What the hell were the last two decades?

[Barrister]

I will say it again - for someone coming from Ukraine, your faith in the benevolence and self-restraint of a government operating without a de facto supervision is amazing.

Although I'm quite proud of Ukrainian heritage, given how I'm 5th generation Canadian and my ancestors  fled either Austria-Hungary or Tsarist Russia, I'm not sure how it's relevant.   

[Barrister]

There are varying degrees of privacy one can expect in different places, that is true, but in the absence of technology allowing that, our civilization has developed certain expectations of privacy, including in public places, which admittedly rely on the failing nature of human perception and ability to process data.

Actually the concept of privacy while outside of the home is incredibly new (and I believe a mirage).  Try living in any kind of small community (either an actually small town, or in a smaller portion of an overall population, such as the Warsaw legal community or the Polish gay community).  You'll find there is very little privacy, and what you do within that community is frequently reported to others within that community.



And why do you characterize my view as supporting "a government operating without a de facto supervision"?  I in fact argued the opposite.     That governments can be trusted, but only with proper supervision and other controls.

[Barrister]

I don't think we will come to an agreement over this - our views differ too much. So this is my last post on the issue. I just want to say I find your philosophy on this (and other related concepts) to be absolutely terrifying.

You're quite free to withdraw from the discussion.  But given how you did nothing but launch personal attacks, mischaracterize some of my points, and then ignore others, you'll find me unperturbed that you find my philosophy 'absolutely terrifying'.  You've shown no interest in learning what my philosophy is, and prefer to attack what you think it is.

[Razgovory]

I don't find Barrister's views terrifying or even that strange.  I don't think I'd care for CCTV cameras everywhere though in the end I wouldn't care that much.  I mean they are on private property all the time.  Anytime you walk into a store you are being filmed.  At least when the government does it there is some kind of oversight.

[Ed Anger]

I don't think we will come to an agreement over this - our views differ too much. So this is my last post on the issue. I just want to say I find your philosophy on this (and other related concepts) to be absolutely terrifying.

You're quite free to withdraw from the discussion.  But given how you did nothing but launch personal attacks, mischaracterize some of my points, and then ignore others, you'll find me unperturbed that you find my philosophy 'absolutely terrifying'.  You've shown no interest in learning what my philosophy is, and prefer to attack what you think it is.

He'll claim he was being shrill on purpose later.

[Barrister]

I don't think we will come to an agreement over this - our views differ too much. So this is my last post on the issue. I just want to say I find your philosophy on this (and other related concepts) to be absolutely terrifying.

You're quite free to withdraw from the discussion.  But given how you did nothing but launch personal attacks, mischaracterize some of my points, and then ignore others, you'll find me unperturbed that you find my philosophy 'absolutely terrifying'.  You've shown no interest in learning what my philosophy is, and prefer to attack what you think it is.

He'll claim he was being shrill on purpose later.

I expect so.

[Eddie Teach]

Your comment was meant as a joke,

How can you tell?

[Ed Anger]

I find Beeb terrifying, based on his Steve Jobs ball sucking.

[The Brain]

That Star Trek episode where they came to a planet where you got executed instantly if you broke the law (by walking on the grass for instance) suggests that a Whitehorseesque police state can work quite well.

[The Brain]

As for CCTV on every corner, I don't have a major problem with it. Common crime is nowhere near those low levels where privacy in the city trumps fighting it.

[Neil]

I think it's important to persecute homosexuals, and if technology can help us out and persecute gay people in public life, all the better.

[Barrister]

That Star Trek episode where they came to a planet where you got executed instantly if you broke the law (by walking on the grass for instance) suggests that a Whitehorseesque police state can work quite well.

While through federal government grants (and a crime rate that puts Detroit and Baltimore to shame) Whitehorse does have a police per capita rate that is the envy (or nightmare) of most places, we have nowhere near the population density to make public CCTV cameras worthwhile.

[Razgovory]

Your comment was meant as a joke,

How can you tell?

Cause it was amusing!

[jimmy olsen]

Can anyone provide a coherent objection to CCTV usage beyond "1984!!!1"? As BB says, it's no more sinister than more constables on the beat.

Also, to turn the question around - could you provide a coherent objection to your every conversation, including phone conversations, when carried out in a place where it is capable of being overheard by someone, being taped and stored?

I can't.  Can you?

Are you serious?

[DGuller]

My argument is that as technology develops, restrictions should be put on technology to maintain the same level of privacy that we have always enjoyed - and not vice versa, to restrict the sphere of privacy to accommodate new technology.

Marty makes a good point.  Just because our privacy in public is not protected doesn't mean that we had no privacy in public.  If we wind up having privacy only where our privacy is protected, it would be a huge step backwards.