last long  :)

    Parent

    Z (none / 0) (#74)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 02:45:33 PM EST
    there's also a big I-wanna-be-a-celebrity-too (with little, or no privacy) aspect to the addiction a lot of younger people seem to have to all the Youtube and photo sharing etc    stuff..I've seen a fair amount of this, (too much)informational Brave New World first hand; with two late teens - early twenties cyberpirates on my hands..

    Also, imo, A lot of people are using this "matrix" to "get lost" and experience the fluidity and participatory aspects of identity; the same way some of their parents used acid and the way people previously used art, music and religion -- and the same hazard still exists now as existed then: people are forgetting that you have become grounded and find out who you are, before you go seeking whatever is beyond that.

     

    Parent

    More Laws (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 11:37:40 AM EST
    The panopticon only benefits the government. It is not surprising that you too want to remove the tools we have to counter the panopticon and government abuse.

    I linked to an article earlier that points out the government has already started to remove the tools to counter the enormous power of the state, sounds like you are down with these new laws, not surprising coming from you,

    In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.

    Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.

    The legal justification for arresting the "shooter" rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where "no expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.

    Gizmodo


    Parent

    I'm not sure (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jbindc on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 12:17:05 PM EST
    How you twisted yourself into a pretzel to think that I

    ...too want to remove the tools we have to counter the panopticon and government abuse.

    More fantasy-land made up stuff. But ok - whatever you want to believe, if it makes you feel better to think that.

    Parent

    BS (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 12:20:44 PM EST
    You are the one here who has just advocated for more laws. Additional laws that would have people arrested for photography, video, or recording in public.

    That is clear, but please do tell what else you had in mind.

    Parent

    Where is this advocacy to which you refer? (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 03:36:02 PM EST
    All I saw was an excerpt from a blog post, with no opinion offered one way or the other; you know, kind of like the unbelievably numerous links to "interesting" bits that Capt. Howdy drops into open threads every single day.

    I don't know whether you have a reading comprehension problem, a belief that you have been anointed the TL purity monitor, a tendency to OCD, or all of the above.

    Regardless, these little fictions you create from the weird recesses of your mind are ridiculous.

    Parent

    It doesn't matter, Anne (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jbindc on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 03:45:26 PM EST
    I could say the sky was blue, and I would be accused of: 1)advocating that the government change the law so that cops could arrest you for liking blue skies, and 2) that I would be blaming Obama for blue skies and would obviously think that Hillary would never ruin anybody's enjoyment of blue skies.

    It doesn't make sense of course, but if it makes him happy to believe that, who am I to ruin that happiness?

    Parent

    What's really funny (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jbindc on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 03:46:53 PM EST
    Is that the post has nothing to do with laws or the government, except to the fact that the author's point was your privacy is more invaded nowadays by private companies and private individuals than even the government does.

    Totally missed the point.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 04:14:07 PM EST
    I guess there is some truth to what you are saying, although the gist of the article suggests that new laws need to be created, and is essentially fearmongering.

    But clearly the author is fearmongering in order to promote his book and the privacy software company that employs him. The article could be seen as a big infomercial.

     

    What laws (if any) should be updated to reflect this new reality?  Or should we all just get used to living in public-to quote Google CEO Eric Schmidt "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."  The power of the Internet is increasingly moving toward making sure that everybody knows what everybody does.  Is this the right direction?

    Again, for the third time I ask you, do you think that there should be new laws, or not?

    Parent

    Why don't you do some research? (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 04:32:17 PM EST
    The post was written for the Volokh Conspiracy - a libertarian-leaning site.  The author is the General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer for a software company called "Reputation Finder", so I highly doubt he is advocating for more "intrusive laws", as you always seem to think and want to start arguments over. And since I didn't offer my opinion, because the whole post has nothing to do with the government, I don't see why you keep wanting it now, except so that you can twist whatever I say into something that fits your own world view.

    Might help if you want to comment, if you actually READ what the post says.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 04:36:20 PM EST
    I know the site, and read about the author. As I said earlier, he is creating a scary scenario in order to sell his book and sell privacy software from the company he works for.

    The basic gist of the article is that we need more laws but since we do not have more laws buy my book and buy my company's software.

    And again, for the fourth time, do you think that we need new laws, or are you just buying the software and book?

    Parent

    I'm not buying either (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 04:40:37 PM EST
    And I'm not giving you ammunition to start an argument.  You'd argue with me even if I agreed with you 100%.

    Parent
    So why do you respond (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 07:08:34 PM EST
    and respond and respond and respond when attacked?  If you ignored these posts, as most of us now do, you'd be depriving the poster of what he/she most wants and saving your blood pressure.  And not contributing to clogging up almost every thread with an attempt to refute these absurd charges.

