[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Oexmelin]

You have no expectation of privacy to things you do in a public place.

I have expectations of social anonymity, social control and the right to ephemerous, momentous behaviour. All of which are offended and threatened by remote surveillance, lack of context, and preservation for unknown and unforeseen purposes.

I know of course that these might be notions that have no, or little place, or horribly badly framed place in law - but I don't care. Law doesn't empty nor replace, nor even frame society and social relations.

[crazy canuck]

Law doesn't empty nor replace, nor even frame society and social relations.

But it does govern them.

I have not made up my mind on cameras.  Our privacy laws were drafted at a time when few people walked around with video recording devices.  Now all the world seems to be a stage since every mobile phone is a video recorder.

[crazy canuck]

I see I was wrong about the Chiefs.  My recollection was faulty.

Third, knowing there's a backdoor in all security software/hardware sold in Canada, hackers, foreign or domestic, could use this info to look for it and exploit it for themselves.  Recently, it was discovered that Nortel had been hacked for a long while by Chinese, the probe being so deep it wasn't discovered until years had passed.  You're only making it worst by allowing a back-door to be built into firewall products.  There's no way system administrator could be able to determine who's on the other end, cops or hackers.  Not without significant costs at least.

This would be my biggest concern.  Your underlying assumption is that any system created to allow the police to monitor on-line behaviour after they obtain a warrant is necessarily not as secure as the current system.  But is it possible to build a system that is secure?

[Jacob]

Law doesn't empty nor replace, nor even frame society and social relations.

But it does govern them.

I have not made up my mind on cameras.  Our privacy laws were drafted at a time when few people walked around with video recording devices.  Now all the world seems to be a stage since every mobile phone is a video recorder.

I think it's rather a stretch to say that law governs society and social relations.

The way people in Vancouver say thank you to the bus driver when they get off the bus; the way you decide who amongst the other parents of the school your kids go to you invite to your birthday party; how you decide where and when it's okay to urinate out of doors when you can't reach a toilet; the way you approach someone when you want to sleep with them and the way you approach someone when you want to make it clear that you don't, but you don't want to offend them; the way people organize themselves in queues (or not) to get into a popular place; the way you decide what sort of jokes are appropriate and in what environments - these are all expressions of our society and social relations and they are not (except very peripherally in a few cases) governed by law.

Law is fundamental and important, but many if not most areas of life are conducted without reference to laws.

[Maximus]

So far.

[Jacob]

So far.

Yeah.

I'd suggest that it's perfectly rational to resent the intrusion of law into social spheres where it was not previously present (or minimally so), especially absent truly compelling cause.

[Neil]

Unless you're a lawyer.  Lawyering scum always seek to increase their domain.

[crazy canuck]

I think it's rather a stretch to say that law governs society and social relations.

The way people in Vancouver say thank you to the bus driver when they get off the bus; the way you decide who amongst the other parents of the school your kids go to you invite to your birthday party; how you decide where and when it's okay to urinate out of doors when you can't reach a toilet; the way you approach someone when you want to sleep with them and the way you approach someone when you want to make it clear that you don't, but you don't want to offend them; the way people organize themselves in queues (or not) to get into a popular place; the way you decide what sort of jokes are appropriate and in what environments - these are all expressions of our society and social relations and they are not (except very peripherally in a few cases) governed by law.

Law is fundamental and important, but many if not most areas of life are conducted without reference to laws.

The way you thank the bus driver is not codified but the minumum standards you must obey while on the bus is both through the criminal law and the transit regulations.

Who you choose to associate with is not governed by law.  For example, you can invite whomever you wish to a birthday party (unless it is a firm function and then the human rights code may apply  ) but once they are there the way in which you interact is very much influenced by both tort and criminal law - and also in the case of childrens birthday parties the various child protection laws we have.

how you decide where and when it's okay to urinate out of doors when you can't reach a toilet

- is a very bad example as this is normally covered by both park and municipal bylaws as well as indecency laws.

the way you approach someone when you want to sleep with them and the way you approach someone when you want to make it clear that you don't

-  Another very bad example as there is a great deal of case law on exactly these issues.

the way people organize themselves in queues (or not) to get into a popular place

this is often governed again by municipal by-law, could be criminal law if things get disorderly and could be tort law if the people holding the even dont manage things properly.

