And now Uk
-
I have no issue with this[^] decision,the only issue i could have that husbands would feel difficulty to go out with their *hidden* girl friends,since they would monitor everything,will they catch the love making scenes in car too? ;P MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan -- modified at 6:16 Thursday 22nd December, 2005
Looks like bad news for the get away driver profession. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
I have no issue with this[^] decision
Then you haven't fully understood the ramifications of it then.
-
those who now know your travels might not be angels. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Bob Flynn wrote:
What is the downside?
Precisely that your travels are monitored, and hence you lose your anonymity. (Hell, doesn't the US have a constitutional amendment about this sort of thing?) Although being in the US, you probably didn't hear about the DVLA in the UK selling drivers details to criminal gangs. Or the security breaches in the Department for Work and Pensions. Or that if the National Identity Register comes in, peoples personal details will be sold to companies to help pay for the system. Excessive data collected on an individual is an increased security risk for that individual, plain and simple. This data is excessive and disproportionate. If you support this, you support undermining your own security, your own liberty, and paying the government to spy on you.
-
I have no issue with this[^] decision,the only issue i could have that husbands would feel difficulty to go out with their *hidden* girl friends,since they would monitor everything,will they catch the love making scenes in car too? ;P MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan -- modified at 6:16 Thursday 22nd December, 2005
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
I have no issue with this[^] decision
The majority of people think otherwise. Apparently, you're not very concerned about freedom or privacy. :| Cheers, Vikram.
"When I read in books about a "base class", I figured this was the class that was at the bottom of the inheritence tree. It's the "base", right? Like the base of a pyramid." - Marc Clifton.
-
I'm all for a surveilance society, with the proviso that _everybody_ has access to the information, and can find out who has accessed theirs. As is, the only people that will not be subject to monitoring will be the people doing it. Think you average citizen will be able to get any information about the pin dick from the council or local wheel clamping firm who is trying to dig up dirt on them? think again.
-
Bob Flynn wrote:
What is the downside?
Precisely that your travels are monitored, and hence you lose your anonymity. (Hell, doesn't the US have a constitutional amendment about this sort of thing?) Although being in the US, you probably didn't hear about the DVLA in the UK selling drivers details to criminal gangs. Or the security breaches in the Department for Work and Pensions. Or that if the National Identity Register comes in, peoples personal details will be sold to companies to help pay for the system. Excessive data collected on an individual is an increased security risk for that individual, plain and simple. This data is excessive and disproportionate. If you support this, you support undermining your own security, your own liberty, and paying the government to spy on you.
Ian Darling wrote:
doesn't the US have a constitutional amendment about this sort of thing?)
unfortunately, no. there is no explict guarantee of privacy. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
I have no issue with this[^] decision
The majority of people think otherwise. Apparently, you're not very concerned about freedom or privacy. :| Cheers, Vikram.
"When I read in books about a "base class", I figured this was the class that was at the bottom of the inheritence tree. It's the "base", right? Like the base of a pyramid." - Marc Clifton.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
The majority of people think otherwise
I dont give a damn to those people who don`t even know me,everyone have right to give his own opinion, BTW i know who are those ppl;)
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
you're not very concerned about freedom or privacy
Duh,who gives a damn what you think or not,i remember you once made a comment that you noticed tight trousers of Irfan pathan,so better you come out state of Gayism then criticise on others MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan -- modified at 11:13 Thursday 22nd December, 2005
-
Ian Darling wrote:
doesn't the US have a constitutional amendment about this sort of thing?)
unfortunately, no. there is no explict guarantee of privacy. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
unfortunately, no. there is no explict guarantee of privacy.