    Parent
    What squeaky really wants is to (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 07:41:49 PM EST
    harass people he doesn't like until they give up and go away; I think he gets some weird kind of satisfaction from that, which says more about him and the content of his life than it does about anyone else.

    As someone who is on the receiving end of the squeaky treatment on a fairly regular basis, I know it's hard not to respond when one's comments are completely distorted and he starts making pronouncements about what one is "really" saying, when it's clear that the comment says nothing of the kind.

    I don't like people putting words in my mouth, not when the words I have used are clear in their meaning to most reasonable people.

    At some point, one has to disengage, be the bigger person and just walk away; nothing good ever comes from engaging with squeaky (I should take my own advice more frequently than I do, lol).

    Parent

    I've quit reading his/her comments entirely (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 10:50:29 PM EST
    I highly recommend it.  Nobody whose opinion you or I care about believes the nonsense, so IMO better to just let it stand on its own.  Arguing or refuting gives it credence it doesn't deserve.

    I think your analysis is entirely right, btw.

    Parent

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 04:43:54 PM EST
    Utter poppycock. If I agree with your POV, or particular point you are making, you will get 100% support from me.

    Parent
    Bwahahahahaha (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 03:41:54 PM EST
    Even suggesting that jbindc is not advocating for new tougher laws, is like saying that you never miss a chance to bash Obama.

    Hilarious.

    Parent

    Sure - ok (none / 0) (#24)
    by jbindc on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 12:25:58 PM EST
    Whatever you want to believe.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 12:35:57 PM EST
    Not whatever I want to believe, you are the one who posted a quote from a conservative blog calling for more laws making it illegal to photograph in public.

    Please explain what laws you have in mind, or are you just parroting the conservatives on this one?

    Parent

    Look (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 12:41:54 PM EST
    This is an open thread - which means we can post whatever we want that we find interesting.  I thought this was an interesting perspective from a blog that is one of the "recommended" legal blogs posted on this site.  My opinion was not offered - had you bothered to read the link, you would realize it was the thesis of the post.  But you apparently feel some thrill in catching me in what you think is a "gotcha" moment.  1) You didn't "get" me in anything, and 2) even if you did - so what?  If it makes you feel warm and tingly to think so, however, please fee free to indulge in that feeling.

    Peace out.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 12:45:38 PM EST
    I asked you what laws you would advocate making it illegal to photograph in public. Saying, well it's an open thread, and I just thought I would post this, is not an answer.

    You want to discuss, well, what laws are you advocating for?

    Parent

    I advocate for a law (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by shoephone on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 01:02:12 PM EST
    to muzzle you for the rest of the century. You're friggin' insane.

    Parent
    Not Surprised (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 01:04:16 PM EST
    Heh, heh .... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 09:49:36 PM EST
    Second that ...

    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 01:20:47 PM EST
    And if you want to start protecting yourself, before new laws are passed, you can buy the product the author, David Thompson, is shilling for.

    Probably not a bad idea, if you are worried about being stalked, like jbindc feels she is.

    Reputation Defender

    Parent

    "Is a college degree still worth it"? (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 10:59:21 AM EST
    LAT

    Also, federal statistics for 2008 show that men 25 and older with a bachelor's degree pulled down a median salary of $65,800. That compares with a median of $39,010 for men in the same age group who had completed only high school. Earnings for women were broadly smaller, although the pay gap by education was similar in percentage terms to that of male workers.
     [Italics added.]

    Social Security Cuts (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 11:43:28 AM EST
    WASHINGTON -- President Obama called Saturday for Congress to avert a planned 21 percent pay cut for doctors who see Medicare patients, saying the move was necessary to ensure the health of older Americans.

    The so-called doc fix, which would cost taxpayers billions of dollars, has been stalled in the Senate. If lawmakers do not approve the spending, the cuts will take effect next week.

    Mr. Obama used his weekly Internet address to warn that if Republicans block a vote on the issue, it would "undoubtedly force some doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients altogether."

    The pay cut is the result of a decade-old formula set up by Congress to slow the growth of Medicare, the government-run health insurance system for older Americans. Under the formula, reimbursement rates for Medicare would have been trimmed on a yearly basis. But every year since 2003, Congress has deferred the cuts, with backing from Democrats and Republicans.

    NYT

    Looks like the GOP is on a roll... if they block this they are cooked in November, imo.

    You're confusing Medicare (3.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 12:17:34 PM EST
    and Social Security.

    One way to tell the difference is that Obama probably would not avert Social Security cuts, if he could get 'em.  But that may not be in this term.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 01:06:54 PM EST
    Correct, similar fight, imo.

    Parent