In short Jacob, most everything you do on a day to day basis including the very act of expression is governed by law.

I think most people fail to appreciate how much of their everyday life is governed by law.

[crazy canuck]

So far.

Yeah.

I'd suggest that it's perfectly rational to resent the intrusion of law into social spheres where it was not previously present (or minimally so), especially absent truly compelling cause.

Resentment which flows from misunderstanding is never rational.

[Oexmelin]

I have not made up my mind on cameras.  Our privacy laws were drafted at a time when few people walked around with video recording devices.  Now all the world seems to be a stage since every mobile phone is a video recorder.

Precisely. Everyone used to use the metaphor of the "global village" without pushing the image to its furthest conclusion. In a village, privacy is itself very limited and thoroughly depends on a tacit understanding: that, while you *may* know - or often, while you *do* know - what your neighbour is doing, you don't use it against him / her unless you were invited to, either explicitely or implicitely (i.e., you yourself tell it to a large group). Of course, people are going to go too far and bring in conflict - but in a small village, people will be wary of it - because you still need to live with that neighbour, with whom you probably are related anyway. When conflicts arise, there will be numerous means of putting an end to it, and numerous ways to reintegrate parties who make amends within the village society. And absent reintegration or willful, beneficial blindness (i.e., all the people who pretended not to see the homosexuality of a loved one), there always was exile - the town, the next village.

We have the village now, but have very few means of reintegration, of making gossip, information, slander stop - except by burying it under a ton more of information, and some things go "viral". We have few places of virtual exile to remake ourselves. People can hound others where ever they are - day and night, in your home and out of it. Ppting out of, say, internet, is not really a possibility. Even the town is no longer a safe haven, because rather than being seen (and, yes, controlled) by our neighbours, and relatives - who can easily be tolerant, forgiveful, benevolent, pater/maternallistic - we are controlled by anonymous people who have no relation, no compulsion, and few qualms about punishing, and controlling to the extent made possible by the laws, or by what they "think" an insubstantial community might think.  Think of bosses who fire or turn down employees because they posted photos on FB of them drinking / partying while all sorts of real communities would think that drinking, partying and even being drunk once in a while is perfectly normal.

[Oexmelin]

how you decide where and when it's okay to urinate out of doors when you can't reach a toilet

- is a very bad example as this is normally covered by both park and municipal bylaws as well as indecency laws.

This is revelatory of the confusion you make between being covered by law and being governed by law. I would have thought that one of the ideals of our society is that we govern ourselves first and foremost, and turn to law when things break down. Law can of course be used to deal with all sorts of situation, including those that concern who we associate with, who we can mary, what we can say, how we say it, how we build our houses, etc.

But Jacob's point (and mine) was precisely that people don't think about municipal bylaws when they urinate outdoors. They think about their companions, about the environment, about the time, about who is liable to see them, about what their mother would think, etc, etc, etc. And people also expect policemen to do the same, so that they do not indiscriminately arrest anyone who is urinating outside.

It is precisely because we are governing ourselves that society exists, and that we do not require a policemen for every citizen - for if law was the sole social bond, only lawyers would feel - nay, would know - any sort of obligation. Laws sanction behaviour, and provides a language to discuss competing norms. Of course, it can create some behaviour, and will shape some norms. But never all of them - and I pray it never replaces all other sources of both action and norm.

[Barrister]

Oex, your comments about villages show you haven't spent any time in actual villages.

[Oexmelin]

I have.

What do you disagree with?

[crazy canuck]

Oex, I like your notion of needing someplace which is outside the multitude of prying eyes we now have.

[crazy canuck]

I would have thought that one of the ideals of our society is that we govern ourselves first and foremost, and turn to law when things break down.

I agree that, as a matter of first principles, that is how laws out to be drafted.  But that does not take away from that fact that almost all of our social activities are in fact governed by law.  You and I might debate how that came about or whether that is desirably in a given context but that is a separate discussion.

I would argue that it is not because we govern ourselves that society exists but that society can exist because we have the rule of law without which we would have anarchy - unless of course you subscribe to the Libertarian view of things but I dont think you are making that argument.