Oh well. I thought there was this thing about anonymity in travel in there somewhere. What I was probably remembering was Gilmore's thing - anonymity in travel could be considered a 4th Amendment thing. Gilmore argued that an ID check for internal air-flight was tantamount to not being "secure in their...papers...against unreasonable searches", etc. Some people also suggest the 1st Amendment supports anonymous travel too. Not that that helps us in Blighty at all :sigh:
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
The majority of people think otherwise
I dont give a damn to those people who don`t even know me,everyone have right to give his own opinion, BTW i know who are those ppl;)
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
you're not very concerned about freedom or privacy
Duh,who gives a damn what you think or not,i remember you once made a comment that you noticed tight trousers of Irfan pathan,so better you come out state of Gayism then criticise on others MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan -- modified at 11:13 Thursday 22nd December, 2005
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
i remember you once made a comment that you noticed tight trousers of Irfan pathan,so better you come out state of Gayism
:omg:
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
The majority of people think otherwise
I dont give a damn to those people who don`t even know me,everyone have right to give his own opinion, BTW i know who are those ppl;)
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
you're not very concerned about freedom or privacy
Duh,who gives a damn what you think or not,i remember you once made a comment that you noticed tight trousers of Irfan pathan,so better you come out state of Gayism then criticise on others MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan -- modified at 11:13 Thursday 22nd December, 2005
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
The majority of people think otherwise
I dont give a damn to those people who don`t even know me,everyone have right to give his own opinion, BTW i know who are those ppl;)
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
you're not very concerned about freedom or privacy
Duh,who gives a damn what you think or not,i remember you once made a comment that you noticed tight trousers of Irfan pathan,so better you come out state of Gayism then criticise on others MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan -- modified at 11:13 Thursday 22nd December, 2005
-
Bob Flynn wrote:
What is the downside?
Precisely that your travels are monitored, and hence you lose your anonymity. (Hell, doesn't the US have a constitutional amendment about this sort of thing?) Although being in the US, you probably didn't hear about the DVLA in the UK selling drivers details to criminal gangs. Or the security breaches in the Department for Work and Pensions. Or that if the National Identity Register comes in, peoples personal details will be sold to companies to help pay for the system. Excessive data collected on an individual is an increased security risk for that individual, plain and simple. This data is excessive and disproportionate. If you support this, you support undermining your own security, your own liberty, and paying the government to spy on you.
Does one actually have an expectation of privacy when traveling on a public roadway? (I mean, the fact that you are own on the roadway, not the contents of your vehicle, etc, which obviously would imply an expectation of privacy. ). Obviously, the fact that you are on the roadway is already public knowledge. Police already monitor us with radars. I'm not so sure that this represents a huge leap beyond that. I'm not even sure I think there should be an expectation of privacy when useing telephones, etc. If I yell across the street to my neighbor, is that a private coversation? How would that be any different than if I called him on the phone? "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 11:25 Thursday 22nd December, 2005
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
unfortunately, no. there is no explict guarantee of privacy.
Oh well. I thought there was this thing about anonymity in travel in there somewhere. What I was probably remembering was Gilmore's thing - anonymity in travel could be considered a 4th Amendment thing. Gilmore argued that an ID check for internal air-flight was tantamount to not being "secure in their...papers...against unreasonable searches", etc. Some people also suggest the 1st Amendment supports anonymous travel too. Not that that helps us in Blighty at all :sigh:
Ian Darling wrote:
Gilmore argued that an ID check for internal air-flight was tantamount to not being "secure in their...papers...against unreasonable searches", etc.
yep. Gilmore's a good example. there's a lot of resistance to the government's apparent claim that it should be entitled[^] to know everything about everyone, all the time, everywhere. but, there are people (a.k.a. "conservatives") who think that insisting we should be allowed a modicum of privacy is anti-American and pro-terrorist. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Does one actually have an expectation of privacy when traveling on a public roadway? (I mean, the fact that you are own on the roadway, not the contents of your vehicle, etc, which obviously would imply an expectation of privacy. ). Obviously, the fact that you are on the roadway is already public knowledge. Police already monitor us with radars. I'm not so sure that this represents a huge leap beyond that. I'm not even sure I think there should be an expectation of privacy when useing telephones, etc. If I yell across the street to my neighbor, is that a private coversation? How would that be any different than if I called him on the phone? "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 11:25 Thursday 22nd December, 2005
Stanta Claws wrote:
Does one actually have an expectation of privacy when traveling on a public roadway? (I mean, the fact that you are own the roadway, not the contents of your vehicle, etc, which obviously would imply an expectation of privacy. ). Obviously, the fact that you are on the roadway is already public knowledge. Police already monitor us with radars. I'm not so sure that this represents a huge leap beyond that.
Anonymity is the key here. What do you mean by "public knowledge"? That your neighbours saw you leave your driveway? Big difference between that (which is unavoidable anyway, but usually insignificant) and the government storing your exact routes for every journey you make for two years on the off-chance it might be useful. Oh, and speed cameras only make records of what the vehicle is when you break the speed limits, and those radar gun things don't always even do that - they might rely on police discretion to pull someone over. So it's a bloody great huge leap.
Stanta Claws wrote:
I'm not even sure I think there should be an expectation of privacy when useing telephones, etc. If I yell across the street to my neighbor, is that a private coversation? How would that be any different than if I called him on the phone?
You mean other than being in your own homes when on the phone, and there is an expectation of privacy in your own home. Add in that we use telephones for a lot of private business (both in the personal sense and the commercial sense), and I would think most people would expect privacy in communications. If you want to shout your business plans or doctors appointments across the street though, be my guest :rolleyes:
-
Stanta Claws wrote:
Does one actually have an expectation of privacy when traveling on a public roadway? (I mean, the fact that you are own the roadway, not the contents of your vehicle, etc, which obviously would imply an expectation of privacy. ). Obviously, the fact that you are on the roadway is already public knowledge. Police already monitor us with radars. I'm not so sure that this represents a huge leap beyond that.
Anonymity is the key here. What do you mean by "public knowledge"? That your neighbours saw you leave your driveway? Big difference between that (which is unavoidable anyway, but usually insignificant) and the government storing your exact routes for every journey you make for two years on the off-chance it might be useful. Oh, and speed cameras only make records of what the vehicle is when you break the speed limits, and those radar gun things don't always even do that - they might rely on police discretion to pull someone over. So it's a bloody great huge leap.
Stanta Claws wrote:
I'm not even sure I think there should be an expectation of privacy when useing telephones, etc. If I yell across the street to my neighbor, is that a private coversation? How would that be any different than if I called him on the phone?
You mean other than being in your own homes when on the phone, and there is an expectation of privacy in your own home. Add in that we use telephones for a lot of private business (both in the personal sense and the commercial sense), and I would think most people would expect privacy in communications. If you want to shout your business plans or doctors appointments across the street though, be my guest :rolleyes:
To me, personally, its a tough call. I don't even know what privacy even means in an increasingly high tech world. In terms of conversation, I honestly believe the onus should be entirely on the individual to ensure that their conversation is, in fact, private. Certainly any conversation you have face to face with someone on your own property should be considered private, but beyond that its gets iffy really quickly. Transportation is almost by definition not private. I honestly care less that my travels are stored away in a database somewhere than I do that lives might be saved by the application of new technologies. I can't see how that would have any impact on my freedom to come and go as I please just as I always have. Its not as though the government doesn't have tons of information about me already stored away. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
I have no issue with this[^] decision,the only issue i could have that husbands would feel difficulty to go out with their *hidden* girl friends,since they would monitor everything,will they catch the love making scenes in car too? ;P MyBlogs http://weblogs.com.pk/kadnan -- modified at 6:16 Thursday 22nd December, 2005
The problem with this is that it won't just be used to fight crime. It will be sold to the insurance companies so they can charge you more to drive longer journeys or along more dangerous roads. The DVLA will use it to increase the annual vehicle tax you pay based on the amount you drive. Employers will be able to buy the movements of their employees to check they really are using a vehicle for business use. And with the FOI Act it would probably be possible to gets details of your husbands driving, etc. It's the first part of the governments new mobile phone business model - charge your customers small amounts often enough and you'll keep increasing your revenue. Well they've got to pay for those nice little wars, and the hundreds of millions the chancellor has stolen from the pensions fund somehow... :doh:
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
-
To me, personally, its a tough call. I don't even know what privacy even means in an increasingly high tech world. In terms of conversation, I honestly believe the onus should be entirely on the individual to ensure that their conversation is, in fact, private. Certainly any conversation you have face to face with someone on your own property should be considered private, but beyond that its gets iffy really quickly. Transportation is almost by definition not private. I honestly care less that my travels are stored away in a database somewhere than I do that lives might be saved by the application of new technologies. I can't see how that would have any impact on my freedom to come and go as I please just as I always have. Its not as though the government doesn't have tons of information about me already stored away. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Stanta Claws wrote:
To me, personally, its a tough call. I don't even know what privacy even means in an increasingly high tech world.
It's more important to have privacy now that it has ever been, because we can now store more detailed information on people than ever before and data mine or collate it in more ways.
Stanta Claws wrote:
In terms of conversation, I honestly believe the onus should be entirely on the individual to ensure that their conversation is, in fact, private. Certainly any conversation you have face to face with someone on your own property should be considered private, but beyond that its gets iffy really quickly.
I agree to some extent - the security of your communications is an exercise in risk management - snooping on email or phone lines or even paper mail all takes some sort of effort, and thus can be reasonably expected to be private. Higher security can be arranged at extra cost. But also incumbent on us is to discourage other people from snooping and not snooping ourselves - as a taboo or social contract or whatever you want to call it, because you need that to help protect yourself from others who would snoop.
Stanta Claws wrote:
Transportation is almost by definition not private. I honestly care less that my travels are stored away in a database somewhere than I do that lives might be saved by the application of new technologies. I can't see how that would have any impact on my freedom to come and go as I please just as I always have. Its not as though the government doesn't have tons of information about me already stored away.
Try "anonymous", not "private". Transportation is largely anonymous. Car number plates may identify a car, but they don't identify a person until you tie it back up to the registration databases. Train and bus tickets don't identify you in your travels either. And that last sentence is specious - it's on a par with "nothing to hide, nothing to fear". Tell that to the people who had their details sold to criminals by the DVLA. Your security is undermined by this type of database, as it makes it easier for people who would do you harm to find out about you. Government already having tons of information on you doesn't justify having more tons - it justifies having less. Plus having big files on peoples lives is the sort of thing commies d
-
Stanta Claws wrote:
To me, personally, its a tough call. I don't even know what privacy even means in an increasingly high tech world.
It's more important to have privacy now that it has ever been, because we can now store more detailed information on people than ever before and data mine or collate it in more ways.
Stanta Claws wrote:
In terms of conversation, I honestly believe the onus should be entirely on the individual to ensure that their conversation is, in fact, private. Certainly any conversation you have face to face with someone on your own property should be considered private, but beyond that its gets iffy really quickly.
I agree to some extent - the security of your communications is an exercise in risk management - snooping on email or phone lines or even paper mail all takes some sort of effort, and thus can be reasonably expected to be private. Higher security can be arranged at extra cost. But also incumbent on us is to discourage other people from snooping and not snooping ourselves - as a taboo or social contract or whatever you want to call it, because you need that to help protect yourself from others who would snoop.
Stanta Claws wrote:
Transportation is almost by definition not private. I honestly care less that my travels are stored away in a database somewhere than I do that lives might be saved by the application of new technologies. I can't see how that would have any impact on my freedom to come and go as I please just as I always have. Its not as though the government doesn't have tons of information about me already stored away.
Try "anonymous", not "private". Transportation is largely anonymous. Car number plates may identify a car, but they don't identify a person until you tie it back up to the registration databases. Train and bus tickets don't identify you in your travels either. And that last sentence is specious - it's on a par with "nothing to hide, nothing to fear". Tell that to the people who had their details sold to criminals by the DVLA. Your security is undermined by this type of database, as it makes it easier for people who would do you harm to find out about you. Government already having tons of information on you doesn't justify having more tons - it justifies having less. Plus having big files on peoples lives is the sort of thing commies d
Well, my entire argument is specious, but than I'm not so sure that the concern isn't also. The American model is based upon the notion of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". You will notice that life comes before liberty. There is an underlieing implication in the expressed concerns that there exists a means of perfectly defendng both liberty and life all of the time. Can we? And if it is not true, which side do we err on? As populations grow and societies become more complex, the very same liberties we wish to maintain proportionally increases the ability of others to use subterfuge to kill and destroy. It is one thing to bravely say that you prefer the liberty to not have your motor route stored away in a database, and that liberty is more important than your life. But are you that brave with the lives of your neighbors, your children? Its a tough call. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Well, my entire argument is specious, but than I'm not so sure that the concern isn't also. The American model is based upon the notion of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". You will notice that life comes before liberty. There is an underlieing implication in the expressed concerns that there exists a means of perfectly defendng both liberty and life all of the time. Can we? And if it is not true, which side do we err on? As populations grow and societies become more complex, the very same liberties we wish to maintain proportionally increases the ability of others to use subterfuge to kill and destroy. It is one thing to bravely say that you prefer the liberty to not have your motor route stored away in a database, and that liberty is more important than your life. But are you that brave with the lives of your neighbors, your children? Its a tough call. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Stanta Claws wrote:
As populations grow and societies become more complex, the very same liberties we wish to maintain proportionally increases the ability of others to use subterfuge to kill and destroy. It is one thing to bravely say that you prefer the liberty to not have your motor route stored away in a database, and that liberty is more important than your life. But are you that brave with the lives of your neighbors, your children? Its a tough call.
Sometimes liberty costs lives - usually in defending it, I might note. But having liberty saves even more lives - because we're then in a better position to protect ourselves and our families, to provide for them, and to help those about us who need it. That is why we should value liberty. Big databases of personal information destroy liberty - by undermining your ability to be secure yourself. It might save some lives or catch some criminals, but at the risk of losing lives elsewhere through the activities of terrorists or criminals or corrupt government officials. This motoring database is a double edged sword and can be used right back at the very people you think it would protect.